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.
79
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN
location does not represent a parallel between Deuteronomy and John,
but there is an overlap: Jesus’ ministry is launched from the locus of
the end of Moses’ work. Raymond Brown suggests a resultant parallel
in John between the entrances of Jesus and Joshua into the Land 26;
even if correct, this thesis by no means excludes the possibility that
John sees Jesus picking up where Moses left off (taking “where†in its
most literal sense), thereby reiterating his theme of Jesus as the fuller
and truer revealer of God’s own heart (John 1,17-18).
A second shared location is (strange as it may sound) both there
and not there in both books: Jerusalem. Deuteronomy 12,5 famously
directs that Israelite worship be centralized at “the place that the LORD
your God will choose out of all your tribes as his habitation to put his
name there†(cf. 12,11; 14,23; 16,2.6.11; 26,2). There can be no
serious doubt that, given any critical dating of the book’s composition,
Jerusalem is clearly in mind as at least the chief and eventual place.
Similarly, in John’s Gospel Jesus finds himself in Jerusalem far more
often than in the other gospels (so that the very idea of a three-year
ministry is based on John’s testimony to three Passover celebrations
there). Yet Deuteronomy never explicitly names Jerusalem, and, for
his part, John’s Jesus tells the Samaritan woman at the well that
Jerusalem is the place of right worship, but not the ultimate place, nor
is the temple cult there the final mode (John 4,21-24). As we will see,
this sense of penultimacy — of “yes, but there’s more†and of
“implied, but not named†— will feature in additional parallels yet to
be discussed below.
Thirdly, lying somewhere between the literal and figurative
senses of “location†is a looming sense of alienation from treasured
places in both books. Deuteronomy — at least in its final form —
includes especially toward its end a number of threats that point to
exile from the land of promise as a consequence of violation of the
covenant (e.g., 28,36.41.63-68; 29,27 [ET v. 28]). For its part, as
many scholars have observed, John’s Gospel appears to reflect a
time in the late first century when members of at least one
community within the “Jesus movement†were in active danger of
expulsion from the Jewish synagogue (9,34; 12,42) 27.
v
(northern) location for Jesus’ baptism, respectively, “at†(εvπί) or “in†(ει ς)
but not “beyond†(Ï€ÎÏαν) the Jordan.
26
R. BROWN, The Gospel according to John (i-xii) (AB 29; Garden City,
NY 1966) 44.
27
Thus, a significant difference must also be conceded: Deuteronomy fore-