"The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it": The spirit beyond the Christological debate: Toward a pneumatological interpretation of John 1:5 Author: Jean Luc Enyegue Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/bc-ir:105005 This work is posted on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries. Boston College Electronic Thesis or Dissertation, 2013 Copyright is held by the author, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted. “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it” THE SPIRIT BEYOD THE CHRISTOLOGICAL DEBATE: TOWARD A PEUMATOLOGICAL ITERPRETATIO OF JOH 1:5 Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the S.T.L. Degree from Boston College School of Theology and Ministry (Weston Jesuit) Submitted by: Jean Luc Enyegue, SJ CoMentors: Thomas D. Stegman, SJ Margaret Guider, OSF Boston College School of Theology and Ministry Brighton, Massachusetts April, 2013 Table of Contents Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….1 Chapter One: The Christological Debate: Strengths and Limits of Hypothesis One..6 1) The Issue of the Structure of the Prologue……………………….……………….7 2) My Evaluation of the Exegetical Argument……………………………….……..9 3) Theological Advantages of H1……………………………………………….…...12 a. The Incarnation as a Process for a Religious Pluralism…………...……..12 b. The Catholic Response to These ew Challenges ……………………..….16 c. The Incarnation as a Process for a Process Theology………..…………..17 d. Evaluation of the Process Theology’s Argument………………...……..….20 4) Conclusion of Chapter 1.……………………….…………………………...……..22 Chapter Two: Arguments in Favor of the Second Hypothesis (H2)…………...……24 1) The Verb Tense and the Structural Issue………………………………….……24 2) The Argument Against Käsemann: Understanding φαίνει……………...….27 3) The Symbol of Light and Darkness in John 1:5.…………………………..…..28 4) Reasons Why John 1:5 Is ot and Should ot Refer to the Incarnation..….32 a. And the Word Became Flesh, and Dwelt Among Us (John 1:14)..…..….33 b. The Incarnation is a Central Issue in the History of the Dogma……..…35 c. Flesh is ot ecessarily Contrary to Universality…..………………..…..38 d. Justin Martyr’s Doctrine of the Universal Logos…………..…………..…42 5) Conclusion of Chapter Two…………………..…………………………….….…43 Chapter Three: Toward a Pneumatological Interpretation of John 1:5 ……………45 1) The ature of the “Word”: Rediscovering Its Pneumatological Meaning...45 a. The Hermeneutics of Personified Wisdom as Background of the “Word”…………………………………………………………………………45 b. The Historicized Wisdom of Israel and the Prologue of John’s Gospel..48 c. Identification of Lady Wisdom with the Lord and the Creator Spirit..….50 2) Biblical and Theological Foundations of this Wisdom Pneumatology.….…52 a. The Ambiguity of Wisdom in Support of the Pneumatological Shift…....52 b. In the Scripture, Wisdom Has A Divine Origin..……………………….…55 c. Matthew Edward: Wisdom as Ruah, Pneuma, or Spirit………………….56 3) Wisdom Pneumatology as a Theological ecessity……………….……..……58 a. There Is no Wisdom Christology Without a Wisdom Pneumatology…...58 b. We Become Children of God by Receiving the Power of God (John 1:12)…………………………………………………………………………………60 c. “How Can This Be?” (John 3:9): Presupposing the Holy Spirit…..……63 d. It is Proven by the Tradition of the Church..……………………………....68 4) Some Conclusions From Chapter Three……..……….…….…………………..70 Conclusion……………………….……….……………………………………..…74 Bibliography……………..………………………….……………….…………….88 Introduction According to Bruce Vawter, the Incarnation is not only an affirmation of Christian dogma but also the very essence of salvation.1 In another article in the same volume, he defines the Incarnation as “the tremendous mystery by which the eternal Word took on our human nature, becoming one of us in everything except sin (Heb 4:15); in everything, that is, except what was incompossible with divinity.”2 The pivotal question in this thesis is whether or not John 1:5, καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν (The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it) refers to the Incarnation. Johannine scholars have debated the point about where the Incarnation is first referred to in the Prologue of John. According to one hypothesis (which I will call the First Hypothesis [H1]), advocated by scholars such as Ernst Käsemann, John 1:5 refers to the Incarnation. In Chapter One below, I will first set forth the exegetical and theological reasons why these Johannine scholars propose 1:5 as a reference to the Incarnation. Second, presupposing momentarily that scholars supporting this hypothesis are right in their approach, I will take up the issue of how its insights could help with various contemporary Christological debates, specifically religious pluralism and process theology. In doing so, I will offer a sympathetic case for the First Hypothesis. Other scholars refute the position that John 1:5 refers to the Incarnation (I will call this the Second Hypothesis [H2]). I will take up this position in Chapter Two. However, we will see that not all Johannine scholars who disagree with H1 actually 1 Bruce Vawter, “Johannine Theology,” in The Jerome Biblical Commentary (ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Roland E. Murphy; Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968), 828-839, at 832. 