The Gospel of John is one of the four narratives of the Christian gospel included in the canon of Holy Scripture. It is known that none of these books had proven authorship, but traditionally it is believed that each Gospel was written by four disciples of Christ - the apostles. According to Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon, a certain Polycrates, who personally knew John, claimed that he was the author of one of the versions of the Good News. The place of this gospel in theological and theological thought is unique, because its text itself is not only and not so much a description of the life and commandments of Jesus Christ, but a presentation of His conversations with the disciples. Not without reason, many researchers believe that the narrative itself was formed under the influence of Gnosticism, and among the so-called heretical and unorthodox movements, it was very popular.
Early Interpretation of the Gospel of John
Christianity before the beginning of the fourth century did notwas a dogmatic monolith, rather, a doctrine previously unknown to the Hellenic world. Historians believe that the Gospel of John was the text that was positively received by the intellectual elite of antiquity, since it borrowed its philosophical categories. This text is very interesting in the field of explaining the relationship between spirit and matter, good and evil, the world and God. It is not for nothing that the prologue with which the Gospel of John opens speaks of the so-called Logos. “God is the Word,” the author of Scripture openly declares (Gospel of John: 1, 1). But the Logos is one of the most important categorical structures of ancient philosophy. One gets the impression that the real author of the text was not a Jew, but a Greek who had an excellent education.
Question about Prolog
The beginning of the Gospel of John looks very mysterious - the so-called prologue, that is, chapters 1 to 18. Understanding and interpreting this text eventually became the stumbling block within orthodox Christianity, on the basis of which the theological justifications for the creation of the world and theodicy were derived. For example, let's take the famous phrase, which in the synodal translation looks like “All things began to be through Him (that is, God), and without Him nothing was made that came into being” (John: 1, 3). However, if you look at the Greek original, it turns out that there are two oldest manuscripts of this Gospel with different spellings. And if one of them confirms the orthodox version of the translation, then the second one sounds like this: “Everything began to be through Him, and without Himnothing came into existence. Moreover, both versions were used by the Church Fathers during early Christianity, but later it was the first version that entered the church tradition as more “ideologically correct.”
Gnostics
This fourth gospel was very popular with various opponents of the orthodox dogmas of Christianity, who were called heretics. In early Christian times, they were often Gnostics. They denied the bodily incarnation of Christ, and therefore many passages from the text of this Gospel, justifying the purely spiritual nature of the Lord, came to their taste. Gnosticism also often contrasts God, who is “above the world”, and the Creator of our imperfect being. And the Gospel of John gives reason to believe that the dominance of evil in our lives does not come from the Heavenly Father at all. It often talks about the opposition of God and the World. No wonder one of the first interpreters of this Gospel was one of the disciples of the famous Gnostic Valentinus - Heracleon. In addition, among the opponents of orthodoxy, their own apocrypha were popular. Among them were the so-called "Questions of John", which spoke about the secret words that Christ said to his beloved disciple.
Origen's Masterpiece
This is how the French researcher Henri Cruzel called the comments of the ancient theologian to the Gospel of John. In his work, Origen criticizes the Gnostic approach to the text while quoting his opponent extensively. This is an exegetical work in whichthe well-known Greek theologian, on the one hand, opposes unorthodox interpretations, and on the other hand, he himself puts forward several theses, including those relating to the nature of Christ (for example, he believes that a person should move from his own essence to the angelic one), which were later considered heretical. In particular, he also uses the translation of Jn:1, 3, which was later recognized as inconvenient.
Interpretation of the Gospel of John Chrysostom
Orthodoxy is proud of its famous interpreter of Scripture. They are rightfully John Chrysostom. His interpretation of this gospel is included in a vast work of interpretation of the Scriptures, beginning with the Old Testament. He demonstrates great erudition, trying to bring out the meaning of every word and sentence. His interpretation plays a predominantly polemical role and is directed against the opponents of Orthodoxy. For example, John Chrysostom finally recognizes the above-described version of the translation John:.1, 3 as heretical, although before him it was used by respected Church Fathers, in particular, Clement of Alexandria.
When the gospel was interpreted politically
Perhaps it sounds surprising, but the interpretation of Scripture was also used to justify mass repressions, the destruction of objectionable people and the hunt for people. This phenomenon is most clearly manifested in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. During the formation of the Inquisition, chapter 15 of the Gospel of John was used by theologians to justify the burning of heretics at the stake. If we read the lines of Scripture, they give us a comparisonthe Lord with the vine, and his disciples with the branches. So, studying the Gospel of John (chapter 15, verse 6), you can find words about what should be done with those who do not abide in the Lord. They, like branches, are cut off, collected and thrown into the fire. Medieval lawyers of canon law managed to interpret this metaphor literally, thereby giving the go-ahead to cruel executions. Although the meaning of the Gospel of John completely contradicts this interpretation.
Medieval dissidents and their interpretation
During the reign of the Roman Catholic Church it was opposed
there were so-called heretics. Modern secular historians believe that these were people whose views differed from the "dictated from above" dogmas of the spiritual authorities. Sometimes they were organized into congregations, which also called themselves churches. The most formidable rivals of the Catholics in this regard were the Cathars. They not only had their own clergy and hierarchy, but also theology. Their favorite scripture was the Gospel of John. They translated it into the national languages of those countries where they were supported by the population. A text in Occitan has come down to us. In it, they adhered to that version of the translation of the Prologue, which was rejected by the official church, believing that in this way it is possible to justify the presence of a source of evil that opposes God. In addition, in interpreting that same chapter 15, they emphasized the fulfillment of the commandments and a holy life, and not the observance of dogmas. The one who follows Christ is worthy to be called His friend - such a conclusion they drew from the Gospel of John. The adventures of different interpretations of the text of Scripture are quite instructive and testify that any interpretation of the Bible can be used both for the good of a person and for his harm.
