| 376 Arguments for this source may be found in Robinson, «Trajectory,» 235–38; Appold, Motif, 87; Fortna, «Christology,» 504. Cf. Smith, «Book of Signs,» 441–57, who notes (441) that one need not accept this source as distinct from the Gospe1. We are inclined to agree with the judgment of Carson, «Source Criticism,» 428, that none of the proposed source theories for the Fourth Gospel has been adequately demonstrated. 377 E.g., Brown, John, 1:xliv-xlvii; Schnackenburg, John, 1:42; Dodd, ««Herrenworte,»» 86; Robinson, Twelve Studies, 96; Smalley, John, 38; Hunter, John, 5; Ladd, Theology, 219–20; Morris, Studies, 15–63. Gardner-Smith, Gospels, was an early and able proponent of this thesis, which carried much of Johannine scholarship. 378 See Smith, John Among Gospels, 139–176. This book represents the most thorough treatment of different views on the question to date. 380 E.g., Marsh, John, 44–46; Yee, Feasts, 11–12; Smith, John (1999), 14; see esp. idem, Among Gospels, 195–241. 381 Early Christians assumed that John knew the Synoptics and regularly compared them (Wiles, Gospel, 13–21); but apologetic considerations more than tradition may have shaped their communal memory. 383 People often sent mail when they heard of someone traveling in the right direction (e.g., Cicero Att. 1.10,13; 4.1; 8.14); one letter from as far as Britain reached Cicero in less than a month (Cicero Quint, fratr. 3.1.8.25). In the present day, despite the availability of a postal service, travelers to and from many parts of Nigeria, Kenya, and Cameroon still carry mail for acquaintances. 384 See esp. Smith, «John and Synoptics,» 425–44; also Sanders, John, 10; Conzelmann, Theology, 324; Goppelt, Jesus, Paul, and Judaism, 40–41; Beasley-Murray, John, xxxv-xxxvii; Bordiert, John, 37–41; Witherington, Wisdom, 5–9; Brown, Essays, 194–96; Dvorak, «Relationship»; Blomberg, Reliability, 48–49; Köstenberger, John, 37. 390 Smith, «Problem,» 267. One cannot a priori use Mark " s framework, which he may have imposed on tradition, to evaluate John " s reliability (Moloney, «Jesus of History»). |
| Sloan, «Absence» Sloan, Robert B. «The Absence of Jesus in John.» Pages 207–27 in Perspectives on John: Method and Interpretation in the Fourth Gospe1. Edited by Robert B. Sloan and Mikeal C. Parsons. National Association of the Baptist Professors of Religion Special Studies Series 11. Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen, 1993. Sloyan, «Adoption» Sloyan, G. S. «The Gnostic Adoption of John " s Gospel and Its Canonization by the Catholic Church.» Biblical Theology Bulletin 26 (1996): 125–32. Sloyan, John Sloyan, Gerald S. John. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Atlanta: John Knox, 1988. Sloyan, Saying Sloyan, Gerald S. What Are They Saying about John? New York: Paulist Press, 1991. Small, «Memory» Small, J. P. «Artificial Memory and the Writing Habits of the Literate.» Helios 22 (1995): 159–66. Smalley, Epistles Smalley, Stephen S. 1, 2, 3 John. WBC 51. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1984. Smalley, John Smalley, Stephen S. John: Evangelist and Interpreter. Exeter: Paternoster, 1978. Smalley, «Paraclete» Smalley, Stephen S. « " The Paracleté: Pneumatology in the Johannine Gospel and Apocalypse.» Pages 289–300 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. Smalley, «Recent Studies» Smalley, Stephen S. «The Johannine Literature: A Sample of Recent Studies in English.» Theology 103 (2000): 13–28. Smalley, «Relationship» Smalley, Stephen S. «The Christ-Christian Relationship in Paul and John.» Pages 95–105 in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on His 70th Birthday. Edited by Donald A. Hagner and Murray J. Harris. Exeter: Paternoster, 1980. Smalley, «Revelation» Smalley, Stephen S. «John " s Revelation and John " s Community.» Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 69 (1986–1987): 549–71. Smalley, «Sayings» Smalley, Stephen S. «The Johannine Son of Man Sayings.» NTS 15 (1968–1969): 278–301. Smallwood, «Historians» Smallwood, E. Mary. «Philo and Josephus as Historians of the Same Events.» Pages 114–29 in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity. Edited by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987. |
