Fllowing some recent blogging on the value of John's gospel for the study of the historical Jesus (Euangelion, Primal Subversion), I have decided to delve into the issue myself. I think the best way to start would be to understand the gospel itself, and only then ask secondary questions such as its value as a source for studying the historical Jesus. [1]
So, I have decided to do some research into the exegetical methods used in the study of John's gospel, beggining with Narrative Criticism. Following investigation into these methods I will then apply them with the due caution, and see what I find. Then, finally I will offer some suggestions concerning the fourth gospel as a source for the Jesus of history.
[1] In as much as the study of the historical Jesus is a study of his memory recorded in literature, the historian cannot simply skip over sources such as John's gospel, but must consider them all, even if the result is to deem them unhelpful as a source because they are not concerned with actual happenings or because they are too "artistic" in their representation. Nothing is irrelevant, as we are dealing with perceptions of Jesus, that is, Jesus remembered. The phrase "Jesus remembered" of course is Dunn's
No comments:
Post a Comment