english of los testimonios de juan

John’s Testimonies to Jesus

Archeologists believe they have discovered the place in the Jordan River where John baptized Jesus. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Baptism_Site.jpg# mediaviewer/File:Baptism_Site.jpgAuthor David Bjorgen

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Baptism_Site.jpg

Probably John the Baptist must have given his first testimony to Jesus not far from here.

John(the Baptist) appears as the special Witness to Jesus only in the Fourth Gospel. In the other three the author refers to him as the Baptist.

Papyrusβ66http://commons.wikimedia.org/

wiki/File:Papyrus_66_(GA).jpg#mediaviewer/File:Papyrus_66_(GA).jpg

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke offer not even a hint of John having given any testimony to Jesus.



The first three gospels coincide in describing John as the one who came to prepare the way to Jesus by means of a ministry of baptism and repentance.

Papyrusβ66http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/

File:Papyrus_66_(GA).jpg#mediaviewer/File:Papyrus_66_(GA).jpg

In one way or another, the evangelists connected John to the figure of the prophet Elijah, and more specifically to the prophesied return of Elijah.(Malachi 4:5)



The author of the Fourth Gospel entered new evangelical grounds when he declared that John the Baptist had been sent with the sole purpose to witness to Jesus.



Therefore, the study of the few testimonies given by John require a connection to the evangelical message of the Fourth Evangelist.



Each evangelist impregnated his recounting of the stories of John and Jesus with particular elements of their own knowledge, understanding and opinion.



That John becomes the witness in the final gospel indicates that the evangelist had obtained some knowledge that the other evangelists appear to be ignorant of.



As historians and as Christians it behooves us to ascertain the reason for the evangelist painting John in a new role. To that endeavor let us dedicate ourselves now.



The Fourth Gospel talks about John(the Baptist) for the first time in the Prologue.



The first 18 verses of the Gospel of John.

The Prologue

The Prologue

The first 18 verses of the Gospel of John. Regarded as one of the earliest presentations of the ‘high christology’, theological thought that made Jesus equal to God.

The Prologue

The Prologue

The first 18 verses of the Gospel of John. Regarded as one of the earliest presentations of the ‘high christology’, theological thought that made Jesus equal to God.

Brief summary of the story covered in the Gospel.

The Prologue

The Prologue

The first 18 verses of the Gospel of of John. Regarded as one of the earliest presentations of the ‘high christology’, theological thought that made Jesus equal to God.

Brief summary of the story covered in the Gospel.

Mentions the principal themes that will be presented.

The Prologue

The Prologue

One of the most “difficult texts to translate and explain of the entire new Testament and one that has brought the most heated discussions and studies.” (translation mine)(wikipedia. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%B3logo_del_Evangelio_de_Juan)

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%B3logo_del_Evangelio_de_Juan



Exegetes find it curious that in a writing of a high christological nature such as this, dedicated to Jesus,

Exegetes find it curious that in a writing of a high christological nature such as this, dedicated to Jesus, the person of John appears in such a remarkable manner.

For that reason some published critics have said that it seems an intrusion into an otherwise perfect recreation of the appearance and significance of the life of Jesus.

The Prologue only includes one other person by name, and in only one verse, that is Moses.

1: 17 For the law was given by Moses,

Moses and the tablets of law, by José de Ribera.

1:17 …, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

'Ognissanti Madonna' made by Giotto in 1314.

Though the ‘but’ in the verse is only part of the translation (not appearing in the Greek) even if one were to use ‘and’ as the coordinating conjuntion or no conjunction at all, an implicit comparison would still remain. Note: Young’s Literal Translation has: the grace and the truth through Jesus Christ did come;

The author compares what Moses brought to what Jesus brought. The unstated implication is that for the followers of Jesus ‘grace and truth’ are of higher value than the law, which was the supreme authority for the Jews.

The Prologue does the same in its content on John. This time however, the author makes a clear and explicit comparison between Jesus and John. .

John receives an important place in the Prologue in a similar fashion to how Moses was ncluded. The author compares Jesus to the best man of his time and teach that the real purpose of the life of John was to give testimony to Jesus.

Let us look at the passages of John in the Prologue in 1:6-8 and 1:15.

6 There was a man sent from God,

whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to

bear witness of the Light, that all men

through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent

to bear witness of that Light.

15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spoke, He that comes after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

Traditional and dogmatic interpretations presume that this description of John tells us what he manages to do in the Gospel narrative itself, in other words, that he brought ‘all’ to Jesus.

In short: John fulfilled his divine responsibility.

However, even though it is the one that dominates, some difficulties exist with this interpretation and not all experts agree with it.

As in the majority of cases the conclusions will depend on the point of view of the interpreter. (vease http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/colwell.htm:)

One way of looking at these verses will allow us to remain as objective as possible.

Readers must realize that the author shaped these verses and framed them in the Prologue as a way to signal to the readers that they must deal with them in a similar fashion as they are to deal with the rest of the verses in the Prologue.

Readers must realize that the author shaped these verses and framed them in the Prologue as a way to signal to the readers that they must deal with them in a similar fashion as they are to deal with the rest of the verses in the Prologue.They must see these verses simply as introductory of the theme of the person of John in this Gospel.

As the Prologue gives us the themes that will be presented in the Gospel and function to gives us an idea of what to expect, let us look at these two passages on John as telling us what should happen in the stories on John’s deliverance of the testimonies.

In othe words, John must be found doing the following:1. Witnessing2. Leading all people3. Bringing all into faith

One final observation about the characterization of John in the Fourth Gospel.

The author cannot present a characterization of John too distant from the real person.

Many people knew of John. Even the Jewish soldier and historian, Josephus, wrote of John. The significance of this fact is that even if the author of the Fourth Gospel himself believed that John did his very best in his witnessing mandate, he could not create a story which radically diverged from the historical events, or for that matter, from the realm of possibility. Consequently, we are witnessing the best portrayal of John this author could conceptualize.

