SET TEXT: JOHN 1:1-18

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 2 He was in the beginning with God;

 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

 7 He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him.

 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light.

 9 The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world.

 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not.

 11 He came to his own home, and his own people received him not.

 12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God;

 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

 15 (John bore witness to him, and cried, "This was he of whom I said, `He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.'")

 16 And from his fulness have we all received, grace upon grace.

 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

 18 No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.

[What follows is a slightly modified, corrected, and updated version of an article published in Irish Biblical Studies 19 (1997), pp.98-120]

In what follows, we shall attempt not simply to exegete this passage, but to relate it directly to what we have argued above is the background and setting of the Gospel as a whole. Some of this will be recapitulated here; for a fuller treatment, the reader is referred back to the discussions earlier on this page.

If there are two conclusions concerning which there has been a growing consensus among Johannine scholars, these would have to be the view that the Fourth Gospel was formed in a context of intense conflict between a group of Jewish Christians and the local synagogue of which they were a part (until they were excluded by the authorities), and that a key issue in the conflict, if not the key issue, was Christology[1]. However, when the question is raised as to the origins of the Johannine 'high' Christology, which resulted in its expulsion from the synagogue, this consensus breaks down incredibly quickly into uncertainty and confusion. Innumerable suggestions have been made, some playing down the differences between John and the Synoptics, others regarding the differences as indicators that Johannine Christology has been influenced by Samaritan or Gentile thought to a degree sufficient to have radically altered the Johannine Christians' understanding of who Jesus is[2]. More recently an alternative approach has been to regard the social setting of the Johannine community as explaining the distinctive Johannine Christology[3]. Elsewhere I have argued that this latter approach appears to provide a plausible and satisfying explanation of Johannine christological development, doing justice to both its continuity with earlier Christian Christology and its distinctiveness[4]. The sociologists Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann[5] have shown how the process of worldview-maintenance which they call 'legitimation' moves a community to defend its beliefs in response to new issues and new threats by developing them, drawing out new implications from them, and so on. This process, which again I have summarized elsewhere, would appear to provide a plausible explanation of what stimulated the distinctive developments in Johannine Christology, thus offering a solution to this aspect of the Johannine puzzle.

            The growing scholarly consensus that the Fourth Gospel was formed in the context of an intense christological debate between a Christian group and their local Jewish community of which they were/had been a part has unfortunately only too rarely been applied directly to the exegesis of the prologue, John 1:1-18. One notable exception is an insufficiently noticed article by Robert Kysar.[6] Kysar notes the many indicators of a conflict setting which are found in the prologue: the language of light and darkness, the references to his own not receiving him, the contrast with Moses, the question of who the true children of God are, and so on. On this basis, he attempts to see whether the proposed conflict setting illuminates other aspects of the Gospel. Unfortunately, in this brief article he is unable to enter into detailed exegesis, and while some of his insights are extremely helpful, others are less convincing. There is thus a need for a more detailed treatment of the Fourth Gospel in the light of what most scholars believe to have been its historical setting, and also in light of Berger and Luckmann's model of legitimation, which appears to have the potential to throw much light on both the meaning of the prologue and the overall formation and development of Johannine Christology.

            The prologue of John's Gospel has been the focus of much intense research and discussion. There can be said to be much disagreement, but also significant agreement, over many questions concerning its essential nature and background.

Since Bultmann's 1925 article, "Der religionsgeschichtliche Hintergrund des Prologs zum Johannesevangelium"[7], it has become generally accepted that the essential background to the prologue is to be found in the realm of Jewish Wisdom speculation[8]. That this is correct can be demonstrated from a careful comparison with Jewish wisdom texts, as has frequently been done[9]. The Johannine prologue also bears a close relationship to earlier Christian developments in the area of Wisdom Christology, as also becomes apparent through a comparison of texts (see the discussion earlier in this document).

Attempts to find a single term to express exactly the function which this section performs in the context of the entire Gospel have not yet yielded a generally-accepted term, apart from the one which we have been using throughout our discussion thus far: prologue. This term is not perfect, but if for no other reason than its general acceptance will do for our purposes[10]. More important for our purposes is the question of whether and to what extent John has used traditional material, such as a pre-Christian hymn to Wisdom or a Christian hymn, which he has subsequently edited in order to express his distinctive theology. The review of previous views on this subject which has recently been undertaken by Jürgen Habermann[11] shows just how varied are the conclusions which have been reached on this subject. However, there does not seem to be any doubt that the language of the prologue is poetic or hymnic in nature, rather than prose.

            One conclusion which seems quite firm is that the sections of the prologue relating to John the Baptist (1:6-8,15) are not all of a piece with the rest of the prologue. In the view of some, the hymnic part of the prologue is earlier, and the author or redactor of the Gospel has added the references to the Baptist. However, more recently it has been argued[12] that the prose sections about the Baptist are earlier and were actually a part of the original Gospel, which were subsequently separated and woven into the fabric of the prologue when it was added to the Gospel. This latter option seems to be the more likely of the two. The key argument in favor of this position is the fact that John 1:19 presupposes that the identity of 'John' is already known, suggesting that the original Gospel contained material prior to 1:19. This is further supported by the parallels with the beginning of Mark's Gospel.

            John Ashton has written in a recent study of the prologue, "Any exegesis that depends upon a precisely accurate reconstruction of the Vorlage is open to suspicion. This is not because such a reconstruction would be unhelpful, but because it is virtually unattainable. Not one of the many different versions that have been proposed compels assent, and few are immune from the charge of special pleading. In general most of the purely stylistic arguments advanced in favor of one version or other of the hymn are too subjective to command a wide following"[13]. In view of the difficulties involved in distinguishing with certainty different layers of the hymn (other than those pertaining to John the Baptist), our focus here will be primarily on how John is using traditional Wisdom language, on the relationship between his use of such language and its use in other documents which are clearly pre-Johannine, and on how the Johannine use of Wisdom motifs in the prologue might have been relevant to the conflict setting in which we have suggested it was written.

