Gospel of John

Composition

The Gospel of John is traditionally attributed to John the Apostle. While many modern scholars continue to affirm the traditional attribution,^[22] first found in Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202 AD),^[23] most reject this hypothesis, though they view the beloved disciple as the source of much of John's content.^{[24][25][26][27]} The gospel is internally anonymous. John 21:22 references a disciple whom Jesus loved and John 21:24–25 says: "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true".^[11] Most scholars believe the verses claim the beloved disciple was the author of the gospel, but others argue the author is claiming to be someone else recording the disciple's testimony.^{[28][a][29][b]} The beloved disciple is generally considered a historical person,^[30] though a growing number of scholars have argued the disciple was a literary creation with the advent of literary criticism.^[31] There is no consensus on who the beloved disciple was.^[32] John 1:14 also switches to a first-person narration, saying "And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth," revealing himself as a participant in the events narrated.^[33][34][35] The gospel gradually identifies its narrator as the beloved disciple by chapter 19.^{[36] [35]} The scholarly consensus dates the writing of the gospel between AD 90–100.^[7][6] Most critical commentaries agree the gospel was likely composed in Ephesus.^[37]

Recent scholarship has tended to turn against positing hypothetical sources for John.^[38] While a few scholars support old ideas about debated sources like the "signs source" and the "sayings source",^[39] or develop new theories, it is widely considered that John incorporated synoptic traditions into his own composition instead.^[40] For much of the twentieth century, the consensus was that John was independent of the Synoptics, but most scholars now accept the Synoptics as sources for John.^[41][42][20] The Hebrew scriptures were an important source,^[43] with 14 direct quotations (versus 27 in Mark, 54 in Matthew, 24 in Luke), and their influence is vastly increased when allusions and echoes are included,^[44] but the majority of John's direct quotations do not agree exactly with any known version of the Jewish scriptures.^[45] The author may claim to be a witness in John 21, 1:14, and 19:35.^[33][34][35] Most scholars agree the Gospels do not contain direct eyewitness accounts, though this may partly be the result of dubious assumptions based on form criticism.^[46][47] Tom Thatcher, writing for the Oxford Handbook of Johannine Studies, argues that while the beloved disciple did not write the current form of the gospel, this does not entail reconstructions that put the author multiple stages or generations away from the disciple. Instead, he argues that the Fourth Evangelist was a companion of the beloved disciple who either wrote by the disciple's dictation or expanded his work.^[48] René Kieffer [sv] notes the possibility that there may have been a first and then a second edition.^[49]

The Johannine community

For much of the 20th century, scholars interpreted the Gospel of John within the paradigm of a hypothetical "Johannine community,"^[13] meaning that it was held to have sprung from a late 1st-century Christian community that was excommunicated from the Jewish community on account of belief in Jesus as the promised messiah.^[50][51] The gospel was considered to reflect a break between the Johannine Christians and the Jews, while the Johannine community itself disintegrated.^[52] This interpretation, which saw the community as essentially sectarian and outside the mainstream of early Christianity, has been increasingly challenged in the 21st century;^[14] according to Richard Bauckham, the gospels as Greco-Roman biographies assumed a wide audience rather than individual communities and early churches maintained close contact with one another. Christopher Skinner noted that Brown’s multiple-stage communal theories were arguably tendentious, and usage of the Birkat Haminim as a first century text has been questioned.^[53] There is considerable debate over the gospel's social, religious, and historical context.^[15]

Christology

The Gospel of John contains some of the clearest identifications of Jesus with God in the New Testament; while Jesus is subordinate to God at times, the author also indicates that Jesus and God are somehow one.^[18][75] Pope Benedict XVI highlights a connection that this Gospel has with the Old Testament.^[76] According to James Dunn, this Christology does not describe a subordinationist relation but rather the authority and validity of the Son's "revelation" of the Father, the continuity between the Father and the Son; to Dunn, this is intended to serve the Logos Christology.^[77] Others (e.g., Andrew Loke) view it as connected to the theme of incarnation found within the Gospel.^[78] James Barker maintains that important aspects of Trinitarianism are present within the New Testament and that an economic Trinity "stood ready-made in the Gospel of John,"^[79] and Larry Hurtado likewise argues that the books of the New Testament possess a triadic understanding of God^[80] and contain a number of Trinitarian formulas, despite not including any explicit references to the developed doctrine.^[81][82]

The high Christology of this Gospel depicts Jesus as divine and pre-existent, speaking openly regarding his role, and echoing the "I Am that I Am" of Yahweh with seven "I Am" declarations of his own.^[83][d][91] Simultaneously, there is, like in the Gospel of Luke, emphasis placed on the physical continuity of Jesus's resurrected body; Jesus says to Thomas: "Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe."^[92][93]

Paul N. Anderson has argued, in cognitive-critical perspective, that the Johannine "I Am" sayings, while theologically distinctive, share elements with Synoptic traditions and Hebrew scripture, suggesting they may reflect early traditional material that could support the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts.^[94]

