| Barrett, Jesus Barrett, C. K. Jesus and the Gospel Tradition. London: SPCK, 1967. Barrett, John Barrett, C. K. The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978. Barrett, John and Judaism Barrett, C. K. The Gospel of John and Judaism. Translated from the German by D. Moody Smith. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Barrett, «John and Judaism» Barrett, C. K. «John and Judaism.» Pages 401–17 in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel: Papers of the Leuven Colloquium, 2000. Edited by R. Bieringer, D. Pollefeyt, and F. Vandecasteele-Vanneuville. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2001. Barrett, «Katelaben» Barrett, C. K. «Katelaben in John i.5.» ExpTim 53 (1941–1942): 297. Barrett, «Lamb» Barrett, C. K. «The Lamb of God.» NTS 1 (1954–1955): 210–18. Barrett, «Old Testament» Barrett, C. K. «The Old Testament in the Fourth Gospe1.» JTS 48/191–92 (July 1947): 155–69. Barrett, «Parallels» Barrett, C. K. «The Parallels between Acts and John.» Pages 163–78 in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith. Edited by R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Barrett, Spirit Barrett, C. K. The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition. London: SPCK, 1966. Barrett, «Spirit» Barrett, C. K. «The Holy Spirit in the Fourth Gospe1.» JTS NS 1 (1950): 1–15. Barrett, «Synoptic Gospels» Barrett, C. K. «John and the Synoptic Gospels.» ExpTim 85 (1973–1974): 228–33. Barrett, «Vocabulary» Barrett, C. K. «The Theological Vocabulary of the Fourth Gospel and the Gospel of Truth.» Pages 210–23 in Current Issues in NT Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Otto A. Piper. Edited by William Klassen and Graydon F. Snyder. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Barry, «Aristocrats» Barry, W. D. «Aristocrats, Orators, and the " Mob»: Dio Chrysostom and the World of the Alexandrians.» Historia 42 (1993): 82–103. Barth, Ephesians Barth, Markus. Ephesians. 2 vols. AB 34, 34A. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1974. |
| 4. Johns Purpose in This Setting Although some have used the summary statement of John 20to suggest that John " s purpose is to evangelize unbelievers, 1812 it is unlikely that John expected many non-Christian Jews to read his work, which is not worded toward their popular leaders in the most irenic manner (contrast perhaps Acts 3:17; 13:27). The different levels of belief in John suggest that the passage instead is meant to confirm believers in their faith, that they would «continue» in Jesus» message and thus be his disciples «indeed» (see 8:31–32). 1813 As we have been arguing, it is likely that John addresses especially believers in Jesus, many of whom are Jewish. (See further comment on 20:31.) Given the life-setting we have postulated above, following the lead of many other scholars, it is not difficult to suppose that John " s readers needed strong confirmation. They needed special assurance that they remained faithful to their ancestral or adopted Jewish faith, regardless of the charges that others raised against them. John thus reinforces their picture of Christianity as the true form of Judaism, and Jesus» followers as true heirs of the covenant promises of Israel–a teaching that should be understood as a remnant theology, as in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the context of a late first-century conflict, rather than in light of the use to which many Christians have put this theology in subsequent centuries. John " s generally negative use of the term «Jews» for Jesus» opposition in the Fourth Gospel could challenge this interpretation, but, if read in view of John " s whole Gospel, may instead confirm it. To this discussion we now turn. «The Jews» and Johannine Irony Scholars have long debated whether it is appropriate to call John anti-Jewish. The answer to the question depends largely on whether the document " s polemic is intra-Jewish or from Gentiles condemning Judaism. Some regard John " s portrayal of «the Jews» as anti-Jewish, the foundation for medieval and modern Christian anti-Semitism, 1814 and it is true that Nazi propaganda 1815 and anti-Semitic tracts in general 1816 have made abundant use of the Fourth Gospe1. |