The author of this gospel seems to have given free reins to his creative and theological recreation of the historical John, as he did with regards to the portrayal of Jesus ( a Jesus so different from the one depicted in the other three canonical Gospels). Nevertheless, the author testified to the truth of the significance of the life of Jesus as the Messiah of Israel and Son of God. Similarly, the author testifies to his knowledge of the real significance of the role of John for Christianity.

Hence, you can be certain the author endeavored to cast the best possible presentation of John.

The author offers his readers a recounting of the events of the life of John that from his creative theological views were most important for the mission of Jesus.

For that reason, he does not mention the baptism of Jesus, nor uses the nickname “the Baptist”. He also places his own theological understanding of the mission of John in the Prologue and does not speaks about the baptismal ministry of John.

We will see that the popular understanding of the mission of John as being that of baptizing and calling for repentance is placed in a supporting role to his principal mission of testifying to Jesus.

Therefore by guiding our study of John on the author’s delineation of his mission in the Prologue it becomes extremely simple to ascertain if John actually managed to get people to listen to him and thus was a success in caring out his responsibility.

Then let us determine if John followed the directions and achieved his intended goal.

Introduction of John in the

Prologue.

John’s Performance

in the Gospel.

=

We should see:

One of the first things to which interpreters have brought attention with respect to these passages is to the contrast created between Jesus and John in verses 1:1 and 1:6.

With regards to Jesus the Prologue states:

courtesy of Wikipedia: ESA/Hubble

1. Descrición única

2. Prologo del Cuarto Evangelio

3. Dentro de Himno Cristológico

John 1:1

(in Greek)

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος,

καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν

πρὸς τὸν Θεόν,

καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος

courtesy of Wikipedia: ESA/Hubble

1. Descrición única

2. Prologo del Cuarto Evangelio

3. Dentro de Himno Cristológico

Juan 1;1 In the beginning was the Word,

and the Word was with God,

and the Word was God.

in regards to John:

6Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης·

http://biblehub.com/texts/john/1-6.htm

6 There was a man sent

from God, whose name was

John.

The term ἦν (era) describes the action as one that continues, with no end, one that is eternal.however, the verb used to speak of the existence of John, Ἐγένετο, assigns temporal existence to him, describing the action in the past tense.

Moreover, when the author speaks of John he leaves the beautiful and creative hymnal lines to change into prose and utilize a common Hebraic phrase used for the introduction of characters in biblical narratives.

The phrase: 6 There was a man …, whose name was ...

follows a traditional style found in Job 1:1, I Samuel 1:1; 9:1, Judges 17:1 and other verses.

The evangelist offers a bit of a twist to the phrase by adding sent from God. In this manner the author transforms the figure of John into that of a prophet, e.g. Jer. 7:25.

The author uses the same phrase to begin the story of Nicodemus: 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

Hence in this gospel the manner by which the author seeks to emphasize the greatness of John versus that of other men is not by saying things like: Matthew 11:11 Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist…

The use of the same phrase for both shows that the author was not concerned if he has John look like other men, notwithstanding the distinction of his being a prophet sent by God.

Verse 1:7 lets the readers see what they should expect to find in the stories on John in the rest of the Gospel.

The same came for a witness, to

bear witness of the Light, that all

men through him might believe

The author leads the readers to expect to find John giving a witness about Jesus and taking the people to him; taking ‘all’ the people to him.

This simple description of John allows anyone to evaluate very easily the actions of John in the Gospel and determine if they achieve the divine mandate.

Sent by God

To give testimony

So that ‘all’

believe

TraditionContent

We can interpret these verses in two ways; in submission to tradition, believing without questioning that John faithfully carried out his heavenly missionOr we can dare to look at the challenging information in the contents and evaluate against the verses 1:6-7.

John 1:6-7

According to tradition John fulfilled everything with regards to his mission. Thus, many interpreters do not analyze the passages on John in the Gospel against what the Prologue states he should have done.What many interpreters do is conform the content forcefully and invalidly to mean what the introduction says. This is a grievous methodological error.

Sent by God

To give testimony

So that ‘all’

believe

Tradition

John 1:6-7

Content

When one looks at the content and compares it to what is written in the introduction is inescapable to question if John carried out fully what he had to do. For instance, the Gospel stories show that John did not bring all into faith, at most perhaps only two.

Sent by God

To give testimony

So that ‘all’

believe

John 1:6-7

Sent by God

To give testimony

So that ‘all’

believe

TraditionContent

John 1:6-7

Therefore, let us look at all the occasions when John gives testimony and determine up to how much they agree with the objectives established for him.

Before making a critical exegesis of the narratives that cover the testimonies given by John, something needs to be said about verses 1:8 y 1:15.

According to some experts the manner in which these verses are written they veil an underlying controversy that existed between the disciples of John and the disciples of Jesus.

John 1:8

He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

John 1:15

John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spoke, He that comes after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

John 1:8

Why did the author thought it necessary to take an important moment in the beautiful composition of the hymnal recounting of the Word becoming flesh, being the light of the world and bringing salvation to all who believe,

He was not that Light,

John 1:8

Why did the author thought it necessary to take an important moment in the beautiful composition of the hymnal recounting of the Word becoming flesh, being the light of the world and bringing salvation to all who believe, to speak about the person of John the Baptist not being the light?


John 1:8

This precision is incomprehensible

unless one understands that he was addressing the issue of the remaining disciples of John the Baptist making claims about the superiority of their teacher.


John 1:8

This theme reappears in chapter 3 of

the Gospel. In there the disciples of John, after having been arguing with either Jesus or one of his disciples over the nature and meaning of baptism, come to John to tell him that the person to whom he had borne witness was baptizing on the other side of the river.


John 1:8

Their main complain, though not

stated explicitly, is that for them only John should be baptizing. In other words,


John 1:8


stated explicitly, is that for them only John should be baptizing. In other words, they believe John to still be greater than Jesus.


John 1:8


stated explicitly, is that for them only John should be baptizing. In other words, they believe John to still be greater than Jesus. These disciples don’t seem to have understood the meaning of the testimony John gave of Jesus.


John 1:8

In here, once again, it becomes easy from a Christian after-the-fact point of view to wonder the reason for the disciples of John not being able to understand the witness given and place all fault for that upon the disciples themselves.