Logos

In the prologue, the gospel identifies Jesus as the Logos (Word). In Ancient Greek philosophy, the term logos referred to the principle of cosmic reason.^[95] In this sense, it was similar to the Hebrew concept of Wisdom, God's companion and intimate helper in creation.^[96]

Philo, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, merged these themes when he described the Logos as God's creator of and mediator with the material world; Philo also calls the Logos "the second god."^[97] According to Stephen Harris, the author adapted and applied Philo's description of the Logos to Jesus as the incarnation of the Logos.^[98]

Another possibility is found in the Targums, all of which postdate the 1st-century but still give evidence of early tradition. Therein, the concept of the Word is similar to Philo's description, such as in God's interaction with the world and with his people.^[99]

Cross

The portrayal of Jesus's death in John is unique among the gospels. It does not appear to rely on the kinds of atonement theology indicative of vicarious sacrifice^[100] but rather presents Jesus's death as his glorification and return to the Father. Likewise, the Synoptic Gospels' three "passion predictions"^[101] are replaced by three instances of Jesus explaining how he will be exalted or "lifted up".^[102] The verb for "lifted up" (Ancient Greek: ὑψωθῆναι, hypsōthēnai) reflects the double entendre at work in John's theology of the cross, for Jesus is both physically elevated from the earth at the crucifixion but also, at the same time, exalted and glorified.^[103]

John's Gospel intimately links the crucifixion with themes of new birth and eternal life. Jesus' statement in John 3:14-15 likens his being "lifted up" to the bronze serpent in the wilderness, indicating that belief in the crucified Christ confers eternal life. Hence, the cross inaugurates a new covenantal reality and the possibility of spiritual rebirth. This emphasizes the life-giving rather than punitive aspects of Jesus' death.^[104]

Sacraments

Scholars disagree on whether and how frequently John refers to sacraments, but current scholarly opinion is that there are very few such possible references, and that if they exist they are limited to baptism and the Eucharist.^[105] In fact, there is no institution of the Eucharist in John's account of the Last Supper (it is replaced by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples), and no New Testament text that unambiguously links baptism with rebirth.^[106]

Individualism

Compared to the synoptic gospels, John is markedly individualistic, in the sense that it places emphasis more on the individual's relation to Jesus than on the corporate nature of the Church.^[107][108] This is largely accomplished through the consistently singular grammatical structure of various aphoristic sayings of Jesus.^[107][e] Emphasis on believers coming into a new group upon their conversion is conspicuously absent from John,^[107] and there is a theme of "personal coinherence", that is, the intimate personal relationship between the believer and Jesus in which the believer "abides" in Jesus and Jesus in the believer.^{[108][107][f]} John's individualistic tendencies could give rise to a realized eschatology achieved on the level of the individual believer, but this realized eschatology is not to replace "orthodox", futurist eschatological expectations, but to be "only [their] correlative".^[109]

John the Baptist

John's account of John the Baptist is different from that of the synoptic gospels. In this gospel, John is not called "the Baptist."^[110] John the Baptist's ministry overlaps with that of Jesus; his baptism of Jesus is not explicitly mentioned, but his witness to Jesus is unambiguous.^[110] The evangelist almost certainly knew the story of John's baptism of Jesus, and makes a vital theological use of it.^[111] He subordinates John to Jesus, perhaps in response to members of John's sect who regarded the Jesus movement as an offshoot of theirs.^[112]

In the Gospel of John, Jesus and his disciples go to Judea early in Jesus's ministry before John the Baptist was imprisoned and executed by Herod Antipas. He leads a ministry of baptism larger than John's own. The Jesus Seminar rated this account as black, containing no historically accurate information.^[113] According to the biblical historians at the Jesus Seminar, John likely had a larger presence in the public mind than Jesus.^[114]

Gnosticism

In the first half of the 20th century, many scholars, especially Rudolph Bultmann, argued that the Gospel of John has elements in common with Gnosticism.^[112] Some scholars still claim such tendencies in the gospel, but given that the oldest text certainly known to be Gnostic, the Apocrypha of John, is from the mid-second century, such a paradigm is likely flawed,^[115] and most scholars consider the Gnosticism question closed.^[116][117] Christian Gnosticism did not fully develop until the mid-2nd century, and so 2nd-century Proto-Orthodox Christians concentrated much effort in examining and refuting it.^[118] To say the Gospel of John contained elements of Gnosticism is to assume that Gnosticism had developed to a level that required the author to respond to it.^[119] Bultmann, for example, argued that the opening theme of the Gospel of John, the preexisting Logos, along with John's duality of light versus darkness, were originally Gnostic themes that John adopted. Other scholars (e.g., Raymond E. Brown) have argued that the preexisting Logos theme arises from the more ancient Jewish writings in the eighth chapter of the Book of Proverbs, and was fully developed as a theme in Hellenistic Judaism by Philo Judaeus.^[120] The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran verified the Jewish nature of these concepts.^[121] April DeConick, as well as some 19th-century theologians,^[122] suggested reading John 8:44 in support of a Gnostic theology and that the natural reading would be "ye are of the father of the Devil",^[123] but this has been disputed.^[124]