It will also be important for our discussion to assess the structure of the prologue. A number of recent scholars have argued that the prologue actually has the structure of a chiasm or inverted parallelism[14]. It appears almost certain that at the very least the beginning and end of the prologue form an inclusio[15] (the eternal place of the Word with God being paralleled by the place of the monogenés[16] alongside God). However, the mediation of the Word or of Jesus in creation and salvation appear to parallel one another (v3,17), as do the references to the light coming into the world (v9) and the Word becoming flesh (v14). A further convincing argument in favor of this structure is the way the final author or redactor has inserted the material concerning John the Baptist in what appear to be corresponding sections of the prologue. It would thus appear likely that the prologue is intended to reflect a downward/upward motion on the part of the Word, a move from eternal existence alongside God to a return to the Father's side.

            The most important objection which may be made to the suggestion that the prologue follows a chiastic structure is the failure of such a structure to place at the center the climactic verse, 'And the Word became flesh'[17]. Culpepper considers that both Käsemann and Bultmann must be incorrect in regarding v14 as the climax of the prologue, for in his view, "It would be strange indeed if the evangelist (or redactor) gave careful enough attention to the structure of the prologue to create a beautiful chiasm, but failed to place the phrase he was most intent on emphasizing at its center"[18]. Culpepper then devotes much effort to a discussion of what he considers the climax of the prologue, its central point or 'pivot', which refers to the giving of authority to become children of God.[19]  In our view, Culpepper is on the whole correct in his delineation of the prologue's structure, but wrong in his conclusion about where the climactic point is to be found. For one scholar who is very knowledgeable concerning the use of parallelism in Middle Eastern societies, Kenneth Bailey, is of the view that the 'turning point' of an inverted parallelism or chiasm tends to be immediately after the center.  "Usually there is a "point of turning" just past the center of the structure. The second half is not redundant. Rather it introduces some crucial new element that resolves or completes the first half".[20] This means that, in the case of the prologue, the 'turning point' would be the decisive verse, "The Word became flesh...", even though the structural center of the prologue is to be located in the area of vv12-13.[21]

            Talbert's version of the prologue's structure is as follows:[22]

A  (vv1-5): The relation of the Logos to God, creation, humans

  B  (vv6-8): The witness of John the Baptist

    C  (vv9-11): The coming of the light/Logos and his rejection

      D  (vv12-13): The benefits of belief in the Logos

    C' (v14):  The coming of the Logos and his reception

  B' (v15):  The witness of John the Baptist

A' (vv16-18): The relation of the Logos to humans, re-creation, God

The structures proposed by Boismard[23] and Culpepper[24] are essentially the same as this, although they distinguish parallels in greater detail in certain sections. For example, both agree in making a further distinction in the area Talbert denotes as A and A', regarding vv1-2 as parallel to v18, v3 as parallel to v17, and vv4-5 as parallel to v16. In this they may very well be correct[25], and at the very least the parallels between vv1-2 and v18 are sufficient to merit their treatment as a separate section. For our purposes, the overall outline proposed by Talbert will be sufficient, although it is recognized that further delineation of more detailed parallels may be possible.

We may now move on to a consideration of the prologue against the background of the Johannine conflict setting (and the community's need to engage in legitimation/apologetic) and of the pre-Johannine traditions inherited by the community. Verses which parallel one another in the prologue will be treated together, since there is usually in chiasm, as in all parallelism, something significant to be learned from relating parallel terms or statements to one another.

vv1-2) The first verse of the Fourth Gospel takes up the opening words of Genesis (1:1), "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"[26]. John's decision to begin his Gospel in this way[27] needs to be explained, since we have no record in any other New Testament document which can be dated earlier than the Fourth Gospel with any degree of certainty of the introduction of statements of faith or Jesus material with a statement about pre-existence[28]. John is also frequently regarded as distinctive in his use of Logos rather than Sophia (i.e. Wisdom) to refer to the pre-existent Christ. This is not entirely correct: the only actual explicit reference to Jesus as Sophia in the New Testament is found in 1 Corinthians 1:24, which does not appear in the context of the hymnic language which is generally recognized as typical of the Wisdom hymns. There is thus no reason to believe that the pre-existent one who became incarnate in Christ had already been exclusively identified with Sophia, as opposed to say Logos or Pneuma, and it is thus possible that John is not making any significant replacement or change to the tradition, but rather is simply using one of several possible alternative terms available to him[29]. His choice of Logos is probably due, not to the fact that it is masculine in contrast to feminine Sophia, but to the fact that Genesis 1, to which the author is alluding, refers to God speaking, and thus by implication to the Word of God.

            What significance would introducing the Gospel with these words from the beginning of the Torah (and of the whole Hebrew Bible) have had in the context of the Johannine Christians' conflict setting? Firstly, it would provide a definite sense of continuity with traditional Jewish beliefs. The author clearly intends to link the coming of Jesus Christ and the existence of Christianity with the very beginnings of God's plan, as well as with the revelation and creative and saving acts of God recorded in the Old Testament. This would be extremely important in the context of a worldview in which it was generally accepted that that which is older is original, more authentic and thus more highly valued[30].

            Another significant factor which may have influenced the author of this verse to use 'Word' rather than 'Wisdom' or any of the other alternatives may have been the use of the term 'Word' (Greek logos, Aramaic Mêmra) in Jewish thought. This use of 'Word', attested to in the works of Philo and in the Targums, is parallel to the use of Wisdom, but is significantly different in that the Word is frequently used for appearances of God in the Old Testament, and on the whole is more definitely identified as being none other than God himself. In the context of the debate over the relationship between Christology and monotheism, the identification of Jesus as the Word made flesh (as opposed to Wisdom made flesh) would bear more weight as a justification of the exalted status attributed to Jesus and the honor given to him.

            Further, as is frequently noted by scholars, there is no clear statement that theos = sophia to be found in Jewish literature from the period prior to the writing of the Fourth Gospel[31], whereas in Philo the Logos is clearly identified as theos (not as ho theos) just as it is in John[32]. This would clearly make Logos a more useful term for the author to take up in reference to the one who has become flesh in Jesus, in order to defend the rightfulness of attributing to him honor and status akin to that of God.

            Before proceeding, some justification should be given to our use of the term Mêmra ('Word') and of similar targumic terminology in our exegesis of the Johannine prologue, since C. K. Barrett's view that "Memra is a blind alley in the study of the biblical background of John's logos doctrine"[33] is an opinion shared by numerous other scholars. The main reason which he gives for his conclusion is the fact that mêmra "was not truly a hypostasis but a means of speaking about God without using his name, and thus a means of avoiding the numerous anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament"[34], whereas presumably in his view figures such as Wisdom or Philo's logos were genuine hypostases[35]. However, such a conclusion is clearly questionable in the light of much of the recent research which has been undertaken in these areas. In particular, we may note the view of Dunn, who, after a discussion of Jewish texts relating to Wisdom, concludes that "the Hellenistic Judaism of the LXX did not think of Wisdom as a 'hypostasis' or 'intermediary being' any more than did the OT writers and the rabbis. Wisdom, like the name, the glory, the Spirit of Yahweh, was a way of asserting God's nearness, his involvement with his world, his concern for his people"[36]. It is a personification and is not conceived of as a separate entity alongside God. The same is true of Philo's logos[37]. There is thus a growing number of scholars who are of the view that Raymond Brown's view of the Aramaic mêmra, that it was "not a personification, but...a buffer for divine transcendence...a paraphrase for God in his dealings with men"[38], would apply equally well to other figures such as Wisdom or Logos. Perhaps the key reason for the differences between the use of mêmra in the Targums on the one hand, and the use of Wisdom or Word in the wisdom literature and Philo on the other, is the difference of genre. It is only when Philo discusses the concept of the logos that he makes assertions about it being a 'second god' and the like. However, when the Logos appears in Philo's accounts of stories from the Jewish Scriptures, it functions in a way that is very similar to and reminiscent of the Targumic mêmra. In the case of all these figures, we only find ourselves dealing with something which is more than a metaphor, with a real being clearly separate from God, in the later stages of the specifically Christian developments which identify these 'figures' with Jesus Christ.

v18) The statement that Jesus, now exalted to the right hand of God[39], is the one who is able to make God known[40], parallels the opening statements concerning the Word alongside God 'in the beginning'. Immediately in v18 we are confronted with a number of points, all of which are significant for our study. Firstly, we have the assertion that no one (apart from the monogenes[41], as is soon clarified) has ever seen God, a statement which is widely recognized as polemical. Then, we have a reference to the exalted place of Jesus, which we know from several passages later on in the Gospel was problematic for many Jews. Lastly, we have a reference to Jesus as the revealer of God. We shall treat each of these points in turn.

            The assertion that no one has ever seen God clearly evokes reminiscences of the Old Testament[42]. In the Old Testament, although there are a number of ambiguous incidents, there is a clear teaching that no one could see God and live. This is true even of Moses[43], who is described as having spoken to God 'face to face'. Thus, on the one hand, the author of the prologue expresses his acceptance of this important tenet of Jewish belief, that no one has seen God. Yet on the other hand, the author expresses something which is significantly different[44] from this Jewish emphasis: the monogenes, the Logos who was with God in the beginning, shares an incomparably intimate relationship with God, and thus can make God known in a way that no one who does not share this relationship (which means, effectively, no one else at all) is able to.

            The reference to Jesus 'in the bosom of the Father', or, in other words, at God's right hand, is a reference to the exalted status of Jesus, as we have already pointed out. The claim that Jesus had been exalted to a status alongside God was objectionable to many Jews even in the pre-Johannine period[45]. In the Johannine community at least, this came to be even more of a key issue, and one that provoked intense Jewish opposition. In this context,  there is a clear significance to the fact that John parallels the pre-existent status of the Word with the exalted post-existent status of Jesus. It appears that the author would have us find the  justification for the exalted status of Jesus in the eternal glory and position of the Logos. We have already noted in our discussion of the opening verses of the prologue how certain elements in the author's choice of expression would have relevance to any attempt to justify the attribution to Jesus of a status akin to God, and in light of the parallelism which exists between the beginning and end of the prologue, it would appear justified to assert that this was precisely what the author was concerned to do.