| He elsewhere cites with favor the report of Dionysius, who distinguishes the Gospel from Revelation on the basis of style. Since Revelation explicitly purports to be written by John, the only way to distinguish the apostolic author of the Gospel from a different author of the Apocalypse is to attribute the latter to a different John. 830 It is thus not surprising that, after his discussion of the two Johns in Papias, Eusebius observes that it makes good sense that John the elder, as opposed to John the apostle, wrote the Apocalypse. 831 Eusebius has a clear agenda in propagating this position. 832 If Papias received traditions directly from the apostle, which is not itself inherently improbable, it becomes likely that the distinction between John the elder and John the apostle merely represents a tendency of tradition to overexegete, a characteristic also found in some rabbinic traditions. The name «John» was fairly common in this period as far as Palestinian Jewish names go, 833 but intrinsic probability does not tend to favor a disciple of the Apostle John named John, with whom the former was inadvertently conflated. Ancient writers sometimes confused persons of the same name, but they also sometimes created new persons on the supposition that two persons of the same name had been confused. Thus a story was circulated that the Pythagorean diet was to be attributed to a different Pythagoras, a story which Diogenes Laertius prudently found unpersuasive. 834 In a case not unlike John the elder versus John the apostle, some opined that Pythagoras the philosopher had a student with the same name responsible for the athletic treatises wrongly ascribed to the teacher. 835 Distinctions demanded by divergent traditions yielded more than one heroic Heracles and more than one Dionysus. 836 How then did the tradition arrive at two Johns, both buried in Ephesus? Even on the face of it, two prominent Johns both buried in Ephesus sounds suspicious. Holy sites were important to ancient religion, and competing churches in Ephesus may have wished to lay claim to the apostlés burial site, giving rise to the tradition of two Johns which Eusebius happily exploits. |
| 2.1.2). 843 The connection with Polycarp makes it unlikely that Irenaeus simply is guessing; his lack of clarification concerning a second John makes it likely that he referred to the apostle, son of Zebedee, since the Gospel tradition itself reports only one disciple John. Further, Irenaeus had previously lived in the East and later remained in close touch with the prominent Roman church, so he would likely know if the view he espoused differed from the accepted views of the other churches. But he seems to assume that other churches will support his claims. 844 After Irenaeus, all sources seem agreed on Johannine authorship. This fact, too, suggests that Irenaeus s claim lacked serious challengers in his day, and that it reflected whatever consensus already existed. 845 The date of the anti-Marcionite prologues to the Gospels is disputed, but if these prologues stem from the mid-second century (Marcion was active in Rome ca. 140 C.E.) they also may provide some evidence of early tradition. The anti-Marcionite prologue to John claims that Papias " s own exegetical books (which could still be checked into the Middle Ages) make John the author by dictation, and (according to the most likely interpretation) Papias his amanuensis. Some of the information attributed to Papias " s works here cannot be correct. John might have lived until the end of the first century, but he could not have lived long enough to excommunicate Marcion! If Papias claimed anything of this nature, perhaps it was that John excommunicated people with views like those of Marcion. But Papias " s work is no longer extant, and the anti-Marcionite prologue a weaker support in favor of Johannine authorship. Its primary value is its probable attestation that within the second century orthodox Christians were attributing the Gospel to «John,» without any need to specify which John was in view. 846 The anti-Marcionite prologue to Luke claims that the Apostle John wrote Revelation on Patmos and later added the Gospe1. 847 By the end of the second century, it is clear that Clement of Alexandria (who called it a «spiritual gospel») and Tertullian accepted Johannine authorship (Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 6.14.7). By this period the only persons to reject it were those stigmatized as the Alogoi, «senseless ones.» 848 Gaius of Rome was considered orthodox except on this point, but may have rejected Johannine authorship partly due to his polemic against the Phrygian Montanists, who made heavy use of Johannine claims. 849 From the end of the second century, the Gospel was unanimously accepted as coming from the apostle John. Although Eusebius focused on discussing the disputed works, he regards this Gospel as undisputedly John " s, and Eusebius knew many works now lost. 850 |