| Both documents reflect some knowledge of sayings of the Jesus tradition behind the Synoptics (e.g., Rev 2:7; 3:3,5; 1066 John 12:25 ). «After these things» serves a literary function in each (Rev 4:1; 7:9; 15:5; 18:1; 19:1; cf. 7:1; 20:3; John 5:1; 6:1; 7:1 ). 1067 The normal expression «come and see» in John 1:39, 46 , may find apocalyptic expression in Rev 4:1; 11:12; 17:1; 21:9. 1068 Similar metaphors (such as the OT linkage of bridegroom with joy, Rev 18:23; John 3:29 ) appear. Although such examples are not decisive by themselves, they are at least as significant as the often-acclaimed differences, once the respective settings and genres of the two works are taken into account. Differences Due to Situation or Genre. Revelation " s omission of significant Johannine vocabulary often relates to the genre and subject matter the document addresses. For instance, Revelation makes a much more direct assault on emperor worship and presupposes a more cosmopolitan, Roman setting. While the Gospel advocates a high Christology against its opponents and naturally addresses the life of Jesus in a purely Jewish context, these factors are not sufficient to explain the difference. The Gospel and Apocalypse seem to address different situations in the circle of Johannine readership. Similarly, Revelation, set in a context of public worship, includes more liturgical language (e.g., «amen,» 1:7; marana tha, cf. 22:20). 1069 The difference in genre is perhaps more significant than the difference in life-setting. Although «walk» in the halakic sense is at best rare in Revelation (3is only slightly helpful), in contrast with its dominance in 1 John and much early Christian paraenetic tradition, this is to be expected because Revelation includes little paraenesis; its exhortations are primarily prophetic and apocalyptic. Still, Jesus» commandments are as crucial for his followers in Revelation as in the undisputed Johannine texts (Rev 12:17,14:12; John 13:34, 14:15, 21 ). This apparently includes the love commandment (Rev 2:4; 1070 John 13:34–35 ). |
| 10982 A probably later tradition, purportedly stemming from the late first century, claims that though all the seas were ink and the earth scrolls, R. Eliezer and R. Joshua, teachers of R. Akiba, believed it would not be enough to record all the Torah that they had learned, and they had understood at most a drop of what there was to understand about Torah. 10983 The number of books actually available in John " s day would have been limited in any case, but estimates remained hyberbolic. One widespread Jewish story offers an estimate on the number of books then in circulation; Demetrius of Phalerum reportedly sought to collect for Ptolemy all the books in the world (Let. Aris. 9), which came to over 200,000, reaching for 500,000 (Let. Aris. 10). The point is that the author provided only a small selection of Jesus» works; 10984 Jesus is further praised by what the author must leave unsaid (cf. Heb 11:32). What John does include, however, is sufficient to summon his audience to deeper faith and was selected for that purpose (20:30–31). 10963 Cf, e.g., Hunter, John, 197; Minear, «Audience,» 348; Blomberg, Reliability, 37–39. «Siblings» here refers to believers, at least (though not necessarily exclusively) in the Johannine circle of believers (cf. Brown, John, 2:1110). 10966 Carson, John, 684, though allowing that it may refer to the elders of the Ephesian church; Köstenberger, John, 195. Cf. 3:11; the apostolic circle in 1:14; 1 John 1:2,4 (though church tradition makes John its final survivor). 10968 As frequently noted, e.g., Bultmann, John, 718. Theodore of Mopsuestia thought that 21was a later editorial addition, but there is no textual evidence for this view (Sinaiticus " s first hand omits and then corrects the verse; Birdsall, «Source»). 10969 This is the only verse in John that Robinson, Trust, 83, thinks must be an addition. Morris, John, 879; but his secondary appeal to the transition from plural to singular in 1 Thess 2may recall Silvanus and Timothy (1 Thess 1:1). 10970 Cullmann, Circle, 2. This might be the «elders of the Ephesian church» (Hunter, John, 198), though we think Smyrna somewhat more likely. 10971 The final verses establish the beloved disciplés authority, but not necessarily against Peter (Kysar, John, 321). Smith, John (1999), 400, thinks 21attests that probably «the Beloved Disciplés witness authorized the Gospel,» though he doubts that he actually wrote it down. 10972 E.g., P.Eleph. 1.16–18; 2.17–18; P.Lond. 1727.68–72; P.Tebt. 104.34–35; P.Co1. 270.1.25–28; BGU 1273.36–40; P.Cair.Zen. 59001.48–52; the Aramaic git from Wadi Murabbáat ca. 72 C.E. (Carmon, Inscriptions, 90–91, 200–201); Cicero Quinct. 6.25; cf. further comments in Epictetus (LCL 1:136–37 η. 1). Prof. Dale Martin, then of Duke University, first pointed out this correspondence with legal documents to me (January 23, 1990). |