            Also important in this verse is the reference to Jesus as the one who has made God known. This bears obvious relation to one of the key themes of the conflict between the Johannine Christians and the synagogue, namely the question of Jesus' qualifications to be the revealer. Since the reference is ostensibly to the exalted, post-resurrection Jesus, it could be suggested that Jesus is the revealer precisely in his present exalted state. However, the aorist tense exegesato makes clear that the author is thinking primarily (although not exclusively) of the ministry of the earthly Jesus: it was then that "we beheld his glory". In relation to this issue the parallel with the opening of the prologue is also relevant. Jesus is able to be the revealer because he is the pre-existent Word. In the Targums, it is frequently the Word (or alternatively the Spirit) who spoke to Moses[46]. The Word or Wisdom is also frequently identified with the Torah[47]. Thus the one with whom Moses spoke, and whose will or wisdom was embodied in the revelation given to Moses, had now actually appeared on the scene as a human being[48]. The fact that the one who 'became flesh' in and as Jesus was one who shared in pre-existence with God also has direct relevance to the question of Jesus' qualifications as revealer. As we have noted earlier, in many streams of Jewish thought Moses was believed to have ascended to heaven in order to receive the Torah. In contrast to his knowledge of heavenly things as at most a brief visitor to heaven, which was all that any human seer could ever hope to become, the Son has an eternal knowledge of God, which provides a basis for revelation far superior to that of any other.

vv3-5) In these verses, referring primarily to the pre-incarnate Logos' work in creation, we again find clear allusions to the role of Wisdom in many Jewish writings. A number of scholars have noted the important parallel which is to be found in 1QS 11:11[49]. This part of the Community Rule says of God, "All things come to pass by His knowledge; He establishes all things by His design and without Him nothing is done". If this verse gives us any insight into the meaning of John 1:3, then we should not render genesthai as 'to create' but rather as 'to happen', as Ashton and several others have suggested. In favor of this suggestion is the fact that parallels in the Wisdom literature normally use the verb ktizô to express creation, or alternatively poieô. However, this would be to choose between two equally valid renderings of a Greek word which may legitimately carry both meanings[50]. Given the parallels of language between this part of the prologue and so many instances in Jewish literature concerning Wisdom, where Wisdom is described as the mediatrix of creation, it would appear both unwise and unnecessary to exclude the idea of creation here. Perhaps this term was chosen because of its ambiguity, allowing the same phrase to refer to God's action of both creation and salvation[51]. In the Old Testament, and much subsequent Jewish theology, the motifs and imagery of creation and salvation were inextricably linked[52]. This was also true of Christian theology prior to John, where we find a similar logic being followed through in connection with the christological use of Wisdom language. A prime example is the hymnic passage of Col.1:15-20, where Wisdom language is used to parallel the role of Christ in creation and in the new creation[53]. The working through of some of the logical implications of the role attributed to Christ by Christians in the restoration of God's plan for creation had apparently begun already in the pre-Johannine period.

            In terms of the conflict setting we have posited, would these verses have had any particular relevance? The reference to the light shining in the darkness, but not being understood or overcome by it, is clearly intended to reflect the hostile reception which the Logos - as Jesus -  received in the world, even from 'his own'. It is in no way problematic to suggest this, even if the view is taken that these verses refer primarily to the period before the incarnation[54]; in fact, it actually helps to show the relevance of these verses to the Johannine work of legitimation. In many places in the New Testament, Christian writers justify the failure of the Jews to believe, and to respond positively to Jesus or the early Christians, by pointing out the failure of Israel throughout its history to respond to God (or to his appointed prophets or leaders) as they should.[55] It would seem likely that the references in the present verses to the language of light and darkness is an attempt to portray the situation in a similar fashion. The coming of God's Word into the world had from the very beginning of creation caused there to be a division, a separation between light and darkness[56]. Throughout Israel's history this pattern continued, with only a remnant remaining faithful to Yahweh. John's language would be useful as a response to objections to the idea of Jesus being the Messiah or revealer made on the basis of the fact that the majority of the Jews had not accepted him as such: John (like many other Jewish and Christian authors in a similar context) pointed out that it had never been the majority which remained faithful and believed[57].

vv16-17) These verses, which refer to the activity of the Logos in salvation history, appear to parallel vv3-5, a point which would seem to confirm our suggestion that the unity of creation and redemption is important to the author of the prologue[58], as to most Jews and Jewish Christians. That the author believes that we have all received from the fullness of his grace is quite clear[59]. However, the relationship of this charis to another charis, described through the use of the preposition anti, is much more ambiguous. There is widespread agreement that this phrase does not support the meaning which has often been attributed to it, namely 'grace upon grace'. The preposition anti normally denotes the idea of 'replacement', and since what is being replaced is also described as 'grace', the idea must be something along the lines of 'one grace being replaced by another, even greater grace'[60].

            This difficult phrase should not be interpreted in isolation from the verse which follows, in which the giving of the Law through Moses is related to the appearance of grace and truth on the scene of human history through Jesus Christ.[61] The parallelism between Moses and Jesus here is frequently described as antithetic[62]. However, given the fact that Moses is a positive witness to Christ, and that the grace of the Old Testament period was genuine grace, the view of those scholars who feel that the contrast is between the 'giving' of grace in and through the Law and the 'coming' of grace as an actual human person, where both are genuinely the grace of God but the latter is a superior expression of that grace, appears a much more satisfactory understanding of the author's meaning.[63] Yet to speak of the parallelism as 'synthetic' may also be misleading, since there can be no doubt that a contrast is implied between the Mosaic dispensation and that of Jesus the Messiah. The author of the prologue would probably not have agreed with the view, expressed in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, that Moses and Jesus are equally bringers of salvation, the one for Jews, the other for Gentiles. Although there is no polemic against Torah observance, presumably because the Johannine Christians, as part of their local synagogue, had not had anything like the huge influx of Gentile converts which the Pauline churches experienced[64], it would seem legitimate to conclude that the Johannine view is still in many ways closer to the Pauline view than to that of the Homilies: the Mosaic covenant was not valueless, but cannot be regarded in the same way once one has come to see the far surpassing glory manifested in Jesus Christ[65]. Belief in Moses is not contrasted with belief in Christ in the Fourth Gospel; rather, the one who has truly believed Moses should find it a natural step to believe in Jesus Christ. In the present passage a similar line of thought seems to be followed: we (primarily Jews) have experienced God's grace throughout history, and the only appropriate response is to respond to its fullest manifestation ever, which is to be found in the Word-become-flesh, Jesus Christ.