John 1:8

But as we study the testimonies in detail we shall see that there were some underlying reasons for that misunderstanding which does not have to do with the integrity of the disciples of John.

This casting of suspicion upon the integrity of the disciples of John suffers from the same self-righteous attitude that incorrectly suspects the religious leaders of Israel at the very first event in the Gospel.


John 1:8

The evangelist wishes to clearly establish from the beginning that to hold on to the idea of John being greater than Jesus is a serious error.


John 1:8

The evidence the evangelist brings forth in his claim of the superiority of Jesus is John’s own testimony, at least part of it; which he gives once again


John 1:8


in the very Prologue.


John 1:8


in the very Prologue,where the main themes are covered.


John 1:8

In other words the author made the characterization of John as inferior to Jesus a main theme of the Gospel.


John 1:8

Alert readers must expect to find this theme reappearing throughout the stories.


John 1:8

We have found that one important objective of this author in regards to presenting John is to depict him as inferior to Jesus.


John 1:8

Thus even the author’s very own characterization of John as the Witness, does not appear as something requiring a devotional attitude as the Jesus of this Gospel mentions it as a testimony from man. (5:33-34)


John 1:8

The author seems to have a very strong desire to address the disciples of John as well as to clear any doubts the issue might arise among some Christians.

Let us look at the testimony cited in the Prologue and find how the author skillfully presents part of the testimony of John in a manner that enhances the characterization of the inferiority of John vis-à-vis Jesus.


John 1:15

Even though in the drama of the Gospel John delivers a powerful testimony about Jesus (1:29-34), in which he even calls Jesus the Son of God, that which the author decides to place in the Prologue is only the part of the testimony where John declares the superiority of Jesus basing it on Jesus having “been before” John. The suggestion is of having been before in existence. Though not explicitly stated John appear to echoe the Christological thought of the author about the preexistence of the Son of God.

is preferred before me: for he was before me.

John 1:15

Christological and characterization issues aside, the author places in the Prologue that testimonial part which best serves the interest of diffusing the claims of the disciples and supporters of John:


John 1:15

Christological and characterization issues aside, the author places in the important part of the Prologue that testimonial part which best serves the interest of diffusing the claims of the disciples and supporters of John:

A testimony by John himself of the superiority of Jesus.


John 1:15

Why did the author not present the entire testimony of John in the Prologue, or the section where John declares Jesus is the Son of God?

After all, the idea of becoming children of God has already been presented in verses 12-13.


John 1:15

The author chose to include as the representative testimony of John a statement by John concerning the temporal priority of Jesus and how that establishes Jesus as superior to John. l The idea of Jesus’ divine origin as it impinges on the theme of his superiority over Jesus has more relevance than that of Jesus being the Son of God or of specifically being called the Messiah..


John 1:15

The author could have believed that the rest of a testimony which the disciples of John do not seem to have understood or might have found ways of interpreting it in a way that does not have the same meaning as for a Christian was irrelevant.


John 1:15

Still, one is left to wonder why the author did not present a testimony by John which clearly stated that Jesus was the Messiah?

So far in the Prologue, though the author placed the central testimonial responsibility upon the shoulders of John, it has been the author himself who has provided a higher testimony of Jesus.


John 1:15

Was this done in purpose?

If so, then the comparative degree of clarity of the testimonies given between John and the author or other people in the drama of the Gospel might itself also be


John 1:15

Was this done in purpose?

If so, then the comparative degree of clarity of the testimonies given between John and the author or other people in the drama of the Gospel might itself also be an underlying theme of the Prologue to be dramatized in the stories ahead.


John 1:8

Again, alert readers would expect to find this theme reappearing throughout the stories.


So far

In a previous slide (43) we diagramed that readers should find a relation between John’s actions in the Gospel and his introduction in the Prologue. That is, of course, if the purpose of the Prologue in this Gospel does not depart from common usage. No critical study has ever found that it does.

Then after our discussion this far how can we make that diagram even more specific?

Significance of the presence of John in the Prologue.

Testimony to Jesus.

Bring all to faith in Jesus.

John is not the light.

Declare Jesus is the Messiah.

Jesus’ disciples should come from John.Unity with and submission to Jesus

=

What should readers expect?:

John 1:15

Regardless of what the author feels about John he has used John’s popular recognition as a man of God as a foil upon which to base his claim of the superiority of Jesus.


John 1:15

We can further adduce from verse 1:15 that John must have thought of himself as a person of great providential significance. Otherwise, his statement about the superiority of Jesus in relation to himself would not have much value.


John 1:15

If John thought of himself as having significance in the unfolding of the will of God, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. All prophets have possessed a similar self-conscience of themselves.


John 1:15

For a prophet to be humble does not imply denying their providential significance, or denying their role as prophets. The office of a prophet demanded much sacrifice from anyone called by God to fill those shoes. For John to define the coming Messiah in relation to his own social importance and religious significance was not wrong in and of itself either.


John 1:15

But then precisely what role did John saw himself fulfilling in the events about to unfold?

According to all early Christian communities John understood himself as the “voice of one crying in the wilderness: prepare the way of the Lord.” from the prophet Isaiah.


John 1:15

From the Christian point of view, after the Church had developed its teachings about John, this scriptural basis indicates the greatness of John.


John 1:15

We will see, ironically, that for the then contemporaneous understanding of scripture according to the Jewish religious leaders


John 1:15

We will see, ironically, that for the contemporaneous understanding of scripture according to the Jewish religious leaders this identification did not have much significance.


John 1:15

Thus John 1:15 would not have much value for the Jewish leaders since they did not see John playing a role in the unfolding of the Messianic Era that they were hoping to see in their own lives.


John 1:15

Consequently, it is very important that John identified his role in relation to

the messianic expectations of the Jews if John is to be taken seriously by their religious leaders as someone who they need to listen to.


The Messianic Expectations of the Jews

3 Messianic Expectacions:1. The messiah: several

scriptural passages2. Elijah; will come prior to the

Messiah: Malachi 4:5-6.3. The Prophet like Moses:

Deuteronomy 18:15-19


From the Christian Point of View all Prophecies pointed to Jesus.

