Bible Study With The Bishops: In The Beginning

Today I started my catch up reading on the Lambeth Conference Daily Reading Plan. Since the commentary has not yet arrived, I pulled four translations of the Bible and the EfM (Education for Ministry) Year Two binder (the New Testament) from my bookshelf. That's essentially the same thing I do when I start to prepare a sermon.

The four translations I have are the King James Version (KJV), the New International Version (NIV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), and The Message. I like each of them for different reasons, and they are the four I tend to consult most frequently. That's why I own one copy of each--two of the NRSV, because I have a small edition for traveling. When I need to see one of the myriad of other translations, I can look just about any of them up on the Internet.

The EfM texts are not the be all and end all of biblical commentary or scholarship, but they do provide a good place to begin. And since I am a graduate of the program and currently co-mentor a group at St. Paul's Fairfield, they are a reference on my bookshelf. If I need other commentaries, I usually borrow them from a friend or coworker, check them out of the library, or look them up on the Internet.

A couple of comments about John in general. To me, and to others, John is the most mystic of the Gospels. John is also the source of some of our most familiar and beloved images of Jesus--The Good Shepherd and the Vine and the Branches, to name just two. I have some things to say about these, but I'll wait until they come up in the reading plan to discuss them.

So today I read Chapter 1 in the four translations. What follows are my thoughts about the opening of John's Gospel.

The first thing I noted was that Verse 1 remained unchanged through the first three translations:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Peterson's Message paraphrases it this way:

The Word was first,
the Word present to God,
God present to the Word.

I'm not always fond of the way Peterson paraphrases the ancient texts, but usually his rendering is clear and understandable. Not in this case.

The second thing that jumped out at me was that the author of John glosses over Jesus' baptism. John the Baptist testifies that he saw the Spirit descending on Jesus like a dove, a familiar image, but the actual baptism is not mentioned. Nor do we hear God saying "This is my beloved Son" in the manner found in the Synoptic Gospels (or "You are," in Luke).

It was also interesting to note that the KJV and The Message make the Cephas/Peter means stone/rock connection directly in the text rather than in a footnote.

The story of Nathanael's reaction to Jesus struck me as a foreshadowing of Thomas' need to see the resurrected Jesus for himself, both stories like bookends of the need for concrete proof at the beginning and the end of the story. Both Nathanael and Thomas are also present when Jesus appears in Galilee after his resurrection.

The EfM text, like most commentaries and other introductory texts, talks about the similarities and differences between John and the other three Gospels. A couple of passages that caught my eye when I skimmed through it:

Seeking to understand the Fourth Gospel does not commit us to any particular theory of its origin. What is at stake is not how it got that way, but what it means. (p. 180)

It seems to me that "how it got that way" does have some impact on "what it means," but then I tend to be of the Historical-Critical school of thought when it comes to bible study. Which shouldn't surprise any of you who know me.

Of course, then there is John the Mystic:

As we see again and again, Johannine words and phrases and even whole passages often seem ambiguous, very probably because the evangelist intends the text to carry more than one idea or image. (p. 185)

There are times when looking at John's Gospel from the Historical-Critical method just doesn't work. Sometimes you just have to go with your gut, your heart, and/or your faith.

And finally, this little gem from the EfM text:

One might think of this Gospel as a Greek drama, with Jesus as protagonist, the Jews, antagonists, and the disciples and /or crowds as chorus. (p. 178)

This brings to mind a discussion about Corneille's Polyeucte during one of my college French literature classes as to whether or not the protagonist had the "fatal flaw" necessary to make him a tragic figure. Whether or not Jesus is a tragic figure might make for an interesting discussion, don't you think?

Tomorrow we'll begin Chapter 2 and be caught up with the Reading Plan. If you've been following along, did you note that there are no readings for Saturdays or Sundays? I wonder why they did that? Anyone have any ideas about that?

Peace,
Jeffri