            Before moving on, we may note that here too there is an implicit Wisdom allusion, inasmuch as Jesus Christ is identified with the one the fullness of whose grace was manifested in various ways in the Old Testament and was expressed in the giving of the Law through Moses. As we have had occasion to note on several occasions, there are numerous passages from the intertestamental period which identify Wisdom and Torah[66]. The identification of Jesus as the one whose grace is expressed, albeit partially, in Torah presents him as one who is superior to it, and who is thus to be taken with the utmost of seriousness.

vv6-8,15) In these verses we are confronted with the first mention of the person of John the Baptist in the Fourth Gospel, and as we have already seen, it is quite probable that these verses once stood as the opening of the Gospel[67]. It would seem likely that there was at some stage in the community's history a debate with a continuing group of disciples of the Baptist. Although it is reasonable to relate the apparently polemical statement in v8 to such a setting, we have very little information upon which to reconstruct this conflict, and we have no way of knowing which side first claimed that its leader is  'the light'. In v15 we also have an explicit contrast between the Baptist and Jesus, and (as is the case throughout the Fourth Gospel) the contrast is placed on the lips of John the Baptist himself.

            The conflict with these followers of the Baptist was with another group which was probably of a size similar to or smaller than the Johannine Christians, whereas 'the Jews' represented the majority opinion in their community, and more importantly the opinions of its leaders[68], and for this reason the controversy with the baptists has not left its mark on the present form of the Fourth Gospel to anything like the extent that the conflict with 'the Jews' has affected it[69]. Yet it is still important that such passages as these, which relate to controversy with the baptists over the relationship between Jesus and John, be considered, if for no other reason that they give a rather clear indication of the fact that the development and formation of christological beliefs and categories often took place in the context of a contrast or comparison with another figure.

            De la Potterie gives as one reason for rejecting the structure we have proposed for the prologue as the fact that the two halves of the structure are not really parallel, and the example which he gives is the difference tenses used of John's witness is vv6-8 (past) and v15 (present).[70] This can be explained, however, as being due to the fact that John thinks of the Baptist standing on the border, as it were, between two ages. If the suggestion is correct that the Fourth Evangelist understood the decisive moment in the incarnation of the Word to have been Jesus' baptism, a subject to which we shall return below, then John can be said to have borne witness in the periods both before and after this decisive event, and thus to stand as a bridge between the old and the new. De la Potterie assumes that the coming of the Logos refers to the birth of Jesus, and thus has difficulty making sense of the Baptist's role in the prologue.[71] At any rate, it is perhaps unwise to make too much of the different tenses used to refer to the Baptist's testimony.

vv9-11) V9 may be read in two main ways: (a) "He was the true light, who lightens every man coming into the world"; (b) "The true light, that lightens every man, was coming into the world". Neither possibility is without difficulties, and both have parallels which may lend support to them. The reason for the ambiguity is that the participle erchomenon  may be taken either with ên and phos to create a periphrastic construction, 'was coming', or with anthropon. Modern commentators are almost unanimous in preferring reading (b)[72]. In favor of (a), there is the parallel which is found in Lev.R. 31:6, "Thou enlightenest those who are on high and those who are beneath and all who come into the world"[73]. Although the apparent incongruity with the phrase immediately preceding (ouk ên ekeinos to phos...Ên to phos) is an obvious difficulty, it is not impossible that the author or redactor did not notice that the ên which opens v9 would most naturally be taken to refer back to John the Baptist, especially if he was splicing together two sources, a proto-Gospel and a hymnic or poetic composition. However, if the majority opinion of commentators is correct, and the phrase is intended to be read as a periphrastic construction, then this construction should not be taken (as in English) to mean 'was (on the point of) entering', since the Greek construction most naturally conveys the idea of a continuous action in the past, rather than a single, carefully-delineated action or event. The reference would then almost certainly not be to the single event of the incarnation[74], but to the frequent comings of the light into the world throughout its history[75]. At any rate, as Beasley-Murray points out, both interpretations of the verse are possible, and would make sense at this juncture of the prologue, and thus it is difficult to come down firmly on the side of one or the other[76]. Ultimately, it is clear that the verse refers to the light, and that this true light illuminates every human being who comes into the world. If any factor is suggestive of a solution, it may be the fact that the parallel section of the prologue (v14) refers to the incarnation, the decisive coming of the Logos into the world.[77]

            However, even if every human being has in some sense received life and light from the Logos, in another sense the majority of human beings have refused these things from him. The idea found in vv10-11 has parallels in both Jewish and pagan writers: Reason or Wisdom has been rejected by most people; Wisdom has not found a place to dwell. The reference in v10 to the kosmos is intended to encompass a wider reference than ta idia in v11: the former is the entirety of the world which came into existence through the mediation of the Logos, whereas the latter is clearly a reference to the Jewish nation and people, who were God's chosen ones[78]. Thus on the one hand John is accepting the Old Testament teaching that Israel is God's chosen people, while on the other hand subverting the way this teaching was understood by a great many people in his time. Israel had been chosen by God, but even so had not responded to God as they should have. Like a number of other sectarian and reform movements in early Judaism, the Wisdom myth was transposed, so that we do not hear of Wisdom dwelling in Israel, but rather being rejected in Israel, although accepted by some, both Jews and Gentiles.[79] In the context of the conflict which lies in the background of the Fourth Gospel, John thus seeks to communicate that, as so many Jews would acknowledge, Israel had frequently rejected Wisdom. By presenting Israel's rejection of Jesus as simply one example of this wider phenomenon, the suggestion that this rejection somehow discredits Jesus' claims is undermined.

v14) Over against a section which, however we translate v9, clearly refers to the rejection of the light by mankind as a whole and Israel in particular, in this verse we have a clear reference to the incarnation, and to the believing community ('we') which has welcomed the incarnate Word. The best rendering of the words ho logos sarx egeneto is probably that suggested by Barrett, "the Word came on the (human) scene - as flesh, man"[80]. The point is that it is none other than  the Wisdom or Word of God, the true light, which has appeared on the scene of human history in a decisive and distinctive way: as the man Christ Jesus. The identification between Jesus and the Word is important for various reasons which have already been mentioned.

