The Spiritless Son of Man: Disentangling λόγος and πνεῦμα in the Fourth Gospel
The phrase ‘the Word became flesh’ (Jn 1.14) is underdetermined. The author apparently depended on mutually informed context to communicate its meaning. In recent years, Francis Watson and Troels Engberg-Pedersen have proposed different contexts for understanding John, but have agreed that, when the...
| Главный автор: | |
|---|---|
| Формат: | Электронный ресурс Статья |
| Язык: | Английский |
| Проверить наличие: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Загрузка...
|
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Опубликовано: |
2025
|
| В: |
Journal for the study of the New Testament
Год: 2025, Том: 47, Выпуск: 4, Страницы: 600-618 |
| Другие ключевые слова: | B
Son of Man
B Gospel of John B Christology B Логос B Spirit B Stoicism |
| Online-ссылка: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Итог: | The phrase ‘the Word became flesh’ (Jn 1.14) is underdetermined. The author apparently depended on mutually informed context to communicate its meaning. In recent years, Francis Watson and Troels Engberg-Pedersen have proposed different contexts for understanding John, but have agreed that, when the appropriate context is provided, λόγος and πνεῦμα can be read synonymously. On the basis of this judgment, Watson and Engberg-Pedersen each settle on an ‘adoptionist’ reading of John: that the Word became flesh when the Spirit descended on Jesus (Jn 1.32–34). Both scholars argue that the adoptionist perspective ‘works’ when posited throughout the rest of the narrative. However, I argue that these readings are unable to fully incorporate John’s Son of Man theme. I argue that John’s Jesus is subtly depicted as the Son of Man both before he receives the πνεῦμα and after he gives it up. Furthermore, if the ‘adoptionist’ view is ruled out then the traditional reading––that Jn 1.14 refers to the miraculous conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit––becomes a more attractive possibility. John may know this tradition through oral reports, but the ambiguity of Jn 1.14 may also serve as indirect evidence for the growing view that John knows the Synoptic Gospels. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1745-5294 |
| Второстепенные работы: | Enthalten in: Journal for the study of the New Testament
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1177/0142064X251313793 |