| 6605 E.g., Hodges, «Adultery»; Heil, «Story»; idem, «Rejoinder» (cf. Trites, «Adultery,» on John " s structuring style). Hodges, «Adultery,» supposes that its deletion in one manuscript affected others, but this argument (1) must admit our lack of textual evidence in the earliest extant sources, i.e., argues from silence, and (2) supposes a model of deletion possible on a word processor but more difficult in the middle of a scroll (which the first generations of manuscripts were)! 6606 See full discussion in Metzger, Commentary, 219–21; Wallace, «Reconsidering.» 6607 See Metzger, Commentary, 220. Calvin, John, 1(on 7:53–8:11), already noted that it was missing among Greek manuscripts preserved by Greek churches. 6608 For androcentric early-church prejudices (e.g., the focus on the woman " s adultery rather than that of her accusers) that could have marginalized the passage, see ÓDay, «Misreading.» 6609 Metzger, Commentary, 221. 6610 E.g., Michaels, John, 113; Riesenfeld, Tradition, 95. Perrin, Kingdom, 131, notes that over one-sixth of the words occur nowhere else in John. Admittedly the vocative γναι is more common in this Gospel (2:4; 4:21; 19:26; 20:13, 15) than elsewhere in the NT (Matt 15:28; Luke 13:12; 22:57; 1Cor 7:16 ). 6611 E.g., Comfort, «Pericope.» By contrast, Baylis, «Adultery,» thinks the passage climaxes Johns portrayal of Jesus as the prophet of Deut 18 . 6612 Also, e.g., Yee, Feasts, 77. 6613 E.g., Montefiore, Gospels, 1:280; Derrett, Law, 156; Hunter, John, 199; Michaels, John, 132; Watkins, John, 176; Ridderbos, John, 286; Whitacre, John, 204; Bürge, «Problem»; idem, John, 238–41; Beasley-Murray, John, 144; Grayston, Gospel, 73; Bordiert, John, 225, 329, 369. 6614 Stanton, Gospel Truth, 46–47, attributes this view to «most exegetes.» Papias frg. 6 (Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 3.39.17) knew the story in the Gospel of the Hebrews; Beasley-Murray, John, 143–44, also cites Syr. Did. 7 (early third century C.E.); for the tradition in Didymos the Blind, see Luhrmann, «Geschichte.» |
| 839 Whereas the conservative introductions often arrive at predictably conservative conclusions, they interact with less conservative scholars, whereas some of the traditional critical introductions completely ignore the contributions of conservative scholarship. See also Bruce, John, 6–12. 841 Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 5.20.5–6; see comments in Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction, 139; Guthrie, Introduction, 270. The letter " s authenticity may be questioned, but at least Eusebius thought it authentic; given his own view of two Johns, it is improbable that he would have forged Irenaeus " s letter. 842 An argument from lack of explicit mention of John in Polycarp (cf. Davies, Rhetoric, 246; Culpepper, John, 34) is an argument from silence (especially given the one letter of Polycarp that remains), ignores possible allusions to the Epistles, and might ask too much after the Gospel " s relatively recent publication (though cf. P 52 ). Does one mention onés ordaining or academic mentor in every work? (As much as I respect mine, I certainly have not!) Culpepper, John, 34, likewise protests Ignatius " s silence, but Ignatius also fails to mention John the seer, though he must have been known to Ephesus (Rev 1:1,4,9, 11; 2:1; 22:8). 848 Wiles, Gospel, 8; Carson, John, 27–28; Bruce, John, 12; Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction, 141, citing Epiphanius Pan. 51.3; probably Irenaeus Haer. 3.11.9; and noting the pun on Johns logos. 849 Carson, John, 28; Bruce, John, 12; Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction, 141; Braun, Jean, 149–56. 853 Witherington, Wisdom, 14–15. We answered above the objection that John differs too much from the Twelve to have been one of them. 857 For a response see, e.g., Stanton, Gospels, 186. Cf. similar responses concerning the Greek of the allegedly Judean author James (e.g., Davids, James, 10–11; cf. Sevenster, Greek, passim, for the wide use of literary Greek), acknowledged also by some who do not believe James wrote it (Laws, James, 40–41). The Greek of James is on a much higher level than that of John. |
