So here’s the plan: each week that the gospels are covered in Sunday School, I will post one question from my book along with a brief discussion of the issues that it raises. Scholar Fernando Segovia lists seven different scholarly approaches to John 14-17: (1) Historicizing: the discourse is completely accurate, therefore chapter 15 occurs in a different location (because of 14:31). (2) Transpositional: sometime during transmission, the chapters were rearranged. (3) Redactional: there is a second speech (chapters 15–16) which is a different version of the first speech (chapter 14). (4) Symbolic: 14:31 is understood symbolically. (5) Unfinished: the text is a “rough draft;” the author did not finish polishing the text. (6) Compositional: the apparent contradictions in the text were deliberately crafted by the author to provoke the reader to think. (7) Integrative: regardless of the text’s history, we should ask: How does it now read? One example of this is to find a chiasmus: A love, glory (13:1–38) B Jesus’ departure (14:1–31) C joy/hate, abiding/persecution (15:1–11) D focal point: 15:12–17 C’ joy/hate, abiding/persecution (15:18–16:3) B’ Jesus’ departure (16:4–33) A’ love, glory (17:1–26) For which of the above theories can you make a good case based on the evidence in the text? Which ones seem without merit? (adapted from Search, Ponder, and Pray: A Guide to the Gospels)
Read more →