To examine the episodes in the Forth Gospel as symbolic of various types of spiritual characters and attitude.

The thesis is an examination of the problem of interpreting the Fourth Gospel and finding the Author's intent, and includes in its survey a detailed examination of the ancient commentators down to the fifth century. The writer believes that much modern work fails to do justice to the Fourth Gospel, for it begins with one or other of the assumptions that interpretation will yield ultimately either to the historical or psychological technique. These lines of interpretation (allegorical, mystical, mythical, devotional, even the purely historical), yield an impasse. The writer suggests that the episodes of the Fourth Gospel were deliberately selected by John as types of the human soul confronted in an historical experience by God in Christ. That the Johannine presentation was a deliberative and purposive design forced upon John by the sheer pressure of the intellectual and spiritual climate of the day needing an explanation of the synoptic which had stated everything but explained nothing, leaving unexplained problems of eternity and time, history and the Incarnation. That he attempted this by a selection of events from which the reader may transmute the historical experience of another into eternal truth for himself. That ancient commentators tried to unfathom John on these lines. That some modern interpreters corroborate this view. Following an introduction on the Sitz im Leben of the Fourth Gospel, there is a detailed examination of the commentaries of :- Heracleon (the Gnostic) - forty considerable fragments extant. Origen (640 pages extant). Cyril of Alexandria Chrysostom Augustine concluded by a discussion on how far modern interpreters corroborate the thesis. Whatever value the conclusions of the ancient commentators may now have, their technique of interpretation may prove to be the key which, if properly filed, will open the Forth Gospel. In this way the Fourth Gospel may regain its central position in our theology, and there without sacrifice of scholarship or intellect

La Exégesis del Evangelio de Juan en Heracleón y Orígenes : nuevas líneas de investigación acerca de una cuestión controvertida

El trabajo intenta mostrar cómo los dos primeros comentarios realizados al Evangelio de Juan en el período patrístico, el de Heracleón y el de Orígenes, responden a dos posibilidades igualmente válidas de interpretación y que las grandes líneas de exégesis de la posterior teología occidental se formaron en este tipo de “ambigüedad inicial”.This article shows how the first two commentaries in the patristic period on the Gospel According to John, those of Heracleon and Origen, drew on two equally valid interpretative possibilities. The article also shows that the large lines of subsequent theological interpretation in the West develop from this type of initial ambiguity

Ammonius of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea and the origins of gospels scholarship.

In the early third and fourth centuries respectively, Ammonius of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea engaged in cutting edge research on the relationships among the four canonical gospels. Indeed, these two figures stand at the head of the entire tradition of comparative literary analysis of the gospels. This article attempts to provide a more precise account of their contributions, as well as the relationship between the two figures. It argues that Ammonius, who was likely the teacher of Origen, composed the first gospel synopsis by placing similar passages in parallel columns. He gave this work the title Diatessaron-Gospel, referring thereby to the four columns in which his text was laid out. This pioneering piece of scholarship drew upon a long tradition of Alexandrian textual scholarship and likely served as the inspiration for Origen’s more famous Hexapla. A little over a century later, Eusebius of Caesarea picked up where Ammonius left off and attempted to accomplish the same goal, albeit using a different and improved method. Using the textual parallels presented in the Diatessaron-Gospel as his “raw data,” Eusebius converted these textual units into numbers which he then collated in ten tables, or “canons” standing at the beginning of a gospelbook. The resulting cross-reference system, consisting of the Canon Tables as well as sectional enumeration throughout each gospel, allowed the user to find parallels between the gospels, but in such a way that the literary integrity of each of the four was preserved. Moreover, Eusebius also exploited the potential of his invention by including theologically suggestive cross-references, thereby subtly guiding the reader of the fourfold gospel to what might be called a canonical reading of the four

In What Sense is the Prototokos a Kosmos? Origen's Exegesis of John 8:32*

To conclude a discursive exegesis of John 8:32, Origen asks in what way the, “Firstborn (Prototokos) of all creation is able to be a world.” The word translated as “world” in John’s gospel and in Origen’s text is κόσμος (kosmos). Origen then proceeds to explain in what sense he thinks the Prototokos is able to be a kosmos—but the explanation itself seems to require explanation. What sense of the word kosmos does Origen mean? The problem is unresolved. In fact, the use of kosmos here is so cryptic that even in Lampe’s Lexicon the lexical entry for κόσμος contains a sub-definition that cites only the present passage from Origen as an example of this particular meaning of the word. Yet the meaning itself remains unclear. Origen is using the word in a new way, and in so doing makes a radical Christological claim. This article will present the problem as it stands, introduce prior attempts at interpreting the cryptic passage, and finally put forth an original interpretation. In addition to attempting a better understanding of this particular passage in Origen’s commentary on John, the question has implications for our understanding of how Origen viewed the very dynamics of creation

