(no subject)
Jun. 13th, 2005 11:01 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaFrom time to time I have pondered whether there is an older "messianic monologue" in the Gospel of John, around which narrative material was spliced to construct the final text. Consider this:
[John 10:1] "I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber.
[2] The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep.
[3] The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
[4] When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice.
[5] But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice."
[6] Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.
[7] Therefore Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep.
[8] All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them.
[9] I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture.
[10] The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
[11] I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
[12] The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it.
[13] The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.
[14] I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—
[15] just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep.
[16] I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
[17] The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again.
[18] No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."
[19] At these words the Jews were again divided.
[20] Many of them said, "He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?"
[21] But others said, "These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?"
[22] Then came the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter,
[23] and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade.
[24] The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."
[25] Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me,
[26] but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.
[27] My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
[28] I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.
[29] My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.
[30] I and the Father are one."
The parts of the passage which I bolded flow seamlessly one into the next, even though these are supposedly different conversations from different days. Sure, it's entirely possible that Jesus picked up exactly where he left off a day or so later, but the monologue makes more sense as a single, unspliced whole. When we read this chapter of John's Gospel, the discontinuity gets glossed because this is obviously a written work rather than a recounting of a literal conversation that took place.
If you take the first-person messianic monologue out of the gospel, it resembles very strongly texts like The Thunder: Perfect Mind and Primary Thought in Three Forms, not to mention some of the Montanist prophesies.
In short, my opinion is that the messianic monologues of the Gospel of John are, like these other exampls, the product of an esoteric/visionary process whereby a person speaks for the divine in first person as a way of connecting with the divine and making the divine more personal and immediate.
Edit. This previous discussion on the possibility that John was originally a Gnostic document bears strong relevance here.
[John 10:1] "I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber.
[2] The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep.
[3] The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
[4] When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice.
[5] But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice."
[6] Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.
[7] Therefore Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep.
[8] All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them.
[9] I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture.
[10] The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
[11] I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
[12] The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it.
[13] The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.
[14] I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—
[15] just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep.
[16] I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
[17] The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again.
[18] No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."
[19] At these words the Jews were again divided.
[20] Many of them said, "He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?"
[21] But others said, "These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?"
[22] Then came the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter,
[23] and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade.
[24] The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."
[25] Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me,
[26] but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.
[27] My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
[28] I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.
[29] My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.
[30] I and the Father are one."
The parts of the passage which I bolded flow seamlessly one into the next, even though these are supposedly different conversations from different days. Sure, it's entirely possible that Jesus picked up exactly where he left off a day or so later, but the monologue makes more sense as a single, unspliced whole. When we read this chapter of John's Gospel, the discontinuity gets glossed because this is obviously a written work rather than a recounting of a literal conversation that took place.
If you take the first-person messianic monologue out of the gospel, it resembles very strongly texts like The Thunder: Perfect Mind and Primary Thought in Three Forms, not to mention some of the Montanist prophesies.
In short, my opinion is that the messianic monologues of the Gospel of John are, like these other exampls, the product of an esoteric/visionary process whereby a person speaks for the divine in first person as a way of connecting with the divine and making the divine more personal and immediate.
Edit. This previous discussion on the possibility that John was originally a Gnostic document bears strong relevance here.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 07:42 pm (UTC)I had surfed in here from the feminist forum. I had hoped that you do not mind the intrusion. I enjoyed your LJ icon and was curious as to what source it was from. Did you find it on a website, what is it a symbol of? I do not usually randomly surf into one's journal to ask such questions but your icon intrigued me.
Thanks for your time.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 09:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-14 04:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-15 12:24 am (UTC)I was surprised to find John in Barnstone and Meyer. But it makes sense to me, even though certain people I argue with regularly put it forward as the anti-Gnostic gospel, as you mention.
Have you read much Harold Bloom?