Talbert John and Christology
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 4:02 am
After Ben mentioned The Development of Christology During the first hundred years by Charles Talbert, I have been reading it. Thanks Ben.
I find its ideas very interesting, some of them more likely than others.
I have one major problem. Talbert IIUC holds that the present form of the Gospel of John, read on its own without reference to the rest of the NT, represents the incarnation of the pre-existent word as occurring at the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. IMO this is almost impossible. The present form of the Gospel of John marginalises the baptism of Jesus, (it is only present as an allusion made by John the Baptist). I don't believe that an ancient reader would have understood this briefly alluded-to event as having the ontological significance that Talbert claims the author of John intended. (There may have been an earlier version of John for which Talbert's exegesis would be legitimate, but this is a separate issue.)
Talbert's understanding of John appears to be a central part of his picture of 1st century Christology and I just can't regard it as plausible.
Andrew Criddle
I find its ideas very interesting, some of them more likely than others.
I have one major problem. Talbert IIUC holds that the present form of the Gospel of John, read on its own without reference to the rest of the NT, represents the incarnation of the pre-existent word as occurring at the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. IMO this is almost impossible. The present form of the Gospel of John marginalises the baptism of Jesus, (it is only present as an allusion made by John the Baptist). I don't believe that an ancient reader would have understood this briefly alluded-to event as having the ontological significance that Talbert claims the author of John intended. (There may have been an earlier version of John for which Talbert's exegesis would be legitimate, but this is a separate issue.)
Talbert's understanding of John appears to be a central part of his picture of 1st century Christology and I just can't regard it as plausible.
Andrew Criddle