Prophet

Deut. 18 .

ElijahMal. 4

MessiahVariousverses

JesusMessia

h


Christian Point of View


We have to remember that none of the disciples of Jesus remained faithful after the crucifixion.

They did not recover their faith until Jesus proved to them, after the resurrection (as Luke details it), that there were prophecies concerning his suffering in the Scriptures.


The disciples failed to keep the faith because the idea of a suffering Messiah, as Jesus had suffered, was as much anathema to them as the rest of the Jewish religious people.


They were, as much as most people, slaves to the predominant literal understanding of scriptures and to the traditional expectations regarding the coming of the Messiah.


The rest of the Jewish population and particularly the religious leaders would likewise not be convinced that anyone was the Messiah until they are shown how the prophecies were fulfilled.

ProphetDeut.

18?

.

ElijahMal. 4

?

Isaiah and

others?

There cannot be any Messia

h

The Messianic Exptectations of the JewsFrom the point of view of the

Jewish Leaders

These questions had to be answered


The Jewish leaders were longing for the Messiah to come and liberate them from foreign oppression.


They were genuinely searching for and desiring to meet the Messiah.


Based on prophecies and verses from the Holy Scripture they had developed some interpretations and traditions of how the Messiah would appear.


All of this can be easily confirmed by looking at the case of bar Kockhba. A Jewish leader that managed to convince many that he was the long awaited Messiah.

The Case of Simon bar Kokhba

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IsraelXKV8R Tallenna tiedosto – Wikimedia Commons -

Bar Kokhba silver Zuz/denarius. Obverse: trumpets surrounded by "To the freedom of Jerusalem". Reverse: A lyre surrounded by "Year two to the freedom of Israel”

Simon bar Kokhba

The Jews consider bar Kokhba a Jewish hero, as the stamps to the right attest. Jewornotjew.com call him a “superstar”

Simon bar Kokhba

What did he do? Liberated Israel from Roman control for a period of three years from 132-135. He became its Nasi (Prince).Many Jews believed that time began the Messianic Age.

Simon bar KokhbaUnity: brought unity to the Jewish forces, which enabled him to defend himself for a period of years until the Roman brought half their legions to deal with him and Israel.Claimed to have come from the sky or heaven. Kokhba means “star”Rabbi Akiva asocciated the nameKokhba with Numbers 24:17 “a star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel. He will crush the foreheads of Moab...”

bar Kokhba and Rabbi Akiva

The famous Rabbi Akiva is named in the Talmud as “head of all the Sages.” He is known as the father of rabbinic Judaism, and a great authority in traditional Jewish scritpures.Jewish sites are not short on praises of him; i.e. http://www.jewishhistory.org/rabbi-akiva-2/

bar Kokhba andRabbi Akiva

He surmounted several handicaps to become a Rabbi.


One particular reason for the Jewish people great love of this man is that he did not come from a pedigreed line of scholars or even from a long lineage of Jewish ancestors.


Secondly, he is a descendant of Sisera an evil foreign general who persecuted the Jews at the time of Deborah. His grandfather converted to Judaism.


Another handicap he surmounted was not having had a proper education for the first 40 years of his life.


By looking once upon how a constant falling drop of water had wasted a rock, he gained faith that he could learn the Torah even at his age.


“If water can wear down a stone, then every Jew can and will study Torah…

If water can wear down a stone, the Jewish people can overcome Rome…

If water can wear down stone, then the Temple can be rebuilt…”


Rabbi Akiva married and his wife allowed him to leave home twice for a period of 12 years to study the Torah. He returned having become a great scholar with, according to stories, 24,000 students. The Talmud compares him favorably to Moses.


By knowing the kind of person that Rabbi Akiva was we should understand that his support of bar Kokhba must have had great significance in terms of support and in the ability of bar Kokhba to unify all the Jewish forces under him to make a front against the Romans.


Rabbi Akiva supported bar Kokhba because he believed that the leader of the rebellion fulfilled messianic expectations and the Rabbi believed the Messianic Age would finally unfold.


According to the Messianic expectations Akiva functioned as a kind of Elijah for bar Kokhba.


Also, in this manner the Jewish tradition that a testimony must be given by another person was kept. A complain made against Jesus in the Fourth Gospel is that he testifies to himself, which Jesus himself recognizes as a valid observation.

“Elijah”

Rabbi Akiba

Messiah

Bar- Kockba


From the point of view of the Jewish Leaders


When examining the first testimony given by John, one has to keep in perspective how the messianic expectations lied behind the manner in which the religious leaders related with him.


Later the same traditions would play a critical role in the manner in which the Jewish religious leaders related with Jesus and finally reached a decision concerning his person.

The First Testimony Given by John

The first testimony given by John in the fourth gospel appears in the passage 1:19-27, as soon as the Gospel narrative commences.

The first words of verse 19 seems to indicate that John is about to give the testimony for which he was sent by God.


In the Greek version of the textus receptus we have:

19 Καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ Ἰωάννου ὅτε ἀπέστειλαν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐξ Ἱεροσολύμων ἱερεῖς καὶ Λευίτας ἵνα ἐρωτήσωσιν αὐτὸν Σὺ τίς εἶ

In the New King James Version we have: 19 *Now this is the testimony of John,

when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?”


The Greek word kai, meaning ‘and’, begins the verse.

Many have advanced the idea that this confirms the criticism that though the language is correct the literary expressions are very poor.

Interestingly, many of the new translations do not include the word “and”. Though it is correct that the author uses kai too often, yet there could be other reasons for the author having used the kai.


The predominant opinion is that the author used this word in order to connect the following testimony with the reference to John in the Prologue. In other words, this testimony is one of those he was sent to deliver.

A problem arises when one concludes that John fulfilled his mandate giving an adequate testimony and that the failure in no one recieving it was due to the audience’s lacking the necessary faith.This affirmation is wrong and it can be easily demonstrated by examining the spurious arguments used to support it.


