Johannine Theology

This essay was published in The Bible and Early Trinitarian Theology, edited by Christopher A. Beeley and Mark E. Weedman, for the CUAP Studies in Early Christianity (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2018); this is the uncorrected proofs. Exploring the humanity and divinity of Jesus, the Son's relation to the Father, and the agency of the Holy Spirit, it is one of five essays suggesting Johannine contributions to trinitarian discussions in the early church.

This is the revised final draft of one of the two lead papers presented at the SNTS pre-conference on The Johannine Question. It covers the last half-century of Johannine paradigms, critiques Pierson Parker's 21 objections to the son of Zebedee having ANYTHING to do with the Johannine tradition, and introduces three aspects of overlooked evidence on the subject.

I believe it was published in 2018:

Paul N. Anderson, “The Son of Zebedee and the Fourth Gospel: Some Clues on John’s Authorship and the State of the Johannine Question.” El Evangelio de Juan. Origen, Contenido y Perspectivas--The Gospel of John. Origin and Perspectives, eds. B. Estrada and L. G. Sarasa, Colección Teología Hoy 80 (Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá 2018).

[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.

Here is my proposed translation of the epistles of John, which I began translating when I first taught Johannine literature. Criticism and correction welcome. Message directly. This is neither an official translation nor is it anything approved for use in any way whatsoever. This translation I offer simply as a service for the study of the Sacred Scriptures and I subject it to the scrutiny of others and to the wisdom of the Church. I have included in parentheses some connections with other texts in Scripture. Translation of the Gospel of John to come eventually.

John's Logos-hymn reflect a response to the Johannine narrative, functioning with other Christological hymns to pose a Jewish challenge to Empire and its divine-Caesar cult. It is added to the final edition of John as an experientially engaging introduction. Published in Creation Stories in Dialogue: The Bible, Science, and Folk Traditions (Radboud Prestige Lecture Series by Alan Culpepper), eds. R. Alan Culpepper and Jan van der Watt, BINS 139 (Leiden: E.J. Brill 2016)--uncorrected proofs.

Erasmus's 1516 Latin–Greek New Testament edition differed from the Latin Vulgate in several ways. A small number of textual variants with doctrinal implications involved Erasmus in considerable controversy. Medieval Western theologians had often relied on the " Johannine Comma " (the long reading of 1 John 5.7-8), established in the Latin Vulgate during the late Middle Ages, as an important scriptural foundation for the doctrine of the Trinity. However, when Erasmus showed that this variant was not present in the Greek manuscript tradition, he was accused of promoting Arianism. Eras-mus's debates with the cleric Edward Lee and the textual critic Jacobus Stunica exposed tensions between theologians, jealous of their authority in scriptural interpretation, and humanists, who claimed to understand the Bible better than theologians by virtue of their philological skills. This article concludes by exploring the Inquisition's failed attempt to find a consensus on this issue in 1527.

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 paper presents a new interpretation of John 8:58 using the semantics of conversational ellipsis and relating Jesus' closing assertion to the opening claim of his engagement with the Jews, namely that he is the Light of the World. A thorough-going typological interpretation is presented. The traditional theological approach involving the notion of pre-existence is shown to be unsafe.

This paper argues that, when the mother of Jesus tells her Son that "they have no wine" in the Cana wedding narrative, she is implicitly describing all the subsequent characters we will encounter in the Fourth Gospel, all of whom are in some way "thirsting" in a way which only Christ can satisfy.  Christ satisfies this thirst by creating a new family, one that is "born again" when He offers quenching water from His Body on the Cross; and this creation of a new family occurs when he tells the Beloved Disciple that His mother is now the Disciple's mother.  Thus, the words from the Cross are a response to the request at the wedding; and the new birth consists of becoming a child of Jesus' Mother.

I esteem this essay to be one of the most significant essays I have ever written; it performs with John 6 something similar to what J. Louis Martyn achieved with John 9. Note, however, that four or five crises, or dialogical engagements, within the Johannine situation are herein involved, not just a Johannine-Jewish dialogue. Also, rather than being "off limits" for Johannine Gospel studies, the Epistles and other writings are here drawn into the contextual situation, evincing a variety of issues, not simply one. It was first published in Critical Readings of John 6 (ed. by Alan Culpepper for the Biblical Interpretation Supplemental Series #22;  Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997; reprinted in 2006, Atlanta: SBL), 1-59. This is a slightly revised version.