| 4337 Higgins, Historicity, 74–75, thinks the double αμν form is not historically improbable given the single usage in the Synoptics. Given John " s free restatements of Jesus» language in his own idiom and the uniqueness of the double form to his Gospel, however, it probably represents his own emphatic adaptation of the Synoptic phrase. 4338 For the specific inflected form ψεσθε, which as a plural envisions the other disciples in addition to Nathanael, cf. 1:39; 16:16–19. 4339 Cf. the comments of Sandmel, Judaism, 475 n. 10; Nicholson, Death, 30; Smith, John (1999), 77. 4340 Also Apoc. Mos. 35:2; 2 Bar. 22:1; T. Ah. 7:3A; T. Levi 2:6; see also Lentzen-Deis, «Motiv,» citing especially 2Macc 3:24ff.; 3Macc 6:18. For heaven parting for revelatory messengers, see, e.g., Virgil Aen. 9.20–21; for heavenly vision, see, e.g., Maximus of Tyre Or. 11.11–12; discussion of John " s «vision» motif, pp. 247–51 in the introduction. 4341 The particular ascent and descent of angels (e.g., Rev 7:2; 10:1; 18:1; 20:1; cf. 12:12; Jacob sees an angel descend in 4Q537 frg. 1, beginning), like that of other entities (e.g., Rev 3:12; 21:2,10), made sense within the worldview of apocalyptic literature because of its vertical dualism, which this Gospel shares. 4342 Cf. also Morgen, «Promesse»; cf. Luther, 16th Sermon on John, on John 1 . Unlike the Greek, the Hebrew term for «ladder» is masculine (Smith, John 78); but it is unlikely that John would require complete gender agreement for the analogy in any case. Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 63–64, think John evokes in 1the «heavenly» connotations of «Son of Man» from Daniel and Enoch " s Similitudes. Others might also understand the necessity of a mediator between gods and people (e.g., Janus in Ovid Fasti 1.171–174). 4343 For John " s possible association of Jesus with holy-place imagery, see Barrett, «Old Testament,» 160; cf. Fritsch, «Angelos»; Davies, Land, 299–300. The rabbinic connection between heaven and earth in Gen 28may be relevant (see the summary of this position in Lincoln, Ephesians, 157). Still, some earlier sources, such as Jubilees» suggestion that Jacob sought a sanctuary at Bethel that could be interpreted as an alternative to Jerusalem (cf. Schwartz, «Jubilees»), naturally did not commend themselves to rabbinic development. |
| Charlesworth, Disciple Charlesworth, James H. The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John? Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1995. Charlesworth, «Exclusivism» Charlesworth, James H. «The Gospel of John: Exclusivism Caused by a Social Setting Different from That of Jesus (John 11and 14:6).» Pages 479–513 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. Charlesworth, «Introduction» Charlesworth, James H., with J. A. Sanders. Introduction to «More Psalms of David.» OTP 2:609–11. Charlesworth, «Judeo-Hellenistic Works» Charlesworth, James H. «Editor " s Introduction to Fragments of Lost ludeo-Hellenistic Works.» OTP 2:775–76. Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and NT Charlesworth, James H. OTP and the New Testament: Prolegomena for the Study of Christian Origins. SNTSMS 54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Charlesworth, «Qumran and Odes» Charlesworth, James H. «Qumran, John, and the Odes of Solomon.» Pages 107–36 in John and Qumran. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1972. Charlesworth, «Reinterpreting» Charlesworth, James H. «Reinterpreting John: How the Dead Sea Scrolls Have Revolutionized Our Understanding of the Gospel of John.» Bible Review 9, no. 1 (February 1993): 18–25, 54. Charlesworth, Routes Charlesworth, M. P. Trade Routes and Commerce of the Roman Empire. 2d rev. ed. New York: Cooper Square, 1970. Charlesworth, «Scrolls and Gospel» Charlesworth, James H. «The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel according to John.» Pages 65–97 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. Charlesworth, «Voice» Charlesworth, James H. «The Jewish Roots of Christology: The Discovery of the Hypostatic Voice.» SJT 39 (1986): 19–41. Charlier, «L " exégèse» Charlier, Jean-Pierre. «L " exégèse johannique d " un précepte légal: Jean VIII 17.«RB 67 (1960): 503–15. |
| John " s audience could be assured that neither those who left the community in John " s day (1 John 2:29) nor Judas (6:64) took Jesus by surprise. As «son of destruction,» 9451 the betrayer was destined or foreknown for his role (17:12). Jewish wisdom texts could call wicked Sodom «people of destruction» (θνος απλειας), that is, «people for destruction» ( Sir 16:9 ). The Dead Sea Scrolls speak of the wicked as «children of the pit» (), that is, those destined for destruction (CD 6.15; 8.14); Jubilees also calls the wicked of past eras «children of destruction.» 