            This verse contains an almost overwhelming number of allusions to the Old Testament and Jewish traditions. The reference to 'tabernacling' is almost universally acknowledged to be an allusion to the wisdom tradition, such as is attested to in Sirach 24:8, where God commands Wisdom to pitch her tent in Israel[81]. The term also relates to the term Shekinah, which appears in the rabbinic literature in a role similar to that of mêmra in the Targums, as a periphrasis for direct reference to God or the divine name[82]. This, together with the appearance of the related terms word (Aramaic mêmra, dibbûra) and glory (Aramaic y^eqar, Hebrew kabôd), suggests that the author intends the reader to recall these Jewish traditions[83].

            Here then, in what is generally recognized to be the climactic verse of the prologue[84], we find Jesus identified as the embodiment of all of these aspects of God[85] as flesh, as a human life. We have already seen the importance of the identification of Jesus as the Word at the beginning and end of the prologue in terms of justifying Jesus' exalted status and ability to reveal God. Here at the climax of the prologue we find something similar, although arguably more intense.

            An important question to ask is when the Word was believed to have appeared in human history as flesh. This is not to question that the author identified the Word-become-flesh as Jesus, but to ask whether there is a particular event in Jesus' life at which point this was understood to have actually come to pass. The traditional answer, and the one which seems most obvious, is of course Jesus' conception through the Holy Spirit. Yet its very apparentness should make us cautious. The Fourth Gospel nowhere clearly indicates any knowledge of the tradition that Jesus was conceived through the Holy Spirit. The Johannine account of the life of Jesus begins with the baptism of Jesus[86], and given the fact that terms like "Spirit, Wisdom and Logos were all more or less synonymous ways of speaking of God's outreach to man"[87], as we noted earlier, it has therefore been suggested that a first-century reader of the Fourth Gospel would have understood the Word becoming flesh and the Spirit descending upon Jesus as descriptions of the same event[88]. This is significant, since there was widespread agreement in Judaism, and unanimous agreement in Christianity, that the Messiah was a figure in whom God's Spirit was present a decisive way[89]. John could thus appeal to such traditions in order to support his claims concerning Jesus, by presenting Jesus as one so fully one with the Spirit or Word of God that that which is attributed to the Logos might legitimately also be attributed to Jesus. Also, Jesus, as the incarnation of the Word or Spirit which spoke to Moses[90] would obviously bear a revelation superior to that brought by Moses[91]. The importance of this is that we see here clearly that the author and his community did not simply make use of any and every tradition which might conceivably support their case, but appealed to Scriptures and traditions which they, and in most cases their opponents as well, regarded as both authoritative and also relevant to the issue at hand.

            (Of course, it should be noted that in a canonical context, the combined witness of the four Gospels leads quite quickly and logically to the conclusion that the incarnation is to be linked with Jesus’ birth. However, there is no reason to assume that, at the stage in God’s progressive revelation at which John wrote, this was already clear to him as an author. Ultimately it is the canon that determines doctrine and not the witness of any one author taken on its own without regard to other voices within the canon).

vv12-13) This forms the central section of this passage, and although it cannot be said to be of central importance to the prologue, this should not be understood to mean that this section is of little significance. On the contrary, the idea of the righteous as children of God was of great significance in contemporary Jewish thought, as was the idea of Israel or the Israelites as God's son(s). Here the author is denying that natural birth or genealogical descent can make one a child of God[92]. We are thus once again in the presence of an emphatic assertion that being an Israelite without believing in God's messenger is of no value. Israel had frequently been punished because it failed to recognize God's messengers or appointed leaders for what they were[93]. In this central section, John warns his readers that even if one is an Israelite, one must be alert, lest one fail to recognize God's chosen one and to respond in faith to him. There is a clear contrast implied between v11 and v12: those who are the Logos' (and God's) 'own people' should be sons of God, but they have, as so often throughout their history, rejected the one whom God sent, thus showing themselves not to be God's children[94].

Our study has on the whole confirmed Kysar's suggestion that the Prologue makes best sense when interpreted against the background of the conflict with 'the Jews' which most scholars regard as the background to the Fourth Gospel. At most points our more detailed study has confirmed his readings of various parts of the Prologue. However, his argument that John wanted to eliminate all elements of humiliation from the story of Jesus we have found no evidence for. The Prologue, like the Gospel as a whole, does appear to emphasize revelation more than the cross, and there is evidence elsewhere in the Gospel that the Fourth Evangelist was concerned to make sense of the crucified Messiah in a context in which this was an issue of debate. However, the emphasis in these sections is on the crucifixion as a step on the path towards exaltation, and it thus seems necessary to disagree with Kysar's view that the Evangelist replied to Jewish objections by asserting that "There was no humiliation but only glory".[95]

            We have seen in our treatment of this section of the Fourth Gospel how a number of key motifs function, in the context of the prologue and of the Gospel as a whole, in ways that would be of great relevance to the proposed Johannine conflict situation, and it would scarcely be believable to suggest that these correspondences are accidental. Rather, we should regard the appearance of these motifs and emphases here as a key to understanding the whole Gospel. It has frequently been said that the author of the Fourth Gospel intends the whole of his book to be read in light of what is revealed to the reader in the prologue[96], and this is surely true not only of its high Christology, but also of its apologetic and polemical aims and intentions.