This paper was presented at the annual Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics conference held at Southern California Seminary (El Cajon, CA) in 2018.
It argues that an underlying intention of Jesus' final "I Am" statement at John 15 was to announce a transitioning of economies which would be realized with the coming of the Holy Spirit.

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.

Given that the Johannine "I-Am" sayings of Jesus are distinctive in their form, this raises questions as to their origin--was it the historical ministry of Jesus or the theological construct of the evangelist? Given that all nine of the I-Am metaphors in John are present in the Synoptic accounts of Jesus' teachings, it cannot be said that the Johannine paraphrase of Jesus' words is truncated from the Jesus of history on that basis. This is a draft of the article published in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 9 (2011): 139-206.

This is my extensive introduction to Bultmann's commentary on John as the first volume in the Johannine Monograph Series edited by Alan Culpepper and myself. It covers over a century of Johannine scholarship, including Bultmann's contribution and scholarship before and after.

In this book, Sung Uk Lim examines the narrative construction of identity and otherness through ongoing interactions between Jesus and the so-called others as represented by the minor characters in the Gospel of John. This study reconfigures the otherness of the minor characters in order to reconstruct the identity of Jesus beyond the exclusive binary of identity and otherness. The recent trends in Johannine scholarship are deeply entrenched in a dialectical framework of inclusion and exclusion, perpetuating positive portrayals of Jesus and negative portrayals of the minor characters. Read in this light, Jesus is portrayed as a superior, omniscient, and omnipotent character, whereas minor characters are depicted as inferior, uncomprehending, and powerless. At the root of such portrayals lies the belief that the Johannine dualistic Weltanschauung warrants such a sharp differentiation between Jesus and the minor characters. Lim argues, to the contrary, that the multiple constructions of otherness deriving from the minor characters make Jesus' identity vulnerable to a constant process of transformation. Consequently, John's minor characters actually challenge and destabilize Johannine hierarchical dualism within a both/and framework.

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 essay is an expanded version of the essay published in "John and Judaism: A Contested Relationship in Context," Resources for Biblical Study 87 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017) 265-311. It includes expanded sections on the Johannine situation, John's composition, and an extended bibliography.

A short article on the origin and development of the longer Trinitarian text of 1 John 5:7-8 as found in the Textus Receptus. The typos that are present in this draft will be corrected before the final version is submitted for publication. These include: Lachman > Lachmann; 1881 > 1831; Montifortianus > Montfortianus; [Ayuso] Ionneum > Ioanneum; [Bludau 1903-1] Bibeldruchen > Bibeldrucken; [Bludau 1919-1] den Glaubensbekenntnis > dem Glaubensbekenntnis; [Fischer] pseudo-autustinischen > pseudo-augustinischen; obiectarum. > obiectarum.’; [Rivière] es trois > des trois. Thanks to Jeff Cate, Peter Gurry, and especially Jan Krans for alerting me to these when it was originally posted on academia in 2015. The data of this DRAFT will also fully updated and footnoted in the 2020 peer-reviewed version in "Early Christianity."

Presented at the Salzburg Symposium, "For and Against the Priority of John," organized by Peter Hofrichter and published in his edited volume, Für und Wider die Priorität des Johannesevangeliums (Olms, 2002, 19-58), this essay lays out my overall theory of what I cal "A Bi-Optic Hypothesis."

The development of the “love command” in Jesus’ teaching and its implementation in the early Christian community as a social boundary marker has been the topic of much discussion. Many locate this development within the Johannine corpus, particularly in the Johannine epistles, and argue that the “love command” functions in an exclusive fashion, reinforcing group identity. Yet one may ask whether these formulations have adequately considered the social context of the perpetuation of the “love command” in the Johannine community, particularly in relation to the ethics of the Jewish mission. Using conceptual mapping theories developed by Giles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, this paper examines the conceptions of love, the Law, and boundary line formation in Jewish literature of the Second Temple period to understand the social phenomenon occurring in the early Johannine community depicted in the “love command” in Johannine literature.

The third printing of The Christology of the Fourth Gospel (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2010) updates my first Johannine monograph with five outlines of new paradigms comprising my overall theory: the Dialogical Autonomy of the Fourth Gospel (pp. xxxv-lxxxix).