9452 Perhaps most strikingly, at least one extant witness to early Christian tradition suggests that some Christians had already designated the anticipated «man of lawlessness» 9453 as a «son of destruction» (2 Thess 2:3; cf. Rev 17:8). Just as many «antichrists» who opposed the true teaching about Christ could reflect the character of a future anticipated antichrist (1 John 2:18) and just as the Fourth Gospel emphasizes the eschatological condition of the present more frequently than future eschatology, Judas functions as a paradigm for human evi1. 9454 Because Judas probably also provides a model for apostate members of the community (cf. 6:66–71; as does the antichrist, 1 John 2:18–19), this association casts apostates in a very negative light (cf. 15:6). Opponents of John " s audience may have complained about what appeared to them an inconsistency in the gospel tradition: Jesus is omniscient, yet he chose a disciple who ultimately betrayed him. John is at pains to point out that Jesus foreknew the betrayer, whose role was part of God " s plan (6:64, 71; 13:21, 26, 27); in support of such a thesis is the point that the only disciple whom Jesus lost was, in fact, the betrayer himself. John reinforces this point by informing his audience that the loss of the betrayer fulfilled Scripture (17:12) and hence was necessary because, as even their opponents recognized, Scripture cannot be broken (10:35). The necessity of a betrayer might be inferred simply from Scripture concerning Jesus» suffering (cf., e.g., 19:24,28,36–37; 20:9), but «Scripture» here probably alludes to the passage already cited in 13about the betrayer. It is not necessary to find a text that directly mentions a «son of destruction.» 9455 When John later refers back to this text, however, it is not only that Scripture (the Hebrew Bible or its Greek translations) might be fulfilled but also that the «word» of Jesus might be fulfilled (18:9); for John, both are God " s message. |
| The prologue is emphatic in its contrast between John and Jesus, as between creation and creator: the world was made (γνετο) «through him» (Jesus) in 1:3. When the prologue declares that «through him» (John) all might believe (in Jesus) in 1:6, it notes that he came (γνετο) for that purpose. In our introduction to the prologue, we observed that most of the prologue could constitute a hymn in three equal sections of twelve lines, if the lines about John were excluded. Most reconstructions of the original form of the prologue that exclude any part of it exclude the lines about John. Whether or not the prologue was written as a seamless whole, it is likely that the material about John (whom we shall sometimes call «the Baptist,» to distinguish him from the author to whom the Gospel is traditionally attributed) was present in the prologue from the time it became part of the Fourth Gospe1. (The lines about John may in part be woven into the rest of the prologue to connect it with the historical ministry of Jesus beginning in 1:19. 3440 John, like Mark and some examples of the apostolic preaching in Acts, starts the gospel narrative with the Baptist.) 3441 In a prologue which features the cosmic and préexistent Christ, lines about the Baptist seem hopelessly out of place to modern readers. The question we must thus ask is the function the Baptist material serves for John " s implied readers, the first community he was addressing. Two theories commend the most attention: the author contrasts the prophet John with the supreme Lord because some contemporaries were exalting John inappropriately; or the author uses John to serve a broader symbolic function (like the function that many attribute to the beloved disciple), namely, the importance of a witness. Both theories merit attention and both may be correct; the acceptance of either does not logically exclude the possibility of the other. 1. Polemic against a Baptist Sect Writers in the early twentieth century advanced the thesis that the Fourth Gospel " s portrayal of John the Baptist represented Johannine polemic against the Baptist " s followers. 3442 Reitzenstein and his followers, like Bultmann, accepted medieval claims of the Mandean sect to have grown directly from a movement founded by John the Baptist. Because the Mandeans were both anti-Christian and anti-Jewish, Reitzenstein doubted that their source was Christian or Jewish, and regarded their source of traditions later related to Christianity as deriving from the Baptist. 3443 Such an application of the criterion of dissimilarity is unwarranted, however, for several reasons: first, many gnostic sects were anti-orthodox Christian or anti-Jewish yet sprang from orthodox Christian or Jewish roots. |
|
|