To support that point of view interpreters have suggested two ideas:

First, that the testimony of John given here, which expands from 1:19 to 1:27 is part of the one he gives of Jesus being the Lamb of God in 1:29-1:34

The second idea is that due to the fact of using “confessed” as a description of his rejection of being the Messiah, the author implies a hidden testimony: a so-called negative confession.


To support the first idea, interpreters have to ignore the notes made by the author concerning the place where the event took place in verse 28 and concerning time in verse 29: the next day.

These textual notes function as markers to separate the first two testimonies given by John. The manner in which they have been included in the story suggests their great importance for the author.


We will talk about how the “confession” of not

being the Christ has been exegetically transformed into a positive confession about Jesus being the Messiah when we analyze that particular verse.

However, the mere equalization of a positive affirmation of accepting Jesus as Lord and a “negative confession” of not being the Messiah, should rise a warning flag to anyone who converted to Christianity and to anyone who have witness about Jesus.


There is a Third Option for the use of ‘kai’.


EMPHASIS. The use of the word ‘and’ to emphasize is not

something modern, but it was part of the Greek language of the time of Jesus.

The author did not use ‘and’ to establish a link to the description of John in the Prologue. The use of the term testimony would have been more than sufficient for that, since the readers come into the Gospel with the expectation of reading those testimonies for which John was especially sent to deliver.


PURPOSE OF USING KAI FOR EMPHASIS. By adding the term kai to the term testimony

the author is bringing attention to the testimony that is about to be given. Why does the author want to bring especial attention to this testimony? The author wants to prepare the readers to be alert for something different to what they could have been expecting from reading the introduction. It could very well not fit into the description the author had provided at the beginning.


PURPOSE OF USING KAI FOR EMPHASIS. When the readers go over the passage they

precisely find that to take place. The first testimony given by John is not one about Jesus himself. Rather, it deals about the identity of John and the role he can play for the nation of Israel and in the will of God. Nevertheless this testimony is critical for John fulfilling his divinely assigned position of the Witness. Thus first John must lead the religious leaders into having faith in him before he can guide them to have faith in Jesus. .


PURPOSE OF USING KAI FOR EMPHASIS.

When reading this passage anyone should be able to see the obvious nature of this conclusion.


EMPHASIS. I am proposing that the by the use of the kai the

author manages to bring attention of the readers so that they can engage with the text in a form that leads them to have faith in Jesus despite John not having delivered the best possible testimony.

Further, the author wants the reader to realize, without having to be told that explicitly, that John did not offered a testimony that would facilitate the carrying out of his own mission.


EMPHASIS. For those reasons the author says “And this

is the testimony of John…” In other words, the author can be paraphrased as saying: “you were assuming that this first testimony met the requirements for John’s assignment,but let me tell. I know the details of the testimony: And this is the testimony that John gave.”


EMPHASIS. This conclusion might sound far-fetched, and to the

extremely dogmatical, even heretical, but an exegetical analysis is sound when it follows rational and scientific principles of interpreting texts. If it follows a correct methodology and principles of argumentation it should lead to a much better conclusion than one that does not give much regard to those considerations in order to simply arrive at a conclusion that fully echoes the dogmas.

Anyone with an open mind and a sincere desire to understand what possible valid conclusions can be derived from the extant text will find that everything presented in here have a solid basis for it.


EMPHASIS. To make the emphatic nature of the kai

even more clear the author does not say “and this is the testimony” and proceeds to have John deliver it. He adds a conditional clause that limits the significance of this testimony even further.


CONDITIONAL CLAUSE: THE MOMENT OF TESTIMONY

The author uses a conditional clause to further specify the meaning and significance of this testimony: “when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who are you?”


CONDITIONAL CLAUSE: THE MOMENT OF TESTIMONY

Precisely to give a testimony to Jesus at this level John was sent to Israel. If he can convince the Jewish religious leaders about the messianic identity of Jesus the rest of the nation can easily follow.


¡God has prepared everything so that we have a very similar situation as that between Rabi Akiva and bar Kockba!


¡John has the excellent opportunity to witness to the Jewish religious leaders and guide them to have faith in Jesus!


By having the respect of the other religious leaders and having thousands of disciples Akiva literally brought “all” to have faith in bar Kockba. Unfortunately for everyone involved, he was a false Messiah.


¡More than a hundred years before this calamity the moment was riped for the Jewish nation to receive the Messiah whom had been sent by God!


His acceptance according to the introduction of John in the Prologue depended in John giving a powerful, inspiring testimony that would elicit the faith of those listening to it.


As in the case of Simon bar Kockba, someone else must give testimony to the Messiah for the religious leaders and the students of the Law to recognize him.

Our evangelist presents his readers in this passage with nothing less than that first critical moment when that could be realized.

Jesus Is

Messiah

John’s ResponsibilityAs the Witness.

Nation of

Israel

John is to bring “all” the people of Israel to Jesus.

John

JesusIs

Messiah

John’s ResponsibilityAs the Witness.

John must first convince the Jewish religious leaders.

Nationof

Israel

ReligiousLeaders

John


¿But was this what happened?


¿Was John able to convince any of the religious leaders that Jesus was the Messiah?


NO.¿Why not?


One can easily accuse the religious leaders as faithless and even use the strong term Jesus used to reproached them for their obduracy and judgmental attitude: hypocrite.


But the context of this passage does not allow for making such a severe judgment of the leadership at this moment.

The author has not given any indication that the delegation came with any type of ulterior motive, as to make John appear as a false prophet or try to trap him with sneaky questions as later they would do to Jesus.


Priests and Levites

The underlying assumption behind this passage is that the priests and Levites had a sincere motive, a genuine motivation as the approach John: they were engaged in a messianic quest.

imagen http://www.editoriallapaz.org/tabernaculo-terrenal-tabernaculo-

espiritual-2.html


Therefore, another factor must have made it difficult for the leaders and Israel in general to have faith in Jesus.


Then, to guide his readers in making just such an examination he draws them into the first testimony of John elicited by a sincere messianic quest organized by the Pharisees.