            The prologue begins and ends with the Word alongside God. The fact that the Word is now incarnate in  the man Jesus has certain implications which the author points out to his readers, both through explicit statements and through his use of parallelism and allusion. Jesus is worthy of his exalted status at the Father's right hand, because he is in fact none other than the Word who was with God in the beginning. As such, he is also able to function in the capacity of revealer in a manner which cannot be equaled by any other. Other figures, whether John the Baptist or Moses, cannot compare with the honor and status of an only Son[97], nor can the written word of Torah compare with the Word who has now come 'in the flesh'. The failure of God's own people to accept the one whom he sent to them does not disprove Jesus' claims, since Israel had throughout its history rejected God's servants. Yet the few who believe, whether Israelites or not, are accepted by God, and their relationship with God as his children, made possible through Jesus, validates his claims. The assertion that these were key issues for the Evangelist does not mean that the prologue is any less an exalted christological statement aimed at honoring and praising the incarnate and exalted Lord and the God whom he revealed. It is simply to point out that this appears to have been done in a context in which such christological statements and beliefs were controversial, and the author is thus concerned not only to state his Christology, but also to defend it, and he does this by attempting to show the continuity of his beliefs with the authoritative traditions and Scriptures of the Jews and the Christians, as well as the culpability of 'the Jews' for failing to recognize who it was that had appeared among them, who it was whose glory they failed to see.

Felix Just, Johannine Works on the Web; Johannine Bibliography

"Johannine_Literature".
Homepage of the Moderated Internet Group for the Academic Discussion of the Fourth Gospel and the Letters of John.

"Gospel-of-John".
Homepage of the Internet Discussion Group on the Gospel according to John.

Armand J. Gagne Jr. The Fourth Gospel of John and the Epistles.
Home Page for Research. "During the past forty years, I have maintained a bibliography of Fourth Gospel Books and journal articles. This homepage is dedicated to all those who have an interest in this area of Biblical Studies."

Felix Just, Johannine Literature. Materials for the Study of the The Fourth Gospel & The Letters of John.

David L. Barr, "As the Father Has Sent Me" Community Dialogues in John 20

Terry A. Larm, Signs in the Fourth Gospel: What is the Evangelist Doing?
Theological Gathering Fall 1996.

Xavier Levieils, Juifs et Grecs dans la communauté johannique, from Biblica 82 (2001) 51-78.

James F. McGrath: Going Up and Coming Down in Johannine Apologetic. read at the British New Testament Conference, University of Aberdeen, Saturday 14 September 1996 (forthcoming in Neotestamentica).

James F. McGrath: "Are Christians Monotheists? The Answer of St. John's Gospel".
Lecture given at the North of England Institute for Christian Education Sixth Form Study Day, University of Durham, 27 March 98.

Jerome H. Neyrey, "The Sociology of Secrecy and the Fourth Gospel."
In What Is John? Vol. II: Literary and Social Readings of the Fourth Gospel, 79-109. F. Segovia, ed. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998.

Jerome H. Neyrey, "What's Wrong With This Picture? John 4, Cultural Stereotypes of Women, and Public and Private Space."  Biblical Theology Bulletin 24 (1994):77-91.

Jerome H. Neyrey, "The Trials (Forensic) and Tribulations (Honor Challenges) of Jesus: John 7 in Social Science Perspective."  Biblical Theology Bulletin 26 (1996):107-24.

M. Labahn, Between Tradition and Literary Art: The Miracle Tradition in the Fourth Gospel,
from Biblica 80 (1999) 178-203.

A. Watson, Jesus and the Adulteress.
from Biblica 80 (1999) 100-108.

Jerome H. Neyrey, "The Footwashing in John 13:6-11: Transformation Ritual or Ceremony?"
In The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks, 198-213. L. M. White and O. L. Yarbrough. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995.

Jerome H. Neyrey, "Despising the Shame of the Cross: Honor and Shame in the Johannine Passion Narrative."
Semeia 69 (1996):113-37.

Allison, Dale C.

 1993   The New Moses. A Matthean Typology, Minneapolis: Fortress Press/Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

Ashton, John

 1991   Understanding the Fourth Gospel, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

 1994   Studying John. Approaches to the Fourth Gospel, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bailey, Kenneth E.

 1983   Poet and Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes. A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke (Combined Edition), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Balchin, John F.

 1982   "Paul, Wisdom and Christ", in Christ the Lord. Studies in Christology Presented to Donald Guthrie, ed.  Harold H. Rowdon, Leicester: IVP: 204-219.

Barrett, C. K.

 1978   The Gospel According to St.John (Second Edition), London: SPCK.

Beasley-Murray, George R.

 1987   John, Dallas, TX: Word.

Berger, Peter and Luckmann, Thomas

 1967   The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, London: Allen Lane/Penguin Press.

Boismard, Marie-Émile

 1988   Moise ou Jésus. Essai de Christologie Johannique (BETL, 84), Leuven University Press.

Brown, Raymond E.

 1966   The Gospel According to John (I-XII), New York: Doubleday.

 1979   The Community of the Beloved Disciple, London: Geoffrey Chapman.

Bultmann, Rudolf

 1986   "The History of Religions Background to the Prologue to the Gospel of John", in The Interpretation of John, ed. John Ashton,  Philadelphia: Fortress Press/London: SPCK: 18-35.

Carson, D. A.

 1991   The Gospel According to John, Leicester: IVP/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Casey, Maurice

 1991   From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God, Cambridge: James Clarke and Co.

Culpepper, R. Alan

 1980   "The Pivot of John's Prologue", NTS 27: 1-31.

