George C. Heider, «The Gospel according to John: The New Testament’s Deutero-Deuteronomy?», Vol. 93 (2012) 68-85
The article examines parallels in canonical function between Deuteronomy and John. Following clarification of the significance of «canonical function», the essay investigates first external parallels between the two books that impact their reading especially within their sections of the OT and NT. It then looks at internal components of the books that contribute to their larger canonical role, with especial attention paid to the role of the future community as implied readership, rhetorical devices, location, and claims of final authority and sufficiency. The article concludes with a proposal regarding ways in which the two books do, indeed, function within their testamental canons in like ways.
The Gospel according to John: The New Testament’s
Deutero-Deuteronomy?
There is an obvious parallel between the Fifth Book of Moses
and the Fourth Gospel: each concludes the first, chief section of its
testament in the Christian Bible, the Torah (or Pentateuch) and the
Gospels, respectively. Beyond such a “firm grasp of the obviousâ€,
however, is there more to be said about resemblances in how the
two books function within the Old and New Testaments? This essay
presses that question forward on two levels: (1) similarities in
theological role that each plays within the larger canon of its
testament (a resemblance that self-evidently extends outside of
either book); and (2) similar themes, emphases, and attitudes within
each book that contribute to parallel theological functions for the
two books within their respective testaments.
I. The Significance of “Canonical Functionâ€
What we aim to do and why in this first section was well
articulated over twenty-five years ago by Harry Y. Gamble with
respect to the New Testament, but in terms that apply with equal force
to the Old:
The interpretation of the NT is normally understood to consist in the
interpretation of the individual documents contained in it, studied in
and of themselves and with a view to their generative contexts and
inherent meanings, but with little or no consideration of their place
within the canon. From a historical point of view this is a thoroughly
legitimate approach, since the setting of these documents within the
canon is secondary and has no direct bearing on the recovery of their
original meanings. Nevertheless, this ought not to be confused (as it
regularly is) with the interpretation of the NT as such, for the NT is
something both more and different than the sum of its parts, and the
meaning of the whole may not simply be equated with the
cumulative meanings of its constituent elements. ... In the nature of
the case, canonization entails a recontextualization of the documents
incorporated into the canon. They are abstracted from both their
BIBLICA 93.1 (2012) 68-85
FOLLOW US