No description available.

No description available.

This thesis deals with the question of the concept of freedom in the Gospel of John and the relationship between freedom and truth. The first part of this thesis is focused on the research of concepts of freedom and truth from the Old Testament to the New Testament, it is a description of historical background in which both terms were formed and transformed. This thesis also includes a detailed exegesis of the text of J 8.31-36, which served as the starting point. Due the fact that notion of freedom is most often found in the New Testament in the Gospel of John and Paul's Epistles, I insert a chapter charting the occurrence and use of the concept of freedom in Paul's epistles. In the main part of the thesis I compare the use of the concept of freedom in the Gospel of John and in Paul's letters.

One of the distinctive features of the Fourth Gospel is the emphasis placed on the divine name (ὄνομα). The name occurs eight times (5.43; 10.25; 12.13, 28; 17.6, 11-12, 26), in key passages and in striking expressions such as “I have made known your name” (17.6) and “your name, which you gave me” (17.11). This thesis uses historical-critical methodology in a close reading of the Fourth Gospel to determine why John is so attracted to the name category. It is argued that, for John, the divine name was fundamentally an eschatological category with a built-in duality or “associative” significance, which he derives primarily from his reading of Isaiah. It is plausible that Isaiah was the primary impetus for John’s interest in the divine name, because name language is bound up with the “I am” expression and glory language in Isaiah— both of which more clearly underlie John’s “I am” sayings and glory motif. Furthermore, the significance of the name in Isaiah as the object of eschatological expectation (Isa 52.6), and as a concept by which God is associated with his Servant, attracted John to the name category as ideal for his nuanced presentation of Jesus. In John’s use of the name category, it is possible to distinguish the question of significance from that of referent, meaning, and function. This, in turn, facilitates a clear evaluation of possible catalysts for John’s name concept. It is demonstrated that a variety of Jewish and Christian background influences contributed to John’s name concept at the level of referent, meaning, and function. However, the eschatological and associative significance of the name in the Fourth Gospel is particularly indebted to the name concept in Isaiah. This is significant, in part, because Isaiah places such emphasis on the exclusivity of God. It may be that a zeal for God’s exclusivity had generated accusations against the community of believers known to John, that, by their allegiance to Jesus, they were guilty of blaspheming the name in particular. The name was, perhaps, a “flashpoint” for the community, and the text of Isaiah a key battle-ground for defining fidelity to God, and the identity of the people of God. By associating Jesus with the divine name, John legitimates the allegiance of believers to Jesus in the face of Jewish opposition, as well as comforts those who were troubled by the continued absence of Jesus, with the point that they were yet identified by the divine name (17.11), and that eschatological revelation of the name promised in Isaiah was extended to their own time as well (17.26b).

Boston University. University Professors Program Senior theses. / PLEASE NOTE: Boston University Libraries did not receive an Authorization To Manage form for this thesis. It is therefore not openly accessible, though it may be available by request. If you are the author or principal advisor of this work and would like to request open access for it, please contact us at open-help@bu.edu. Thank you. / 2031-01-02

This dissertation examines temporal frames in the Gospel of John and the Johannine letters and traces the ways that these texts and those who received them constructed and employed temporality to shape belief in Christ. Building on existing scholarship on Johannine literature and temporality, I situate these writers and their readers within their contemporary Greek, Roman, and Jewish social and rhetorical contexts, exploring the use of temporal markers, calendrical calculations, and claims about the past, present, and future in ancient discourses of self-definition. The Gospel of John uses an account of Jesus’s life and deeds to assert the God of Israel’s exclusive prerogative to create, control, and dominate not only time but also earthly authorities. The writer(s) of the Gospel place the Logos “in the beginning,” situate events within Jewish temporal frames, and align Jesus’s resurrection with solar time to portray Jesus as a sovereign, divine agent. The Johannine letters also employ temporality, but differently. The letters link the past with the present to establish an identity for the audience by assuring them of their genealogical and temporal bonds with Jesus. The letters seek to distance perceived opponents, who are labeled “Antichrist,” by describing them as agents of the devil who sinned “from the beginning.” A later group of Christ believers known as the “Quartodecimans” received and adopted Johannine temporality for their own purposes. Celebrating Easter in full coordination with the Passover, for example, Melito of Sardis envisioned God’s salvific work in a continuity that directly linked salvation from the Exodus to Jesus’s death and resurrection. Melito employed temporality to create a mobile and porous boundary between Christ believers and other groups and to claim the theological superiority of his own group. This analysis of Johannine literature indicates that ancient writers widely employed claims about temporality to distinguish their perceived audiences from other groups. These writers sought to persuade the followers of Christ to adopt particular temporal outlooks and to ascribe them to concomitant theological assertions. They thus established their exclusive authority to interpret Jesus’s life and deeds and defame false teachings.

