Quote:
Originally Posted by greenbaggins  Hmm. I don't think that the previous context militates against my position on that verse. After saying such and such about Jesus, John can now say, "See, this proves that the Christ is Jesus." Carson argues that the purpose of the book is evangelistic, and primarily to Jews. Thus, the overall context of the book favors my reading, since Jews would not be expecially interested in hearing more about Jesus, but they would be very interested in who the Messiah is. |
I say it in humility, Carson should know better. It's an exegetical fallacy to make a perceived purpose of a book determinative for interpretative questions. That's how we end up with meta-narratives. The text itself must be permitted to answer its own purpose. Especially in John, where the narrative is concerned to correct false notions concerning the Jews' expected Messiah.
Besides, the question, Who is the Messiah, is answered throughout the Gospel by "Jesus is the Messiah." The Samaritan woman's confession was, "Is not this the Christ?" Incidentally, the Greek construction is the same -- (nominative) estin ho Xristos. Yet nobody suggests it should be translated, "Is not the Christ this?" Clearly in both instances we are being given information about Iesous, and the information suffices to show that He is the one whom the Jews were expecting, called Christos.
But it's not a matter I think worth spilling much proverbial ink over. It brings me to realise yet again that individuals should be careful to guard against the strong temptation to say something new in order to make a contribution to the scholarly world. It's usually the case that those who systematise and clarify what is old make the best contribution to their fields.