Something could have occurred in here that laid the foundation for the subsequent suspicions of Jesus by the Jews.


The first words of the first testimony are not: Jesus is the Messiah but “I am not the Christ.”But ironically, some interpreters have suggested that the trio of descriptive phrases placed prior to this declaration converts it into an acceptance of Jesus as the Lord and thus makes John into the first Christian. The phrases: “he confessed, and denied not; but confessed,” are indeed peculiar. The middle phrase: “denied not”, seems to contradict what it actually occurs. John denies being the Messiah. Of course, that is not what “denied not” implies. That is the reason for placing it between the same two phrases: “confessed


Since the word ‘confession’ is associated with the declaration of acceptance of Jesus as the Savior, this entire introductory phrase has been taken to mean by many interpreters that the author was portraying John as accepting the Messianic role of Jesus through this subversive and ironic phrase. Hence, interpreters call this the “negative confession”, through which John not just rejects the messianic title but affirms that “the Christ” or Messiah is JesusChrist.


Devotionally speaking, this sounds beautiful.



But in terms of good exegesis,



But in terms of good exegesis, this is depressing.


The terms Christ and Messiah are the same except in different languages. Never before or since has saying that one is not the Messiah has been taken as the Christian confession. No valid reason exists for doing it now just to speak too devoutly about John, who has barely opened his mouth to make it clear (what the Prologue had already presented) that he is not the light, but Christ is.


This statement does not necessarily intends to provide a descriptive model for Christian humility. That a person affirms not being the Christ does not imply that he/she accepts Jesus as Lord. Hence, a person might not make this statement out of humility but out of sincerity. An atheist might even repeat those words vigorously and joyfully, intending to mean that he believes the idea of a Messiah is nothing but superstition.


However, in accordance with his assignment from God, John should do a lot more than simply say he is not the Messiah. From the providential point of view, John has a purpose for his entire ministry. John did not come to create a “negative confession” but to point to the light in a convincing and thus clear and explicit manner.


At some point he must say:

“Jesus is the Messiah.”


Aside: Jesus asks his disciples who they think he is.The parallel stories in Matthew 16:15 and Mark 8:27 have Jesus asking his disciples about who do they think he is. Would this question be necessary had John been utterly successful in his mission.? How come if Andrew is one of the disciples of John who go to Jesus, and his brother is Peter, how come only Peter had the confidence to declare that Jesus is the messiah? And moreover, why did Jesus saw it necessary to ask the question of who he is to his own disciples? Finally, the Gospel of Matthew has Jesus blessing Peter for he has not received this knowledge from any human but from God. This statement completely contradicts the idea that the witness of John send two disciples to follow Jesus as the Messiah. The disciples did not knew clearly that Jesus was the Messiah for flesh and blood had not revealed that. John only declared that the unnamed person to which he pointed in his testimony was the Son of God. However, in first century Judaism that term did not specifically referred to the Messiah. More on this when we cover the respective verses on the Gospel of John.


THE NAME JESUSIronically*, the one sent to identify the Messiah to those eagerly awaiting for his apperance, never used Jesus’ personal name in any of his testimonies. It might seem unnessary to some, but it cannot be denied that an explicit identification of this nature would have been very important. Do any preacher today preach in public without mentioning that name, which the New Testament says is above every name? Isn’t John supposed to be seen as some type of role model?

W. Barnes Tatum, a long-standing member of the Jesus Seminar and the author of John the Baptist and Jesus: A Report of the Jesus Seminar (1994), makes the observation of the autor of the Gospel no mentioning the name of Jesus in none of the time in the Prologue when John appears as first witness to the light, and then when in the representative testimony of John in verse 1:15.


THE NAME JESUSThe author himself names Jesus in verse 1:17 for the first time. Thus in the very Prologue appears the name of Jesus but not in the sections connected to John, not even in the testimony the author chooses as the representative of John to place in the Prologue.

*I have often questioned why the excellent exegetical book Irony in the Fourth Gospel does not find any cases of irony in the portrayals of John. This only corroborates that the positive image of the upright John has become so entrenched in the teaching of the church that no one has ever even dare question his integrity.


THE NAME JESUSGoing back to the concept of the Prologue representing a summary of what readers will encounter, the portrayal of John giving testimony to the light without using the personal name of Jesus complies completely with the precepts of an introductory section. We have entered the story of Jesus and the readers will not encounter his name in the very first testimony presented by the central witness to him. As we move through the rest of the testimonies given by John the situation remains unaltered: throughout the entire Gospel John the Baptist uses the name of Jesus a surprising


THE NAME JESUS

0 TIMES


THE NAME JESUS

0 TIMESHOW MANY?


THE NAME JESUS

0 TIMESHOW MANY?

0 TIMES


THE NAME JESUS

0 TIMESHOW MANY?

0 TIMESHOW MANY?


THE NAME JESUS

0 TIMESHOW MANY?

0 TIMESHOW MANY?

0 TIMES


THE NAME JESUSHad we been alert, trained readers, we could have come into the reading of the material with a much less devotional attitude, apprehend the point, and ponder its significance. The fact that almost no one pays attention to it, highlights the degree to which blind, unquestioned adherence to statements of faith can undermine the best efforts to conduct an objective analysis.


THE NAME JESUSJesus name in the Hebrew language had a special meaning, “salvation” or as more widely accepted “God saves”.

John could have gone into that,


THE NAME JESUSJesus name in the Hebrew language had a special meaning, “salvation” or as more widely accepted “God saves”.

John could have gone into that, in a similar fashion to what Rabi Akiva did with bar Kockba’s name.


THE NAME JESUSThe type of midrash (rabbinic commentary or interpretation on scripture) that Matthew (someone not recognized by Jewish religious leaders as having authority to do one as contrary to John) made of Isaiah 7:14 to speak of the significance of the name of Jesus (Matthew 1:21-22), could have been made by John in relation to the name of Jesus.