<p>This study will critically evaluate the dominant framework through which the Johannine <em>aposynagōgos</em> passages (John 9:22, 12:42, 16:2) are read. This dominant framework, which understands these passages as allegorically encoding the history of a putative Johannine community some forty to fifty years after Jesus’ lifetime, will be judged exegetically and historically implausible. An alternative reading of the passages will be developed, grounded in a philosophy of history derived from the critical realist epistemology developed by Bernard Lonergan and introduced into New Testament studies by Ben F. Meyer. It will be argued that these passages are historically plausible and that the Gospel author intended factuality and was plausibly knowledgeable on the matter. Consequently, it will be argued that a positive judgment of historicity can be assigned to these passages.</p> / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Historically, the study of NT Greek conditional statements has predominantly set its focus on the Mood and Tense of the protasis. More recently, semantic approaches based on the speaker's viewpoint, or attitude, have also been adopted, to classify conditionals either as statements of assertion or projection. As such approaches are based on a limited number of linguistic features and functions, they offer only a partial understanding of conditionals. Most grammarians also largely ignore the wider contexts of the biblical texts and conditionals' rhetorical function. The purpose of this study is twofold: to critically examine current methods of describing and classifying conditionals to propose a new method based on theory of language and the analytical framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL); and to apply the proposed interpretive framework to analyze selected conditionals found in the Gospel of John, exploring how Jesus uses conditionals to persuade his audience and how conditionals serve the persuasive purpose of the Gospel. Instead of following the conventional lines of investigation, this thesis adopts Systemic Functional Linguistics' multi-stratal structure and multi-functional concept of language. Structurally, the interpretive framework expands from the units of words and clauses to those of clause complexes. All three major functions of language (ideational, interpersonal, and textual) are included as part of the total meaning. An analytical interpretive framework is then set up and applied to selected conditionals in John 3-11. Based on the evidence such as the choice of the Mood, thematic structure, logico-semantic relation, grammatical intricacy, clustered and consecutive conditionals, and conditionals as topic and summative statements, it is concluded that the conditionals Jesus uses present a strongly persuasive case for the author's purpose of writing. On one hand, the conditionals that Jesus uses rebut the Jews' charge of blasphemy and make a convincing case for his Christological claim. On the other hand, conditionals by Jesus also provide his audience and the reader of John with a different viewpoint (an alternate world) to understand the deeper meaning of faith and discipleship. Johannine conditionals perform the function of persuading the reader of John toward faith and spiritual growth in Jesus (20:31). / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

This thesis is an assessment of the character of textual transmission reflected in the pre-fourth century Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Since John is the most attested New Testament book among the early papyri, has the highest number of papyri that share overlapping text, and is the best attested Christian text in the second century, it serves well as a case study into the level of fluidity and stability of the New Testament text in its earliest period of transmission. The transmission of New Testament writings in this period has been characterized by a number of scholars as error-prone, free, wild and chaotic. This thesis is an inquiry into the validity of this characterization. I contend that our earliest extant manuscripts should serve as the most relevant evidence for addressing this issue, both for the period in which they were copied and for inferences about the preceding period for which we lack manuscript evidence. My treatment of the earliest Greek manuscripts of John primarily involves a fresh and full assessment of the level of fluidity and stability exhibited in the 14 smaller fragments (P5, P22, P28, P39, P52, P90, P95, P106, P107, P108, P109, P119, P121, 0162) by identifying on the basis of internal evidence the character of variants and unique readings attested. Additionally, I compare the number, character and significance of the singular/sub-singular readings of each early fragmentary manuscript with those in the same portion of text in the major majuscule manuscripts up through the seventh century that share complete overlap. The unique readings of P66 and P75 are added to this comparison where they fully overlap with the smaller fragments. Since P45 and P66 have been particularly identified with a “free” manner of transmission, I include an extended discussion in my introductory section in which I engage with research on the character of transmission exhibited in these two witnesses. My analysis of these early manuscripts based on the internal evidence of readings allows for a more in-depth and accurate characterization of the freedom and/or care exhibited. The comparison of singular and sub-singular readings with those of the later majuscules facilitates a diachronic comparison of the number and nature of readings most likely to have been generated at the time in which each respective manuscript was transcribed. This latter step allows us to test, by way of these passages, whether or not the manuscript tradition can be fairly characterized as freer and more prone to corruption in the second and third centuries than in subsequent centuries. From these data, and in conjunction with observations made on any relevant physical features of the manuscripts themselves, I conclude that the copying of John during the second and third centuries was characterized largely by stability and by continuity with the later period. These conclusions serve the broader purpose of providing a window on the character of New Testament textual transmission in the earliest centuries.

The aim of this work is to take the methodology developed by Ernest Cowell, and further refined by James R. Royse, of cataloging singular readings of Greek scribes and seek to apply it to Coptic scribes. This study focuses on the text of John found in P. Mich Inv. 3521 and the singular readings of that manuscript. In order to have a basis of comparison, singular readings from two other Coptic versions of John are cataloged as well.1 In total 1619 singular readings have been identified in the three manuscripts. Following Colwell and Royse, the readings have been further divided into orthographic, sensible and nonsense readings. The sensible and nonsense readings have been further divided and categorized into additions, omissions, substitutions, transpositions and verbal prefixes. All of these entries are then noted in the accompanying database with appropriate commentary so that the reader may format and use the information in a variety of ways. In addition to the database, detailed commentary has been provided on the singular readings of P. Mich. Inv. 3521 with the following conclusions: Like Greek scribes, Coptic scribes are more likely to omit something than to add something; The category of "transpositions as corrected leaps" which James Royse found useful in his work, has proved unhelpful when dealing with this papyrus; and finally some preliminary analysis about the scribe of P. Mich. Inv. 351 is given. 1 Elinor Husselman, The Gospel of John in Fayumic Coptic (P. Mich. Inv. 3521), The University of Michigan Kelsey Museum of Archaeology Studies (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1962); Rodolphe Kasser, Papyrus Bodmer III: Évangile de Jean et Genèse I-IV, 2 en Bohaïrique (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1958); Herbert Thompson, The Gospel of St. John According to the Earliest Coptic Manuscript (London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1924).