| Yet John " s baptism may be seen in continuity with Christian baptism. Certainly John " s baptism was incomplete without Jesus» gift of the Spirit, but John " s death did not end the practice of baptism, which already had been adopted by the Jesus movement (4:1–3). 4893 The proposal that John 3refers to Christian baptism also has much to commend it. 4894 Like the image of becoming a newborn child, the command to baptism stems from earlier in the Jesus tradition. 4895 Moreover, one can argue that baptism and faith typically occur together in Johannine thought; Potterie contends that faith elsewhere precedes (1 John 5:6), accompanies ( John 19:34–35 ), and here follows Christian baptism. 4896 Unfortunately, the baptismal character of these other references is also disputable, 4897 and it is difficult to see that Christian baptism would be offering Nicodemus an earthly analogy he could grasp (3:10–12). Still, John and his audience clearly do presuppose some information which Nicodemus does not (such as the identification of water with the Spirit in 7:37–39), so it is not impossible that John intends a reference to Christian baptism. Whatever else the water here means, if it alludes to any kind of baptism (and it probably does), it alludes to the public crossing of social boundaries, which would transfer Nicodemus from one community to another. 4898 It is hardly self-evident, however, that John " s audience would presuppose Christian baptism here; even some interpreters who see Christian baptism in this text acknowledge that the Fourth Gospel includes no other clear references to the ritua1. 4899 Further, in the context of his whole water motif, where Jesus frequently supersedes the water of Jewish traditions (see comment on 2:6; 4:10; 5:2; 7:38; 9:6; 19:34), including the water of John " s baptism (1:33), we propose another interpretation as more likely. 4900 One Jewish lustration ritual probably makes the most appropriate sense of the «earthly» analogy (3:12) that Jesus seems to offer Nicodemus: as noted above, converts to Judaism were apparently seen as newborn children, and proselyte baptism seems to have been a vital step in this conversion process. If this is the referent of «water,» it would certainly drive home a stark point: the teacher of Israel (3:10) himself needs to become a true Israelite (1:47), a true child of Abraham (8:39–40), one of the Lord " s sheep (10:14–15). 4901 |
| 4058 For the importance of the eyewitness component in «witness,» see, e.g., Aune, Environment, 81; Painter, John, 8; Trites, Witness, 4–19,136–39. 4059 Michaels, Servant, 36. Cranfield, «Baptism,» 58, argues that it was a vision but a real communication to Jesus; Bultmann, History, 248, thinks it describes an objective happening as in Matthew and Luke, but only because it is a faith legend. 4060 Pace Hill, Prophecy, 59; Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 18; cf. Bürge, Community, 52; Borg, Vision, 41,53 η. 19; Anderson, Mark, 75; Kelber, Story, 18–19; Hooker, Message, 13; Robinson, Problem, 81; Kingsbury, Structure, 14. 4062 Cf. also the christological inclusio of 1:1,18; 20(elsewhere, e.g., the sympathetic, choruslike εκκλησα, or public assembly, at the opening and close of Chariton Chaereas and Callirhoe). 4063 Cf. also dramatic language for personal deliverances (e.g. Ps 18:7–16 in context and some Qumran hymns, perhaps including the controversial «messianic» text 1 QH 3, which depicts the psalmist " s sufferings in terms of eschatological messianic woes). Mark " s heaven rending corresponds with the temple curtain " s rending (Rhoads and Michie, Mark, 46), but John omits this scene for other reasons than his own omission of the veil (Mark " s connection is subtle anyway). 4065 Frequent in rabbinic texts, e.g., Sipre Deut. 357.10.3; b. B. Bat. 58a, 73b, 85b; c Erub. 54b; Mak. 23b; Pesah. 114a (=Hu1. 44a); Sanh. 104b; Šabb. 88a; p. c Abod. Zar. 3:1, §2; Hor. 3:5, §3; Sotah 9:16, §2; Ta c an. 4:5, §10; Lev. Rab. 19:5–6; Lam. Rab. 1:16, §50; Ruth Rab. 6:4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:2, 11:16,17:5; reportedly Tannaitic sources in b. Hu1. 44a; Ketub. 104a; Šabb. 33b; Sotah 21a; Ecc1. Rab. 7:12, §1; Song Rab. 8:9, §3 (but many of the attributions are presumably part of later haggadah). For nonrabbinic parallels, see comment on 12:28. The connection cannot be limited to an Aqedah allusion (contrast Stegner, «Baptism»). 4067 B. Pesah. 94a; Hag. 13a, anachronistically attributed to ben Zakkai; similarly R. Isaac in b. Sanh. 39b. Although the evidence is quite late, it might be relevant that the bat qol could have eschatological ramifications in some very late rabbinic sources (Lev. Rab. 27:2). |
