Why is the Gospel of John so different from the 3 Synoptic Gospels? While the Synoptic Gospels delineate the earthly life of Jesus without neglecting the spiritual quotient of the events narrated, John's Gospel directly teaches us about spiritual life with the help of the narratives. A fallout of this outlook results in the consideration of miracles as signs of something beyond the earthly realm. Besides, this Gospel takes us to the pre-existence of the Word of God who became man as Jesus of Nazareth. How far can we consider this to be historical in the sense of something that really happened as against mere mythology? In mythology what is being said and the mode of saying it gradually coalesce into one and at a later stage no one would be able to distinguish between the two. Not so in history, where although occasional identification between the substance and its form may take place, one is able to distinguish between them and uphold what is historical apart from its trappings that may be mythological. Usually mythological presentations make use of imageries, symbols, irrational stories, and false beliefs bordering on superstitions, unverified narrations of certain events etc., in order to bring out what they want to communicate. In the case of Incarnation we are dealing with presently in the Gospel according to John, none of the above is brought forward for presentation of what the Evangelist wants to say. Mythologies take to their heels when Philosophy enters the scene as darkness flees in the presence of light.
What the author of this Gospel does is to take over the philosophy of the time with Neo-Platonic ideas and transpose it to what he wants to say about the Incarnation.. He took over the ideas from the Jewish philosopher Philo who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, from around 30 B.C. to around A.D. 40. Philo tried to interpret the Scriptures(Old Testament) with the aid of Plato's philosophy. Plato's 'ideas', of which all realities in the world are mere shadows, were thought to be in the mind of God by Philo. In the next step, he identified the word of God in the Scriptures with the Logos or Divine Reason, which itself was but a combination of Plato's 'ideas'. Besides, the idea of Stoic philosophers that reason constitutes the intrinsic rationality of the world was taken over by Philo and transposed to the Logos or the Divine Reason. Since the Logos was already laden with meanings by Philo that John wanted to express about the Word who was with God and was God Himself, he could easily use it to present the fact of Incarnation without depending on any mythology. The idea of Logos could not be mixed up with any myths as it is referring to the Divine Reason itself as well as the intrinsic rationality of the world we lie in. Does any doubt about the historicity of Incarnation still persist? It can be set aside if we remember that the best proof for history comes from someone who experienced the event at close quarters. Now, other than Mary and Joseph, there was no one who was closer to Jesus than John the Evangelist, the disciple whom Jesus loved and who was well placed to unravel the mysteries concerning him.
The skeptic may still be dissatisfied with our arguments as he might be able to say that we are just assuming the fact of Incarnation without any proof. This kind of dissatisfaction arises out of the assumption that there are 'pure facts' to be scooped up by us. Any historical fact is already an interpreted one with the views and style of the historian concerned, in addition to the meaning it already had before reporting the same. Even our everyday lives bear testimony to the different versions of one and the same thing like the reporting of events by different news papers. As the media professionals would call their versions of one and the same fact journalism, the significance of historical facts propounded by the biblical authors is called theology. The theology of John about the fact of Incarnation does not in any way dilute its historical value especially because it is coming from a person who was one of the most closely associated with Jesus during his ministry. John the Evangelist was in a unique position to reveal the depth of Jesus' personality and that is what he has done through his use of 'Logos' for Jesus.
What the author of this Gospel does is to take over the philosophy of the time with Neo-Platonic ideas and transpose it to what he wants to say about the Incarnation.. He took over the ideas from the Jewish philosopher Philo who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, from around 30 B.C. to around A.D. 40. Philo tried to interpret the Scriptures(Old Testament) with the aid of Plato's philosophy. Plato's 'ideas', of which all realities in the world are mere shadows, were thought to be in the mind of God by Philo. In the next step, he identified the word of God in the Scriptures with the Logos or Divine Reason, which itself was but a combination of Plato's 'ideas'. Besides, the idea of Stoic philosophers that reason constitutes the intrinsic rationality of the world was taken over by Philo and transposed to the Logos or the Divine Reason. Since the Logos was already laden with meanings by Philo that John wanted to express about the Word who was with God and was God Himself, he could easily use it to present the fact of Incarnation without depending on any mythology. The idea of Logos could not be mixed up with any myths as it is referring to the Divine Reason itself as well as the intrinsic rationality of the world we lie in. Does any doubt about the historicity of Incarnation still persist? It can be set aside if we remember that the best proof for history comes from someone who experienced the event at close quarters. Now, other than Mary and Joseph, there was no one who was closer to Jesus than John the Evangelist, the disciple whom Jesus loved and who was well placed to unravel the mysteries concerning him.
The skeptic may still be dissatisfied with our arguments as he might be able to say that we are just assuming the fact of Incarnation without any proof. This kind of dissatisfaction arises out of the assumption that there are 'pure facts' to be scooped up by us. Any historical fact is already an interpreted one with the views and style of the historian concerned, in addition to the meaning it already had before reporting the same. Even our everyday lives bear testimony to the different versions of one and the same thing like the reporting of events by different news papers. As the media professionals would call their versions of one and the same fact journalism, the significance of historical facts propounded by the biblical authors is called theology. The theology of John about the fact of Incarnation does not in any way dilute its historical value especially because it is coming from a person who was one of the most closely associated with Jesus during his ministry. John the Evangelist was in a unique position to reveal the depth of Jesus' personality and that is what he has done through his use of 'Logos' for Jesus.
No comments:
Post a Comment