2 Bruce Vawter, “The Gospel According to John,” in The Jerome Biblical Commentary, 414-466, at 423. 1 agree on a specific point in which the Incarnation is first alluded to in the Prologue. Francis Moloney, for example, divides the first five verses into two categories: vv. 12 (pre-existence) and vv. 3-5 (creation through the Word). And the Word is with human beings until the Incarnation (vv. 614). At the same time, Moloney suggests that the coming of the Word into the world has been established since vv. 3c-4 and 9.3 Raymond E. Brown offers the best critique of H1, but Brown’s own position is confusing. On the one hand, he already sees Jesus’ ministry beginning in verses 1012b while, on the other hand, he believes that the Incarnation takes place at John 1:14. Rudolf Bultmann confers a liturgical meaning to the whole Prologue, but also offers two contradictory affirmations. First, he believes that “the turning point of the Prologue is verse 14, which speaks of the Incarnation of the Logos: the Word became flesh. Up to this point, we may have been dealing with the pre-existent Logos.”4 Specifically, John 1:513’s subject is the Logos, as Revealer in history, and a preliminary description of his Incarnation which really takes place with the change of the verb tense in verse 14: Just as the et incarnatus est marks a turning point in the Mass, Bultmann says, so too here the character of the Prologue changes. This is most noticeable in the source, which till now had spoken of the revelation in creation; but there is also a change in the style of the Evangelist, who from v.5 onwards has spoken indirectly, only hinting at what is to come. Now the riddle is solved, the miracle is proclaimed: the Logos became flesh!5 Second, in his Theology of the ew Testament, Bultmann affirms: Within the world of death life appeared (1 Jn. 1:2), into the world of darkness came the light (1:5; 3:19) –it came by the coming of the Son of God into the world. Jesus is he. Thus he came after the Baptist in time, he nevertheless was prior to him (1:15, 30). He even claims that he was before Abraham (8:58); yes, even more: that he was before the foundation of the world (17:5, 24). It is 3 Francis Moloney, The Gospel of John (ed. Daniel J. Harrington; Collegeville, MIN.: The Liturgical, 1998), 38. 4 Quoted by Charles K. Barrett, ew Testament Essays (London: S.P.C.K., 1972), 32. 5 Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray; Oxford: Basil Blackweel, 1971), 60-61. I will refer to it as First Bultmann in the text. 2 he in whom the Christian Congregation believes as the one “who was from the beginning” (1 Jn. 2:13f.). In him the “Word” which in the beginning was with God became flesh (1:1f., 14) and came into its own property –i.e. into the world, which belongs to it, and hence to him, as the one through whom it came into being (1:911).6 My assessment is that these disagreements among scholars are due to the complexity of the nature of the Prologue of John’s Gospel. Moreover, these scholars fail to offer a clear definition of the Incarnation before debating whether or not the Incarnation begins in one verse of the Prologue or in another. From my systematic point of view, the lack of clarity in the definition of the Incarnation is troubling. Thus, in the second chapter I will also argue in favor of H2 that John 1:5 does not allude to the Incarnation. But I will also go beyond the exegetical argumentation of this hypothesis to point out the dogmatic risks of any misunderstanding of the Incarnation. At this point, two questions catch my attention: 1) Why isn’t John 1:5 a reference to the Incarnation? To this question, I offer both exegetical and theological arguments. 2) Why should not 1:5 and anything else before 1:14 be a reference to the Incarnation? My response to this question is based on the history of the dogma, specifically, how flesh is central in the Church’s fight against heresies. In fact, it seems to me that all the heresies in the history of dogma are caused by, or are a direct or indirect effect of, a confused understanding of the Incarnation, an understanding based on the suspicion of the fact that the Word of God became flesh (John 1:14).