| Some scholars have proposed, even regarding the Synoptic Gospels, that the first two generations of the church forgot so much about Jesus that they created four times as much material about him as they preserved, even though eyewitnesses would have still remained alive. 2423 Because Schweitzer thought we could know little of Jesus, Bultmann and others thought the Gospels taught us more about the early church than about Jesus; yet the reverse is almost certainly true. 2424 Modern scholarly alternative reconstructions of Jesus and early Christian history are almost entirely speculative. 2425 Many other scholars will agree that the proposed «radical amnesia» of early Christians is intrinsically unlikely, yet remain reluctant to embrace many of Jesus» self-assertions in John as authentic. To what degree could John " s christological interpretations reflect prior Christian Christology and the self-understanding of the historical Jesus? Although historical data remain inadequate to provide a complete answer, they invite us to contemplate, rather than summarily dismiss, Johannine Christology as an authentic (though distinctive) expression of the Jesus tradition. 2426 It is possible that our problem with the issue was also a live one in John " s day. John " s need to defend his tradition " s portrait of Jesus against accusations of «secret» teaching (cf. 7:4; 18:20) may stem from the Johannine tradition " s use of teaching missing from the more widely-circulated Synoptic tradition, inviting complaints from some Jewish Christians who preferred to avoid christological controversy for the sake of peace with the synagogue authorities. At the same time, John may reflect an earlier christological tradition, for which we have some, albeit limited, evidence. It is possible that the Synoptics (especially Mark and Luke) «toned down» Jesus for their audiences, providing a noble hero to which their audiencés contemporaries could relate. (As noted below, Q has an exalted Christology even compatible with Wisdom Christology, so Mark " s story of Jesus was not the only approach of his era.) 2427 Paul " s letters may bear early witness to the tradition of Wisdom Christology (e.g., 1Cor 8:6 ) and the Johannine Jesus» theme of Christ dwelling in believers (e.g., Gal 2:20 ); but because Paul does not explicitly claim to be following Jesus tradition, they do not provide proof that such ideas were rooted in any of Jesus» own claims. We survey below the Jewish context of various Johannine christological titles, how early Christians adapted them, and how John sometimes adapted more general early Christian uses. The survey will demonstrate that while John " s Christology is distinctive, it was not unique. |
| 1A. A Johannine Pentecost? Views on the relation between this passage and a later impartation of the Spirit, such as Acts 2 depicts, vary. 10640 Some would argue that John retains a distinction between Easter and a later Pentecost, perhaps by John 20symbolically pointing forward to the historical Pentecost. 10641 Whatever its historical plausibility, however, the view that Jesus merely symbolically promises the Spirit here does not pull together an adequate narrative climax on the literary-theological level of John " s earlier promises of the Spirit. Certainly the verb for Jesus breathing on the disciples means more than mere exhalation. 10642 Whether John might use Jesus» breathing symbolically, however, is a different question than whether Jesus is portrayed as acting merely symbolically in the story world. Granted, Luke and John may employ their language for «receiving the Spirit» in different manners, 10643 and both experiences are historically compatible, the historical core adapted by John being either a symbolic or a less substantial impartation. 10644 But some scholars argue too much in contending that, because John does not describe the Spirit " s activity beginning in this passage, the disciples have not yet received the Spirit as Paraclete, although they may have received the Spirit in some sense here. 10645 Whatever truth this contention may represent in terms of pre-Johannine tradition, suggesting that John intends to communicate a lesser impartation ignores the nature of his narrative. This passage is not the appropriate place to demonstrate the new Paracletés activity (persecution is present, but so is Jesus) but to introduce him; John can assume that those familiar with his discourses will expect the fulfillment of all long-range promises related to the Paracletés activity, on the basis of short-range fulfillments implied in the text, the same way readers of Mark can anticipate resurrection appearances even if none are narrated in the Gospel itself (on the assumption of the shorter ending). |