THE NAME JESUSNote: The previous passage on Matthew contains the story of the immaculate conception. The religious leaders would never believe such a story in defense of the divine conception of Jesus from Matthew or any Christian. Had John properly situated himself as a person the religious leaders could trust, he could have given the story in a manner which would have received acceptance from them. The questions concerning the birth of Jesus would have been resolved right away. Discussing about the birth of Jesus, however, would take us out of our topic.


In the next two questions in the dialogue the delegates cover the last two remaining figures of interest for the messianic quest. Elijah and the Prophet (like Moses).

To both questions John gives a similar answer, “I am not”and “No,” thereby rejecting both positions.

Thus, so far John has rejected all positions of concern for the religious leaders.

And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not.

Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.


Why does John says he is not Elijah?

This does not seem to conform to early Christian thinking concerning John. Jesus appears saying that John fulfilled the prophesied coming of Elijah.

Thus once, again




Why does John says he is not Elijah?




There are several suggestions but only a couple of real logical possibilities.




1. John is only a foil figure to present the author’s religious views.

2. He meant something else. (reincarnation: not very logical)

3. ignorance4. he rejected his role of Elijah

(difficult to imagine John doing this)


John is only a foil figure Many interpreters do not believe it necessary to ponder the reasons for John to have done so. The simple assumption is that the evangelist has recasted John in the figure of the Witness and consequently it has been the evangelist who has rejected the idea that John functioned as an Elijah for Jesus. Behind the idea of equalizing both voices that of John the Baptist and that of the evangelist lies the presupposition that John actions are unquestionable. The character of John can be taken as speaking the words and representing the thoughts of the author of the Fourth Gospel. Hence, his actions conform to the highest Christian principles.


However, liberal critics of the like of Bart Erhman also believe this to be the case. The reason he advances in support of his proposition does not come from blind faith, obviously. He sees the characterization of both Jesus and John in the Fourth Gospel as purely theological and unhistorical. Just as the Johannine Jesus is a very different person than the one in the other three gospels, the Johannine John is likewise not the same character as John the Baptist in those writings. Each has been transformed to simply become mouthpieces for the thoughts and teachings of the community of the Fourth Evangelist.


Has the author of the Fourth Gospel really created a completely

unhistorical portrayal of John?

Has John simply become a mouthpiece for the

theology of the evangelist?


The fellows of the Jesus Seminar voted unanimously that the testimonies attributed to John came out of the creative theological mind of the author of this gospel.In other words,

they never occurred.


Considering the highly creative and divergent portrayal of Jesus in relation to that of the Synoptic Gospels, who can reject that conclusion?


However, though the possibility of John having delivered the exact testimonies is likely zero, the possibility of his having said anything about Jesus, the teacher of a sect that was perceived by others and John’s own disciples as rival, lacks a solid logical ground for being fully rejected. From the stand that John spoke words to his disciples concerning the ministry or person of Jesus to John having pronounced at least at some moment and in some manner a testimony in favor like Jesus who begins a messianic ministry , there is not much distance.


What historically reliable gospel events

can buttress the argument of the

historical possibility of the testimonies

given by John?


John intended to carry out a baptismal ministry preparatory for the unleashing of an eschatological event.

One of those who came to receive that baptism was Jesus himself. Using the criteria of embarrassment and multiple attestation, practically all scholars from different theological persuasions, including those critical of the historical direct involvement of the divine in these stories, give historical validity to the baptism of Jesus by John.


Second, the Fourth Gospel narrates in the third chapter that Jesus began a ministry, while John was still conducting his, that was taking away from John the majority of the people that used to go to him. Their contemporaneous ministries are multiply attested by the four gospels and extra-biblical sources.


Even if Jesus were to have begun his ministry after John was sent to jail, as the Synoptic Gospels suggest, the disciples of John faced the disciples of Jesus as they continued the ministry of their leader, and thus the former must have sought some type of guidance about the latter from John. The above premises leads to the conclusion that John must have said something about what he believed to have been Jesus’ role if any in the historical manifestation of God’s will in his time.


Matthew and Luke has such a statement in the question: Are you the one who is to come or shall we look for another? The question implies that at some moment John could have had pondered the possibility that Jesus was the one John expected but for some reason John had come to question the validity of that. This statement has two attestations—Matthew 11:3, and Luke 7:19—and three if we have no qualms about including the theoretical Gospel Q.


This type of question places the role of John in an unfavorable light and could be a source of embarrassment for the early church as it intends to establish the beginning of the mission of Jesus in a reinterpretation of the baptism given by John to Jesus. If John is seen in a negative light, then the very foundation of the ministry of Jesus can be called into question. The criteria of embarrassment leads one to assume the historical possibility of this event.


When we also look into the continued confrontation between the two discipleships after their masters have left, the historical validity for John having questioned Jesus can be postulated to be very high.


The church would feel somewhat embarrassed to report the presumably doubting question of John but since the disciples of John must have used that question for their own purpose of continuing to claim the superiority of John and the lack of real support John gave to Jesus, the church has no recourse but to recount the story from within their perspective.


The followers of Christ who have no desire to arise the antagonism of the disciples of John, place this critical moment in the life of John within the context of a public declaration of Jesus about John that shed light on the positive aspects of John’s mission. Though this Gospel do not contain that story nor those specific words of Jesus about John’s mission, it does has Jesus recalling the testimony John gave in his favor to the Pharisees. That, in addition to the author’s inclusion of John in the Prologue places John under a favorable light.


In this manner the early Christian communities managed to elaborate a story of the relationship of John to Jesus that subtly present some negative aspects behind a powerfully positive façade.


From the previous arguments we can conclude that at some point John must have considered that Jesus could be the figure John expected and then for some unclear reason John lost that vision.


The portrayal of John as having given some witness to Jesus has historical credibility based on:1. Jesus having been baptized by John.2. Jesus having conducted a powerful ministry

of which John must have been aware. 3. The type of embarrassing question made by

John to Jesus, attested by Matthew, Luke and Q.

4. The relationship between the surviving discipleship of John and Jesus.

5. The case of Apollos, found in Acts, and of Andrew as given in the 4thGospel.(not discussed in this presentation)


The points above lead to the conclusion that John at most supported Jesus for a brief time and at some moment began to lose confidence on his understanding of the role of Jesus; hence, the separate and conflictive courses taken by the disciples of each.