Caird, G. B.

 1976   Paul's Letters from Prison, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Davies, Margaret

 1992   Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel (JSNTSup, 69), JSOT/Sheffield Academic Press.

Davies, W. D.

 1955   Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (Second edition) London: SPCK.

de la Potterie, Ignace

 1984   "Structure du Prologue de Saint Jean", NTS 30:354-381.

 1988   "«C'est lui qui a ouvert la voie». La finale du prologue johannique", Biblica 69: 340-370.

Dodd, C. H.

 1953   The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge University Press.

Dunn, James D. G.

 1988   Romans 1-8, Dallas, TX: Word.

 1989   Christology in the Making. An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (Second edition), London: SCM Press.

Esler, Philip F.

 1987   Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts (SNTSMS, 57), Cambridge University Press.

Evans, Craig A.

 1983   "On the Quotation Formulas in the Fourth Gospel", BZ 26:79-83.

 1993   Word and Glory. On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John's Prologue (JSNTSup, 89), JSOT/Sheffield Academic Press.

Fortna, Robert T.

 1988   The Fourth Gospel and its Predecessor. From Narrative Source to Present Gospel, Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Fuller, Reginald H.

 1976   "The Incarnation in Historical Perspective", in Anglican Theological Review (Supplementary Series), 7: 57-66.

Habermann, Jürgen

 1990   Präexistenzaussagen im Neuen Testament, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Hanson, Anthony Tyrell

 1991   The Prophetic Gospel. A Study of John and the Old Testament, Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

Harris, Murray J.

 1992   Jesus as God. The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

Hengel, Martin

 1995   "'Sit at My Right Hand!' The Enthronement of Christ at the Right Hand of God and Psalm 110:1", Studies in Early Christology, Edinburgh: T&T Clark: 119-225.

Hooker, Morna D.

 1974   "The Johannine Prologue and the Messianic Secret", NTS 21: 40-58.

Hurtado, Larry W.

 1988   One God, One Lord. Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism, London: SCM Press.

Kysar, Robert

 1978   "Christology and Controversy. The Contributions of the Prologue of the Gospel of John to New Testament Christology and their Historical Setting", CurTM 5:348-364.

Lindars, Barnabas

 1972   The Gospel of John, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott.

Manns, Frédéric

 1991   L'Evangile de Jean à la lumière du Judaisme, Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press.

Martyn, J. Louis

 1979   History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (Second edition), Nashville: Abingdon.

McNamara, Martin

 1972   Targum and Testament. Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: A Light on the New Testament, Shannon: Irish University Press.

Meeks, Wayne A.

 1986   "The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism", in The Interpretation of John, ed. John Ashton, Philadelphia: Fortress Press/London: SPCK: 141-173.

Neyrey, Jerome

 1988   An Ideology of Revolt. John's Christology in Social-Science Perspective, Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

O'Neill, J. C.

 1991   "The Word Did Not "Become" Flesh", ZNW 82: 125-127.

Painter, John

 1984   "Christology and the History of the Johannine Community in the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel", NTS 30: 460-474.

Pancaro, Severino

 1975   The Law in the Fourth Gospel. The Torah and the Gospel, Moses and Jesus, Judaism and Christianity according to John (NovTSup, 42), Leiden: E.J.Brill.

Petersen, Norman R.

 1993   The Gospel of John and the Sociology of Light. Language and Characterization in the Fourth Gospel, Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International.

Pryor, John W.

 1992   John: Evangelist of the Covenant People, Downers Grove: IVP.

Robinson, John A. T.

 1984   "The Relationship of the Prologue to the Gospel of St. John", Twelve More New Testament Studies, London: SCM Press: 65-76.

Sanders, E. P.

 1977   Paul and Palestinian Judaism, London: SCM Press.

Schimanowski, Gottfried

 1985   Weisheit und Messias. Die jüdischen Voraussetzungen der urchristlichen Präexistenzchristologie (WUNT 2, 17), Tübingen: J.C.B.Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

Schnackenburg, Rudolf

 1968   The Gospel According to John. Volume 1, Wellwood: Burns and Oates.

Schnelle, Udo

 1992   Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John. An Investigation of the Place of the Fourth Gospel in the Johannine School, Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Schoneveld, Jacobus

 1989   "Torah in the Flesh. A New Reading of the Prologue of the Gospel of John as a Contribution to a Christology without Anti-Judaism", in Remembering for the Future. Volume 1, ed. Yehuda Bauer, et.al., Oxford: Pergamon Press: 867-878.

Schoonenberg, Piet

 1986   "A sapiential reading of John's Prologue: some reflection on views of Reginald Fuller and James Dunn", Theology Digest 33: 403-421.

Scott, Martin

 1992   Sophia and the Johannine Jesus (JSNTSup, 71), JSOT/Sheffield Academic Press.

Stibbe, Mark W. G.

 1993   John, JSOT/Sheffield Academic Press.

Talbert, Charles H.

 1992   Reading John. A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles, London: SPCK.

 1993   ""And the Word Became Flesh": When?", in The Future of Christology. Essays in Honor of Leander E. Keck, ed. Abraham J.Malherbe and Wayne A.Meeks, Minneapolis: Fortress Press: 43-52.

Watson, Francis

 1987   "Is John's Christology Adoptionist?", in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament. Studies in Christology in Memory of G.B.Caird, ed. L.D.Hurst and N.T.Wright, Oxford: Clarendon Press: 113-124.

Wengst, Klaus

 1981   Bedrängte Gemeinde und verherrlichter Christus. Der historische Ort des Johannesevangeliums als Schlüssel zu einer Interpretation, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

Witherington, Ben III

 1994   Jesus the Sage, Minneapolis: Fortress Press/ Edinburgh: T&T Clark.