I thought the Keefer reading of John was very interesting. Growing up in the church I was aware of the separation in a way of John from the other gospels, but I never really knew why it was separated. Reading this explanation of it really helped and I loved the way they explained it. Personally, I never fully understood John, and that is because I was reading it like I would if I was reading Luke. I was thinking of it as more of a narrative more than anything else, when John is not that. It is much more than that in fact. John's use of semantic tones and circular metaphors really add a depth and almost a puzzle to his gospel. To really undertand it, you almost have to learn the code and then go back through and decipher it. This adds the extra bonus lesson within John that you don;t find on the first read through, but only on the second or third, as well as the face value lesson that is in John. This system is pretty ingenious and many novels are written in this way. Great authors use literary tactics just like this, so that leads me to believe that John was a very talented author as well as a type of biographer and theologian. It really just adds depth to the whole book now that I can see these things.
-Jacob Millay
Jacob,
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. It's interesting that we give John to "new" believers to read, when, as you observe, it's probably the most cryptic (except for Mark?) and the most circular of the 4. It's not that John is mystical, but its structure is certainly not straight-ahead narrative plot-driven stuff.