An Analysis of the Text of the Fourth Gospel in the Writings of Origen

This thesis provides an analysis of the text of the Gospel of John in the writings of Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185-254). Two types of textual analyses, Quantitative and Group Profile, make up the core of this study. Such methods enable scholars to trace the history of transmission of the NT text, and this study confirms that Origen's text of John is a strong representative of the Primary Alexandrian text type, the purest form of the New Testament text. This thesis also provides a history of research of Origen's text of the New Testament, refines the critical methods used, and models the use of computer programs that increase the accuracy and efficiency of such studies. Finally, the conclusion places these data into historical context and answers several important questions, such as whether Origen changed his manuscripts of John upon relocation from Alexandria to Caesarea in 231

“The Triumph of Pro-Nicene Theology over Anti-Monarchian Exegesis: Cyril of Alexandria and Theodore of Heraclea on John 14.10-11"

This article begins by identifying a previously unknown quotation in Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on the Gospel of John as an extract from the Johannine commentary of Theodore of Heraclea, a leading member of the fourth-century Eusebian alliance. I argue that the relevant fragment from Theodore’s commentary dealing with John 14.10–11 reveals his attempt to oppose Marcellus’s Monarchian exegesis of John 10.38. In order to do so he drew upon third-century anti-Monarchian authors, most notably Origen. Cyril responded to Theodore’s exegesis in a thoroughly pro-Nicene fashion, demonstrating that his exegesis fell short of the pro-Nicene consensus that developed in the latter half of the fourth century. Cyril’s chief criticisms of Theodore’s exegesis are that he applied corporeal categories to the Son, that he implied that the Son does not share the Father’s infinity, and that he failed to adequately distinguish the Father/Son relationship from the Creator/creation relationship. This small episode highlights the shifting doctrinal concerns from the fourth to the fifth centuries, as well as the centrality of biblical exegesis to theological formulation during these years

The Synoptic Problem (Introduction and Chapter One of A Beginner\u27s Guide to New Testament Studies: Understanding Key Debates)

Excerpt: When I first entered theological education as a seminary student, I found myself completely lost in the world of biblical scholarship. Not only were there so many technical terms I couldn’t define and histories of interpretation with which I was not acquainted, but it seemed like there were two, or three, or ten views on various debated issues, and I had trouble keeping them straight. Oh, how I wished I had a map that could help me find my way through the maze of scholarship, or a guide to clue me into this view and that view

Heracleon: Fragments of early Valentinian exegesis. Text, translation, and commentary

This thesis offers an in-depth study of Heracleon, an early Christian writer from the second century CE, who wrote the earliest known commentary on the Gospel of John. The text of this ancient commentary, written in Greek from the perspective of Valentinian theology, is known only from fragmentary citations made from it by Origen in his own later commentary on the same gospel. Although long-known as a representative of the Valentinian schools, Heracleon has often been neglected due to scholarly preoccupations with his teacher, Valentinus, as well as an ever-increasing emphasis on the Valentinian writings found within the Nag Hammadi codices. This thesis attempts to fill a gap in Valentinian scholarship by closely re-examining the fragments of Heracleon in an effort to gain a clearer picture of his principal teachings. In order to do so, the Greek text of each fragment is provided along with an original English translation and accompanying analysis and commentary. In addition to the original text provided in Chapter 2, Chapter 1 discusses what is known about Heracleon’s biography and situates him within the early Christian exegetical tradition. Finally, Chapter 3 supplies an integrative analysis of the major themes found within the fragments and suggests directions for further research. After close examination, Heracleon can be seen not only as an important representative of Valentinian theology but as a significant witness to early Christian allegorical exegesis. The surviving fragments reveal that Heracleon’s reading of the Gospel of John places emphasis on a number of key issues, such as the metaphysical opposition between the “eternal” and the “worldly,” the accessibility of salvation to a variety of human dispositions, and the nature of “true worship.” Unlike earlier studies on the fragments that have placed primary emphasis on their more abstract implications, this thesis demonstrates through his exegetical readings of the gospel, that Heracleon engages in a polemical discussion with a number of contemporary religious groups about how most authentically to worship God. As a result, a clearer picture of the social world in which Heracleon and other Valentinians were engaged begins to emerge