This is one of those transition passages that are usually skipped over without much thought. It directly follows Jesus' brief but successful ministry among the Samaritans and reads as follows: “When the two days were over Jesus left for Galilee. For He himself had said that a prophet is not without honor except in his own land. On his arrival the Galileans received him well, having seen all that he had done at Jerusalem during the festival which they had attended.”
The more one thinks about this passage, the more confusing it seems:
For example, Blum asks the logical question: “Is His 'own country' Judea or Galilee? Or is His 'own country' heaven, with His being rejected in his 'own land' Israel?”
And Morris notes that verses 43 and 44 “are joined by 'for', but it is not easy to see how the second gives the reason for the first.”
R.E. Brown goes further in stating, “These three verses constitute a notorious crux in the Fourth Gospel. In the early 3rd century Origen said of vs. 44, 'This saying seems completely to defy sequence.' In the early 20th century Lagrange confessed that there was no apparent means of explaining this passage according to the rules of strict logic.”
Borchert echoes these sentiments: “The text has been recognized as a problem for centuries and most attempted solutions leave some unanswered questions.”
The following summarizes various interpretive approaches taken toward these difficult verses.
Ignore the Greek text and interpret it so that it “makes sense.”
This is the most drastic of the solutions to the perceived problem, but it is one taken by The Jerusalem Bible. Here is how it renders the passage: “When the two days were over Jesus left for Galilee. He himself had declared that there is no respect for a prophet in his own country, but on his arrival the Galileans received him well, having seen all that he had done at Jerusalem during the festival which they too had attended.”
Thus, by simply leaving out “for” in one place and adding “but” in another, the passage can be made to read smoothly, even if that isn't what the text actually says.
Unfortunately, that sort of loose approach to translation by JB occurs in a number of other places, both OT and NT.
Dismiss verse 44 as being added by another hand.
As Kermode says, “The difficulty comes from the apparent irrelevance of the saying about the prophet in his own country...The easy answer is that somebody has clumsily inserted the verse.” Of course, the easiest answer is not necessarily the best one, and one should not resort to it unless all other approaches fail. As we shall see below, Brown ultimately opts for the “redactor solution,” but not without at least wrestling with alternatives. Brown's decision is reflected in his Anchor Bible translation of John where he places verse 44 in parentheses.
One major objection to this solution is that there is absolutely no manuscript evidence showing that John's Epistle existed without v. 44. And as mentioned above, even as early as the 3rd century the text apparently existed as we have it today.
Also Morris says that the redactor explanation “poses the question why a straightforward text should be complicated by a perplexing gloss.”
Finally, it turns out that there are several other explanations that do not have to fall back on the unproven hypothesis of multiple authorship.
“Own land” refers to Israel
Borchert feels that “perhaps the reference is to his native land or country and could be viewed as a general reference to Israel. Such a view might be supported by referring to the Prologue, which indicated that he came to his own place (idia), and his own people (idioi) did not receive him (1:11). The favorable reception of the Galileans here (4:45) might then fall within the exception statement in the Prologue, which indicated alternatively that the 'all who received him' (1:12) were not to be included among the native rejecters of the Logos/Word.”
He further elaborates: “One must ask whether or not the statement could be a proleptic evaluation of the receptive patterns of Israel in spite of the immediate welcome of the Galileans.”
“Own land” refers to Judea
Borchert also discusses this option: “The use of the maxim [v. 24]...seems to suggest that Jesus should be regarded as being from another region – namely Judea. It could of course be argued that Jesus should technically be regarded as a Judean because he was born in Bethlehem and therefore the maxim would make sense here.” The problem is that elsewhere in John's Gospel, Jesus is referred to as coming from Galilee instead (1:46; 2:1`2; ch 7; 19:19). So, Borchert continues: “The use of this maxim may thus point to the fact that John could have known the Synoptics and was by implication correcting a misapplication of the use of the maxim.”
This appears to be a rather roundabout way for John to point out this fact. And Brown points out some additional problems with this explanation:
1. Jesus was not just then leaving Judea to go to Galilee. He was leaving Samaria instead.
2. Nowhere in John's Gospel does it say that Jesus was born in Judea.
3. “Moreover, there is an implication in this explanation that Jesus was disappointed with the reception he had received in Judea and had come back to Galilee to be accorded the honor denied him in Judea. Such a search for human praise is abhorrent to the ideals of the Fourth Gospel (ii 24-25; v 41-44).”
“Own land” refers specifically to Jerusalem
Ellis states that “his own country (patris) must mean here not Nazareth in Galilee, as it usually does in the Synoptics (cf. Mk 6:4, etc.), but, in view of the messianic context, Jerusalem in Judea, regarded by all Jews as their proper home.”
Guthrie includes this as one of several explanations for the passage by saying that “for a Jew a prophet's country was generally regarded to be Jerusalem. Hence signs in Jerusalem would deeply impress the Galileans.”
Seemingly fitting into this explanation are two other events in Jesus' life. The first is when Jesus attended a feast in Jerusalem for the first time and was found by his parents conversing with the teachers in the temple. His reply to them was “I must be about my Father's business.” (Luke 2:41-51) Then there was the later time when Jesus' brothers sarcastically urged Him to go to Jerusalem and impress the people there with his great abilities (John 7:1-5).
“Own land” refers to Galilee
Despite the seeming contradiction between verses 24 and 25, several scholars attempt to explain it away. Even Brown says that “the insertion of vs. 44 does not contradict 45 once we understand that a superficial welcome based on enthusiasm for miracles [by the Galileans] is no real honor.”
“Generally Galilee was more favorable to Him but even there men tried to kill Him (Luke 4:18-30). John was perhaps preparing his readers for the upcoming rejection; he may have been saying that even with the warm reception Jesus received in Galilee, He still was not really accepted (cf. John 2:24-25; 4:48).” (Blum)
“The saying about a prophet being without acceptance in his own country is reported in all three Synoptists (Matt. 13:57 Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24), and in connection with Jesus' visit to Nazareth. Perhaps the 'for' is meant to indicate that Jesus must show that this is indeed the case. He had come unto His own, not under a delusion that He would be welcomed, but knowing full well that He must expect a rejection.” (Morris)
“He goes on into Galilee, to receive the kind of welcome which He knew so well to be hollow and worthless.” (Lloyd)
“Own land” refers to heaven
“Does not St. John perhaps wish to teach that if the Lord's patris ['land'] is sought anywhere on earth, nowhere does He receive the honor due to Him, even as a prophet? For He is not of this world and His patris is in heaven.” (Lightfoot)
In conclusion, there are a number of viable way to understand these verses instead of just giving up on the endeavor and chalking it up as an unwarranted addition.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments