Fourth Gospel

The author of the Fourth Gospel introduces Jesus’ life as a display of glory (δόξα), communally witnessed (θεάομαι) by its audience (1:14). Moreover, the same author testifies of an experience of the divine (which was heard, seen with the eyes, looked upon, and touched with the hands – 1 Jn. 1:1), and which asks for a response from its audience (Jn. 20:30-31). Various scholars have speculated about the possible link between the Fourth Gospel and drama, arguing that its structure, characterisation, dialogue, plotline, and many other elements mimic the ancient Greek drama to strengthen its rhetorical impact on the audience. If such a connection is valid, there ought to be a methodological lens with which one could read the Fourth Gospel to explore and enhance its dramatic elements and their rhetorical impact. While the exegetic field of biblical performance criticism has done much to bring the performative and oral elements of biblical texts into the conversation, an attempt to formulate a methodology for a drama analysis of the text still needs to be made. Moreover, while the Johannine prologue identifies the protagonist as the one who will reveal God through the drama (1:18) and display his glory (1:14b), the narrator also describes his entrance into the earthly realm with the word σάρξ (flesh – 1:14a): a term denoting frailty and vulnerability. This peculiar marrying of σάρξ and δόξα seems to play itself out through the life of Jesus and climaxes at his death on a Roman cross. The Fourth Gospel was probably composed in a milieu where a glorious and divine display would have been marked by honour, power, strength, masculinity, health, resilience, control, and prosperity. Considering this, the use of σάρξ, how it plays into the plot and divine performance of the protagonist, and the effect thereof on a first-time hypothetical audience’s satisfaction and understanding of the drama, could make for a rhetorically powerful analysis. This study, therefore, sets out to read the Fourth Gospel’s prologue (as beginning) and crucifixion (as climax) through a drama lens in order to explore its point of view on vulnerability and the rhetorical effect thereof on a first-time hypothetical audience immersed in the first-century Mediterranean culture of honour, power, and dominance. The appropriation of biblical drama criticism holds the potential to illuminate the audience’s own journey of vulnerability with the performance, and to instil hope in various vulnerable audiences, including the Johannine community and contemporary communities, as it affirms that vulnerability is included in the good and abundant life (Jn. 10:10; 20:30-31) and that the glory of God is revealed in vulnerable vessels.

[The Meaning of the Angels’ Position in Jesus’ Tomb in John 20:12]

Compared with the Synoptics, the Johannine angels assume a particular and significant position inside Jesus' tomb. The evangelist describes it precisely as one angel sitting at the place of Jesus' head and another at the place of Jesus' feet. Not all Johannine commentators pay attention to this detail, yet a comparison with the descriptions of the angels' positions in the different synoptic narratives demonstrates that they all reflect original editorial work on the part of each the evangelist. Consequently, these accounts can – and indeed do – convey particular ideological or theological stances typical of each gospel writer, including John. With regard to John 20:12, the article surveys proposals advanced by several Johannine commentators, beginning with some very obvious and prosaic explanations and ending with the most probable meanings behind the particular posture of Johannine angels. According to a strictly archeological-historical explanation, the position of the Johannine angles is no more than an indication that Jesus' burial place was not a tomb of kôkîm type. The article also presents allegorical interpretations, from St. Augustine to St. Thomas Aquinas; a religious-cultural exposition referring to the Egyptian goddesses Isis and Nephthys; a few very literal explanations accentuating the physical emptiness between the angels; and an intertextual exposition based on a targumic reading of Isaiah 6. At the end, as the most persuasive solution, the article proposes that the Johannine angels represent the cherubs of the Ark of the Covenant and the mercy seat. This intertextual and symbolic interpretation likewise explains Mary Magdalene's lack of fear and astonishment in her interaction with supernatural beings.

Modern scholarship maintains the Gospel of John is dualistic. This view is uneasily held as there is a growing move to distance the gospel from the original history-of-religions concept of dualism that reached its peak in the mid-twentieth century with expectations of incipient Gnosticism in John. Instead of further nuancing the dualistic-sounding ideas in John, this essay challenges directly the claim that John is dualistic-and it proposes that what is often understood to be a dualistic metaphysic is actually paradoxical language as part of the Gospel's oral and literary language games. Starting with a survey of how dualism entered into the scholarly purview of John, the essay then turns to the meaning and function of paradox in the ancient world. Since scholars point to John's 'light' and 'darkness' imagery as the most prominent example of dualism, this essay uses the paradox language of 'light' and 'darkness' as a test case to demonstrate how paradox, and not dualism, is a more accurate and historical descriptor for John's communicative strategy.

This 40-day invitation to a transformative reading of a biblical text puts into play what I call "The 5 Rs of Transformative Bible Reading—Read, Reflect, Respond, Remember, Record". Especially meaningful during Lent, but a worthy exercise any time of the year.

The story of the feeding of the five-thousand is situated firmly at the centre of the Gospel of John’s so-called ‘Book of Signs’, which makes up the first half of the Gospel.  This paper takes the majority view that the Gospel was written likely in the years 90 to 95 CE. The author is thus most likely not the apostle John, which view has been adopted by tradition and is still held by some.  Matters of authorship are not particularly relevant to this paper, except to note that by convention the author will be referred to as ‘John’, by which we do not mean the Apostle necessarily, but whoever composed the text – either individual or group.

The Feeding of the Five Thousand is a well-known miracle story, and one of five miracles of Jesus feeding multitudes attested in the canonical gospels. It is found in all three synoptic gospels also and is paralleled by a miracle of the feeding of the four thousand in the gospels of Matthew and Mark.  In the Fourth Gospel it is surrounded by miracles and teachings, and notably it is set before the ‘Bread of Life’ Discourse later in the chapter. The image of the feeding of the five thousand with bread becomes a temporal link to the spiritual bread that Jesus refers to in his discourse. The echoes of eucharistic imagery are difficult to ignore , and may reflect a more developed church structure. It is certainly possible that this shows the beginning of a solidifying of cultic and ritual practices in the late first century.  The text by itself is a marvellous story of Jesus’ spiritual power. Just as the five thousand were well fed-on earth, with an abundance of leftover food, so too will the faithful be well-fed in the Kingdom. The people whom he has fed see something of this in Jesus, forcing him to escape to avoid being made king.  His time to rule is not yet here, yet the feeding is a symbol of the abundance that is to come.

The message of the miracle is a profoundly Christological one on several levels, and the following paragraphs will make the argument that John wants his readers to identify Jesus as a kingly figure and a Mosaic figure. John’s Jesus is unlike any other king, and is greater even than Moses. He can feed the hungry with an abundance of food. However, the bread that feeds the multitude and sustains their mortal life is an earthly, corporeal symbol of the heavenly food that will sustain their eternal life. Greater even than the provision of bread is his provision of the Bread of Life – his own body, through which the faithful gain eternal life.

The paper investigates some apparent analogies between Jesus's ministry and events during the Jewish War of 66-73 CE and subjects to scrutiny Atwill's claim that these point to emperor Titus being portrayed as the promised messianic world leader to come from Judea. It also proposes another explanation of these analogies and debunks the claims that Christianity and its scriptures were only invented by the Flavian imperial dynasty: the Flavian conspiracy theory.

The article advances a hypothesis that certain elements in the Johannine characterization of Jesus and Peter can be profitably interpreted through the lens of the ancient rhetorical device of syncrisis. The analysis consists of six main parts. First, the hypothesis itself is laid out in detail. Second, the Jewish and Christian uses of syncri­ sis around the turn of era is described, as proof for the possibility that this rhetorical technique was employed in the FG. Third, the status quaestionis on the use of syncrisis in the FG is provided. Fourth, some arguments are presented to justify the choice of progymnasmata as a methodological framework in the exposition of σύνκρισις between Jesus and Peter. It is argued that the ancient rhetorical exercises called progymnasmata, which contain a reliable and helpful description of ancient syncrisis, can thus provide useful criteria in the search for elements of syncrisis in the Johannine description of the relationship between Jesus and Peter. Fifth, the Johannine comparison between Jesus and Peter is viewed according to some of the basic rules of the progymnasmatic theory of syncrisis. Sixth, a detailed analysis of a few elements of the Johannine syncrisis between Jesus and Peter is presented.

This book is a scholarly inquiry into the authenticity of John 1:13 and its theological implications. The research is quite challenging because of the two different readings of the Greek verb "gennao" in various manuscripts, uncials and cursives. The two textual variants are "was born" and "were born". Johannine scholars have no common agreement on this point. Some modern versions of the Bible read it in the singular and some other versions in the plural. Read in the plural, it refers to the Baptismal Birth of Christians. But the singular readings refers to the Virgin Birth of Jesus and implies the theology of Incarnation. Should we read this verse in the singular form (was born) or in the plural form (were born)? This book gets into the intellectual battle between the two opposing groups of scholars. In this detailed and in-depth study, the author takes a position in favour of the singular reading. Then he exegetically analyses it and presents its theological implications. There are three chapters:
1) Textual criticism of John 1.13;
2) Exegetical Analysis of John 1.11-14;
3) Theological Implications of John 1:13 - Christology and Mariology

This article examines how John crafts the narratives and discourses to address the issue of fear and secrecy, and to guide his audience/readers on how to face persecution. It is proposed that: first, John uses dualistic language with the rhetorical purpose of bringing across ironies, exposing underlying motives of characters, and heightening the impossibility of a middle ground; second, he deliberately portrays a few characters ambiguously to reflect the complexities of life—one cannot and should not easily classify everyone neatly into dualistic categories; and third, John has a distinctive emphasis on divine providence with regard to facing persecution.

The article surveys recent scholarship on the use of creation imagery in the Gospel of John, with the aim of presenting a rather exhaustive register of possible references. Both the obvious and the less clear-cut allusions to Gen 1-3 are discussed, the main focus being to accumulate and assess the evidence (for or against) all the apparent references to creation imagery. Included in this examination are several unconvincing and even far-fetched proposals advanced by some modern scholars, in order to give the fullest possible picture of the current discourse on these issues. After discussing the creation theme in the Prologue (1:1-18), the article explores the presence of creation imagery in the Book of Signs (1:19-12:50) and the Book of Glory (13:1-21:25).

“Love one another” (John 13:34) is, according to conventional scholarly understanding, the only ethical statement in the Gospel of John. Compared to Paul, or the Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John has no paraenetic arguments or virtue lists. For most of the last two centuries, then, New Testament ethics has largely shunned the Gospel of John. Even today, it is not uncommon to encounter otherwise solid works on biblical ethics that eschew interaction with the Fourth Gospel almost completely. Is the Fourth Gospel so focused on matters of faith and salvation that it has no ethical impulse? Or has modern scholarship missed an opportunity to renew New Testament ethics through a reevaluation of John’s Gospel?

This is the first in a series of papers which will seek to identify the original sources underlying the Greek text of the Gospel of John.  The proposal will be made a) that at least one authoritative source can be identified which was originally compiled in Aramaic and which goes right back to the primitive community in Palestine before the destruction of the Second Temple b) that the Gospel is a compilation of different sources which have been arranged by a final redactor who has left the sources as he received them largely untouched c) that the principle sources pre-date any of the sources to be found in the Synoptic Gospels.

Zechariah has been used by the author of the Fourth Gospel to address one of the most important issues for both the early Church and first century AD Judaism: the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. The Johannine references to this prophecy served to express the revolutionary truth that there is a new temple, the body of Jesus, the King-Messiah, which is rebuilt by means of his resurrection. The same prophecy served to illustrate yet another dramatic truth: just as the eschatological Jerusalem Temple is the source of the outflow of paradisiac water, so this Temple-Messiah is the source of the re-creating Spirit. Thus, the main contribution of this study is to show the relevance of Zechariah for the Johannine christology and pneumatology, both centered around the idea of the Temple.

This book is a scholarly inquiry into the authenticity of John 1:13 and its theological implications. The research is quite challenging because of the two different readings of the Greek verb "gennao" in various manuscripts, uncials and cursives. The two textual variants are "was born" and "were born". Johannine scholars have no common agreement on this point. Some modern versions of the Bible read it in the singular and some other versions in the plural. Read in the plural, it refers to the Baptismal Birth of Christians. But the singular readings refers to the Virgin Birth of Jesus and implies the theology of Incarnation. Should we read this verse in the singular form (was born) or in the plural form (were born)? This book gets into the intellectual battle between the two opposing groups of scholars. In this detailed and in-depth study, the author takes a position in favour of the singular reading. Then he exegetically analyses it and presents its theological implications. There are three chapters:
1) Textual criticism of John 1.13;
2) Exegetical Analysis of John 1.11-14;
3) Theological Implications of John 1:13 - Christology and Mariology

CLICK AUDIO LINK BELOW (under "Files") TO HEAR THIS DISCUSSION. THERE IS NO PAPER COPY. "Christ through Four Gospel Portraits" is an exploration of the the distinct historical, literary, and theological contributions of each Evangelist to the question of the identity and mission of Jesus for its earliest Christian readership.

Pilate’s declaration ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος found in John 19:5 has given rise to a number of interpretations that seem in basic agreement, yet, at the same time, many others of a divergent and opposing nature. Among the many treatments of this verse is a whole set of proposals that see in Pilate’s words an allusion to various Old Testament texts. The present article aims at presenting the range of these scholarly interpretations (both older and modern ones) which resort to an Old Testament background for the famous ecce homo phrase. The article then focuses the discussion on Daniel’s “Son of Man”, the Isaianic “Suffering Servant”, the messianic “man” of Zec 6:12 and Num 24:17 (LXX), Adamic typology, the king of 1 Sm 9:17, and finally the figure of the bridegroom from the Song of Songs. In each case, an evaluation of the hypothetical Old Testament background is given. The author concurs with the idea of multiple intertextual Old Testament references encapsulated in Pilate’s ecce homo utterance.

The relation between Mark and John, the Bi-Optic Gospels, is one of the most difficult and most important subjects in biblical studies. Upon correct inferences of this set of intratraditional and intertraditional relationships many other judgments falter or stand. Seeking to make an advance over monodimensional source- and redaction-critical theories, an overall theory of Markan-Johannine interfluentiality identifies at least six stages in the developments within and between these two traditions, seeking to make the best sense of their textual similarities and differences. Along the way, several advances are argued over prevalent critical approaches, leading to an assessment of John’s relation to Mark as being interfluential in the oral stages of their traditions, augmentive and corrective to Mark in John’s first edition as “the second gospel”, and harmonizing - in that the final edition of John tends to reconcile itself with the other Markan Gospels. As the final Markan interpolation includes Johannine content, interfluentiality indeed continues. In service to an overall theory of interfluentiality stands Mikhail Bakhtin’s theory of polyvalent dialogism, applicable to historical narratives as well as fictive ones, wherein answerability within the cognitive experience of authors seeks to reconcile disparities between life and art. In that sense, an ongoing history of dialectical engagement between these bi-optic renderings of Jesus’ ministry inform also a broader understanding of John’s distinctive relations to the Lukan, Q, and Matthean traditions, and most importantly to their common subject: Jesus.

This essay was presented at the Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research and the Gospel of John (March 2016); it is slated for publication in The Gospel of John in Historical Inquiry: The Third Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, Princeton 2016, edited by James H. Charlesworth with Jolyon and G. R. Pruszinski, in consultation with Petr Pokorný and Jan Roskovec (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017).

The footwashing episode in John's Gospel is best seen as exemplifying the issue of status reversal.  Footwashing was common in antiquity, but always a function of low status individuals.  Jesus's footwashing serves to exemplify the importance of status reversal in his view of the kingdom.    This essay surveys footwashings in antiquity and in John, and assesses the particular role Jesus's footwashing serves in the gospel narrative

This short paper is simply designed to raise questions as to Markan priority in the solution of the synoptic puzzle. It gives a short and by no means comprehensive outline of the synoptic problem, and asserts that while there is no present day academic consensus regarding an alternative hypothesis to Markan priority, it does not mean Markan priority is a satisfactory theory explaining the data in the three gospels. It is not and many of its inadequacies are explained in this paper. The first half of the paper outlines some of the hypotheses put forward which attempt to explain the data, this culminates with Markan priority. The second half is a critique of the hypothesis based on the work of Farmer on the Griesbach hypothesis. The final conclusion is by no means certain.

This book is a scholarly inquiry into the authenticity of John 1:13 and its theological implications. The research is quite challenging because of the two different readings of the Greek verb "gennao" in various manuscripts, uncials and cursives. The two textual variants are "was born" and "were born". Johannine scholars have no common agreement on this point. Some modern versions of the Bible read it in the singular and some other versions in the plural. Read in the plural, it refers to the Baptismal Birth of Christians. But the singular readings refers to the Virgin Birth of Jesus and implies the theology of Incarnation. Should we read this verse in the singular form (was born) or in the plural form (were born)? This book gets into the intellectual battle between the two opposing groups of scholars. In this detailed and in-depth study, the author takes a position in favour of the singular reading. Then he exegetically analyses it and presents its theological implications. There are three chapters: 1) Textual criticism of John 1.13; 2) Exegetical Analysis of John 1.11-14; 3) Theological Implications of John 1:13 - Christology and Mariology

The article deals with an exegetical misunderstanding revolving around the purported existence of two different ways of reckoning the hours of the day in antiquity, and consequently in the Gospels: an alleged Roman mode (in John's Gospel) and the Jewish one (in the Synoptics). Among Johannine scholars a disagreement exists over the issue of which system was embraced by the Evangelist. While the majority claim that John followed the known Jewish system of reckoning hours, a minority argue that another, distinctively Roman system was being employed in the FG. In its first part, the article reviews extrabiblical ancient literature to demonstrate that, while the Romans in fact had two systems of marking the beginning of the day (dies civilis, legitimus - starting at midnight, and dies naturalis, verus - starting at sunrise), the manner of reckoning the hours of the day (and the night) was precisely the same for the Romans as for the Jews. In the second part, both systems are applied to four specific Johannine references to the hours of the day (1:39; 4:6; 4:52; and 19:14) in order to assess which method of reckoning the hours better suits the literary context of each narrative. While this internal analysis of the Johannine text is inconclusive, our assessment of the external, extrabiblical evidence points to the conclusion that the ancients, including John the Evangelist, used only one, nearly universal manner of reckoning the hours, i.e. beginning from sunrise.

For a number of Johannine scholars, the combination of aporias and temporal disjunctions (whether proleptic or analeptic) in John’s gospel point to either the later editing of sources, or to the (perhaps more than one) revision of the gospel story by the final author. I suggest that most or all of these should be more appropriately attributed to John’s narrative interest in developing a well-structured and coherent story.
In this paper I would like to explore one fairly narrow aspect of this issue, that is the role that proleptic introductions of, and subsequent rehearsals by, key characters provides in the narrative structure of the Fourth Gospel.  In particular I will examine the importance and function of the following narrative linkages:  John the Baptist’s interactions with Jesus, the periodic appearances of Nicodemus, the identification of Judas as one who will betray, and the role of Mary and Martha and the anointing of Jesus’ feet.  In each of these there are “out of sequence” prior announcements or repeated features that realize or fulfill previous announcements.  This pattern of announcing and revisiting certain characters in the gospel story seems integral to the development of the gospel story, and thus should influence how we see John functioning as composer.

This is my overall theory of Johannine composition, involving an early and a final edition of the Gospel, with the three Johannine Epistles composed by the Elder written between them--who was the final editor of the Beloved Disciple's narrative work. Included in this essay is an overlooked first-century clue to John's authorship, building on the ancient tradition of two "John's" buried at Ephesus. It is published in Structure, Composition, and Authorship of John’s Gospel, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Hughson Ong, The Origins of John's Gospel, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2015, pp. 169-218.

This cover story was published in the Messianic periodical, Ariel Magazine (Winter, 2021). It briefly argues that the Gospel of John contains a theme of suffering believers who stand as paradigms for suffering believers today. Because Messiah suffered for glory of God, those who follow Messiah are at times called to glorify God in suffering. The language of the essay is particularly sensitive to Jewish readers.

(From the introduction by the editors:) Volker Rabens untersucht in seinem Beitrag „Sein und Werden in Beziehungen. Grundzüge relationaler Theologie bei Paulus und Johannes“, wie in diesen Textcorpora Relationen beschrieben werden, die Sein und (Verändert-)Werden des Menschen bestimmen. Rabens arbeitet heraus, „dass Relationalität in der paulinischen und johanneischen Literatur jeweils eigene Metaphorik und Ausdrucksformen gefunden hat, aber dass selbst auf der sprachlichen Ebene eine große Konvergenz festzustellen ist (z.B. in der Familien-Metaphorik).“ In seinem Aufsatz geht er im Anschluss an den Beitrag von Wilfried Härle auch ausführlich auf mögliche Missverständnisse gegenüber relationalen Ansätzen ein und profiliert diese so in Auseinandersetzung mit ihrer Kritik.