| John among the Gospels: The Relationship in 20th-Cent. Research. Minneapolis, 1992. Columbia, 20012; idem. The Theology of the Gospel of John. Camb.; N. Y., 1995; Sterling G. E. Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts, and Apologetic Historiography. Leiden; N. Y., 1992; Boismard M.- É . Moses or Jesus: An Essay in Johannine Christology. Minneapolis, 1993; Brodie T. L. The Quest for the Origin of John " s Gospel. N. Y., 1993; idem. The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary. N. Y., 1993; Harner P. B. Relation Analysis of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Reader-Response Criticism. Lewiston (N. Y.), 1993; Hengel M. Die johanneische Frage: Ein Lösungsversuch. Tüb., 1993; idem. The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ. Harrisburg (Penn.), 2000; Kysar R. John: The Maverick Gospel. Louisville, 1993; Ladd G. E. A Theology of the NT. Grand Rapids, 19932; Stanton G. N. A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew. Louisville, 1993; Verm è s G. The Religion of Jesus the Jew. Minneapolis, 1993; Belle G., van. The Signs Source in the Fourth Gospel. Leuven, 1994. (BETL; 116); Harris E. Prologue and Gospel: The Theology of the Fourth Evangelist. Sheffield, 1994; Sch ü ssler Fiorenza E. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. N. Y., 199410; Wilcox J. The Origins of Epistemology in Early Greek Thought: A Study of Psyche and Logos in Heraclitus. Lewiston, 1994; Bauckham R. The Beloved Disciple as Ideal Author//The Johannine Writings: A Sheffield Reader/Ed. S. E. Porter, C. A. Evans. Sheffield, 1995. P. 46-68; idem. John for Readers of Mark//The Gospels for All Christians/Ed. R. Bauckham. Grand Rapids, 1998. P. 147-171; idem. Messianism According to the Gospel of John//Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John/Ed. J. Lierman. Tüb., 2006. P. 34-68; idem. Historiographical Characteristics of the Gospel of John// Idem. The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple. Grand Rapids, 2007. P. 93-112; idem. The Qumran Community and the Gospel of John//Ibid. |
| Jewish ethics in general, like John " s, emphasized righteous works; 5123 Wisdom would lead one to works acceptable before God (Wis 9:12). Greek and Roman writers 5124 and Jewish tradition (e.g., Wis 1:16) concurred that people should act in accordance with their teaching, not simply speak; they also recognized that, despite pretense, onés true nature would come out in the end (Livy 3.36.1). In John, people demonstrate their character, either as part of the world or as those born anew from above, by their «works.» Works appear in a variety of senses: evil works (3:19–20; 7:7; cf. 2 John 11 ; φαλα in John 5:29 ) or good works, works of truth (3:21; 8:39); the creative works of the Father and Jesus (5:17, 20, 36), and Jesus» works, which often refer to signs (7:3, 21; 9:3–4; 10:25, 32–33, 37–38; 14:10–12; perhaps 15:24). As signs, such works should elicit faith (10:37–38; 14:11); those who embrace Jesus» works by faith will also do works (14:12). For John, the central «work» yielding the new, eternal life is faith (6:27–30), but for Jesus, God " s «work» is also obedience to his will and mission (4:34, 38; 17:4). Once one is truly in the light, one will keep God " s other commandments (14:15,23–24), especially the central one, loving onés fellow disciples (13:34–35). One does the works of the one whose nature one shares (8:39, 41), hence birth from God " s Spirit remains necessary for genuinely good works (3:6). Thus for John, the emphasis on works does not allow salvation outside of obedient faith in Christ. The Greater and the Lesser (3:22–36) In this passage John the Baptist again testifies for Jesus, as in the opening of the Gospel (1:6–9,15,19–36), framing encounters with prospective disciples like Nathanael (1:45–51) and Nicodemus (3:1–21); it also contrasts John " s wilderness witness with elite Nicodemus " s incomprehension. 5125 The passage opens with a contrast between Jesus» baptism and Johns (3:22–23, 26), and becomes a discourse full of Johannine Christology but which, unlike most Johannine discourses, appears in the mouth of the Baptist rather than of Jesus. This passage may address those who exalt John the Baptist too highly (3:26); 5126 it may also address those in the synagogue community who reject Jesus» deity but accept John as a prophet. 1. Setting for the Discourse (3:22–26) |
|
|