Coincidentally, as we shall discover, the type of testimonies presented in the Fourth Gospel fit perfectly well with the idea that John held the view that Jesus had the role of the figure he expected at only one moment during his ministry and that later he changed for some reason!


Keeping in perspective the line of thought presented in this gospel, readers must consider the dual

aspects of the rivalry of the disciples of each leader and

John’s testimonies of Jesus as they strive to determine what could have been the most credible scenario in terms of John delivering those testimonies.


1. The rivalry existing between the disciples of Jesus and those of John entail that their leaders never consolidated a clear alliance, and the type of questions posed by the disciples of John to those of Jesus suggests that there was not much of a relationship of teacher and student ever; either of John as the student or vice versa.


Had John given a full explicit support to Jesus it is highly questionable that the disciples of the former would have continued questioning the disciples of the latter.


2. John’s testimonies of Jesus in relation to the historic expression of doubt, require that we expect the role of the Witness to come out powerful at first and diminish in significance as the story unfolds.

Let us see how well this predictive analysis fits into the data.


Based on the historical possibility that this event could have taken place any good analysis of this verse must ponder the reason for John rejecting the position of Elijah when according to the three other major sources, the three Synoptic Gospels,

And they asked him, What then? Are you Elijah? And he said, I am not.

Are you that prophet? And he answered, No.


Are you Elijah? And he said, I am not.

Based on the historical possibility that this event could have taken place any good analysis of this verse must ponder the reason for John rejecting the position of Elijah when according to the three other major sources, the three Synoptic Gospels, John dressed like and had a diet similar to that of Elijah(Mark 1:6),


Based on the historical possibility that this event could have taken place any good analysis of this verse must ponder the reason for John rejecting the position of Elijah when according to the three other major sources, the three Synoptic Gospels, John dressed like and had a diet similar to that of Elijah(Mark 1:6), Jesus publicly declared that John was Elijah (Matthew 11:14),


Based on the historical possibility that this event could have taken place any good analysis of this verse must ponder the reason for John rejecting the position of Elijah when according to the three other major sources, the three Synoptic Gospels, John dressed like and had a diet similar to that of Elijah(Mark 1:6), Jesus publicly declared that John was Elijah (Matthew 11:14), Jesus teaches his disciples that Elijah returned in the person of John the Baptist (Matthew 17:10-13) ,


Based on the historical possibility that this event could have taken place any good analysis of this verse must ponder the reason for John rejecting the position of Elijah when according to the three other major sources, the three Synoptic Gospels, John dressed like and had a diet similar to that of Elijah(Mark 1:6), Jesus publicly declared that John was Elijah (Matthew 11:14), Jesus teaches his disciples that Elijah returned in the person of John the Baptist (Matthew 17:10-13) , and an angel revealed to John’s father that John would have the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke 1:17.)


The agreement of the three earliest gospels in teaching the idea that John served the function of the fulfillment of the prophecy of Malachi about the return of Elijah reveal the relevance of this issue for the mission of Jesus.


The Jesus Seminar voted Jesus’ identification of John as Elijah as gray with a 40%, meaning that a possibility existed that Jesus made that declaration.(p. 154. Tatum) The majority of voters (64%) believed this to have been possible; only 16% believed it to be probable, and 8% to be certain. I think that such a vote could not have regarded Jesus’ understanding of the messianic expectations of the Jews to have been very informed. To me, that seems a major error on their part. Could it have been possible for a person of the nature of Jesus to have lacked a knowledge of important Jewish messianic verses? Was Jesus as ignorant as his own disciples appear in Mark 9:11, Matthew 17:10?

Excuse me for placing the next image but I think that some of the decisions of the Jesus Seminar were


THEN WHY DID JOHN DENY BEING ELIJAH?

One answer used to shed a positive light upon John’s negation of his role of Elijah is that he was denying and alleged Jewish belief in the reincarnation of the souls and in this particular case that was the reincarnation of Elijah.In other words, John is educating the Jews about the falsehood of such a belief.


GOOD INTERPRETIVE METHODOLOGY?

This interpretation sacrifices good exegetical methodology for the mere purpose of making John look good and in confomity with the Church’s traditional believe of him.

An important element of good methodological analysis of scripture is to base any conclusion in the very text one is examining. Hence, if one proposes an idea of what the text means, the text must include that idea in very clear manner.


REINCARNATION?

In what manner verse 1:21 or the passage where it is found contain the idea of reincarnation? To what definite words or phrases can an exegete point to locate the basis for proposing the idea of concept of reincarnation as the reason for John denying the position of Elijah?


REINCARNATION?


NONE.


REINCARNATION?


NONE.NONE EXISTS.


REINCARNATION?

Considering the major traditional line presented in divergent forms in the three Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, John is Elijah. Matthew has Jesus declare publicly that John fulfilled that role. Those advancing the idea of John refuting the idea of reincarnation, should ask why did Jesus apparently shows no concern with keeping the Jews ignorant of what is the real nature of John’s identity as Elijah.


REINCARNATION?

Another big problem with this simplistic and devotional approach to this question is that it fails to place it in the historical context and evaluate what would such an answer create in terms of the messianic expectations and this particular messianic quest. Those who take for granted the recreation of this event by the author fail to see the difference between a literary piece and the historical dimension which this particular writing alleges to recreate.


REINCARNATION?

By saying that for this author John is not Elijah simply because John denies that position is taking for granted that the depiction of John by this author portrays him as a person of complete integrity who did not commit any mistake. Such a position is highly untenable from a historical point of view. If there is something which all the gospels concur, besides the baptism of Jesus, is that not a single person completely understood and completely stood faithful to Jesus. The disciples are portrayed as faulty in their understanding of Jesus and at points lacking in faith. For John who did not follow Jesus and was with him at all times to have had complete understanding of Jesus and even total faith in Jesus is highly questionable.

english of los testimonios de juan

Education

tradition john

remaining disciples

tradition content

beautiful composition

hymnal recounting

important moment

gospel stories

cuarto evangelio