The shedding of tears of Jesus in Jn 11:35 has often been interpreted in four ways, namely: Jesus' grief over the death of a friend, Jesus' sadness over the reality of death in the world, Jesus' grief over his own impending death, or Jesus' anger because of the unbelief around him. None of these interpretations ventured into an in-depth analysis of the peculiar use of dakryo ¯ (a hapax legomenon) in Jn 11:35 within a narrative that uses klaio ¯ three times (Jn 11:31, 332), even though both dakryo ¯ and klaio ¯ belong to the same semantic domain. This article will explore the significance of John's use of dakryo ¯ for the interpretation of Jn 11:35. The article suggests that the lexical shift from klaio ¯ to dakryo ¯ signals the reader to differentiate the weeping of Jesus in Jn 11:35 from the weeping of Mary and the Ioudaioi in Jn 11:33. Through a narrative-critical analysis of the contexts of the occurrences of klaio ¯ in the Gospel of John and dakryo ¯ in the LXX, along with a narrative-critical analysis of the Lazarus story (Jn 11:1–53), the article proposes that Jesus' shedding of tears in Jn 11:35 is not to be interpreted in relation to mourning over death, but is rather due to the frustration of Jesus at the lack of faith around him, even by Martha and Mary, two people whom the Fourth Gospel specifically names as loved by him (Jn 11:5). Thus, the act of Jesus in Jn 11:35 may be interpreted as his shedding of tears out of frustration.

Scholars have long sought to determine the identity of the believers who “overcome” in Johannine literature and the nature of their overcoming. They have debated over whether the overcomers consist of the truly saved who attain to final salvation (rather than those who forfeit it), the truly saved who live spiritually (rather than those who live carnally), or all the truly saved, whose transformed lives prove the certainty of their final salvation. They also have debated over whether the outcome of overcoming is final salvation or particular rewards that supplement, rather than constitute, it. But scholars have not yet compared how each of the Johannine books portray, in their own historical and literary contexts, what it means for the believer to overcome. They have left unaddressed the extent to which the function of the overcoming theme in one book compares to, or differs from, that in the other. This study provides an inductive, biblical-theological analysis of how the use of νικάω ("to overcome") in First John and Revelation portrays what it means for the believer to overcome in the historical and literary contexts of each book individually. The study demonstrates that the use of νικάω in First John functions as a means of assurance, but the use of νικάω in Revelation functions as a means of admonishment. The use of νικάω in First John functions to portray present behaviors, beliefs, and a state of being that the truly saved already experience in their lives and serves as evidence of their salvation. In Revelation, however, it functions to portray a degree of repentance and faithfulness that they have not yet displayed but must to inherit eternal life.

The fulfillment of “the Scriptures” in John 17:12 has long been a bone of contention among commentators on the Fourth Gospel. The majority of authors have argued that ἡ γραφή unmistakably refers to a passage in the Hebrew Bible. Wendy Sproston (North) and Francis Moloney, however, picking up on an earlier observation by Edwin Freed, suggest Jesus’ own words as a more appropriate referent of ἡ γραφή in this verse. The issue of the correct scriptural referent is intrinsically connected with the question of the thematic referent within the verse in question. As it turns out, the fulfillment of the scripture can refer to either the tragic fate of Judas or the preserving of Jesus’ other disciples. The article surveys recent scholarship on these issues in order to identify the most convincing solutions.

The agency motif in the Gospel of John is not Gnostic (cf. Anderson, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel), but rather, is Jewish, rooted in the Prophet-like-Moses agency schema. In this essay two dozen contacts between Deuteronomy 18:15-22 and the Father-Son relationship in John demonstrate this connection beyond reasonable doubt.

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 Christian message stands or falls with the concept and doctrine of Christ’s divinity. If one were to boil Christianity to its very basics the doctrine of Christology, the concept of Jesus’ divinity, would be found at its very center. It is the idea and doctrine that divides Christianity from other faith-based groups. The burden of proof then remains on the documents that hold the contents to prove this doctrine, the Greek New Testament (NT). Therefore, in order to validate Jesus’ divinity, a close examination must be done of the NT in order to flush out exactly where one can be certain of not only direct claims of Christ’s divinity but also what the NT authors claim about him. In this paper I will be taking a text critical approach towards the first chapter of John’s Gospel in regard to the bold title and assertion of Θεὸς as it is applied to Jesus and assess this title in 1:1 and 1:18; along with a short note on theological implication. This will be my main goal rather than assessing the origin of the understanding of Jesus as divine (although such details will be mentioned in passing), and will be employing a reasoned eclecticism method, of which is the current accepted view among textual critics.