Gnostics read John but interpreted it differently from non-Gnostics.^[125] Gnosticism taught that salvation came from gnosis, secret knowledge, and Gnostics saw Jesus as not a savior but a revealer of knowledge.^[126] The gospel teaches that salvation can be achieved only through revealed wisdom, specifically belief in (literally belief into) Jesus.^[127] John's picture of a supernatural savior who promised to return to take those who believed in him to a heavenly dwelling could be fitted into Gnostic views.^[128] It has been suggested that similarities between the Gospel of John and Gnosticism may spring from common roots in Jewish Apocalyptic literature.^[129]

Synoptic gospels and Pauline literature

The Gospel of John is significantly different from the Synoptics, with its relatively free usage of Mark lining up well with the practices of other Jewish authors during antiquity but contrasting with the unusually conservative adaptations found by the Synoptic authors.^{[130][21][131]} Paul N. Anderson has shown that the relationship between Mark and John is best understood through interfluentiality and dialectics rather than source dependence, with their parallel autonomous traditions engaging and augmenting each other to present a bi-optic view of Jesus' ministry that supports the historical reliability of the Gospels.^[132] The patterns of variation found in the gospels are typical of ancient biographies about actual people and history.^[133] The following are some examples of their differences in just one area, that of the material they include in their narratives:^[134]

In John the ministry of Jesus takes three years, as evidenced by references to three Passovers. Verses in the Synoptics such as Mark 14:49 and Matthew 23:37 are often viewed as hinting at a longer ministry as well, though some argue for a single year.^[135] The date of the crucifixion is different, as is the time of Jesus' anointing in Bethany and the cleansing of the Temple, which occurs in the beginning of Jesus' ministry rather than near its end.^[136] Ancient compositional practices involved chronological displacement and compression, with even reliable biographers like Plutarch displaying them.^[137]

Many incidents from John, such as the wedding in Cana, the encounter of Jesus with the Samaritan woman at the well, and the raising of Lazarus, are not paralleled in the synoptics. Scholarship has turned against positing hypothetical sources for John,^[38] with the majority of scholars today agreeing that the existence of a single source for the miracles in John is highly unlikely.^[138] Opposition to the existence of a "signs gospel" is clearly dominant in the 21st century.^{[139][42][140][141]} The gospel makes extensive use of the Jewish scriptures:^[139] John quotes from them directly, references important figures from them, and uses narratives from them as the basis for several of the discourses. The author was also familiar with non-Jewish sources: the Logos of the prologue (the Word that is with God from the beginning of creation), for example, was derived from both the Jewish concept of Lady Wisdom and from the Greek philosophers, John 6 alludes not only to the exodus but also to Greco-Roman mystery cults, and John 4 alludes to Samaritan messianic beliefs.^[142]

John lacks scenes from the Synoptics such as Jesus' baptism,^[143] Jesus' birth, the calling of the Twelve, exorcisms, parables, and the Transfiguration. Conversely, it includes scenes not found in the Synoptics, including Jesus turning water into wine at the wedding at Cana, the resurrection of Lazarus, Jesus washing the feet of his disciples, and multiple visits to Jerusalem.^[136]

In John, the hometown of Jesus is Nazareth;^[144] his father is Joseph,^[145] and his mother is mentioned in three passages but not named.^[146][147] The main concern in John is contrasting Jesus' humble beginnings with his significant status as the Son of God who comes from God the Father.^[148][149]

While John makes no direct mention of Jesus' baptism,^[143][136] he does quote John the Baptist's description of the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove, as happens at Jesus' baptism in the Synoptics.^[150][151] Major synoptic speeches of Jesus are absent, including the Sermon on the Mount and the Olivet Discourse,^[152] and the exorcisms of demons are not mentioned.^[143][153] John does not list the Twelve Disciples and names at least one disciple, Nathanael, whose name is not found in the Synoptics. Thomas is given a personality beyond a mere name, described as "Doubting Thomas".^[154]

Jesus is identified with the Word ("Logos"), and the Word is identified with theos ("god" in Greek).^[155] According to DA Carson, the Synoptics make no such identification,^[156] though many scholars today concede the synoptic gospels and other New Testament texts portray Jesus as divine.^[157] In Mark, Jesus urges his disciples to keep his divinity secret, but in John he is very open in discussing it, even calling himself "I AM", the title God gives himself in Exodus at his self-revelation to Moses. In the Synoptics, the chief theme is the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven (the latter specifically in Matthew), while John's theme is Jesus as the source of eternal life, and the Kingdom is only mentioned twice.^[136][153] Lindars argues that the "I am" sayings were concerned with issues of the church–synagogue debate at the time of composition. ^[158] In contrast to the synoptic expectation of the Kingdom (using the term parousia, meaning "coming"), John presents a more individualistic, realized eschatology.^[159][g]

In the Synoptics, quotations of Jesus are usually in the form of short, pithy sayings; in John, longer quotations are often given. The vocabulary is also different, and filled with theological import: in John, Jesus does not work "miracles", but "signs" that unveil his divine identity.^[136] Most scholars consider John not to contain any parables. Rather, it contains metaphorical stories or allegories, such as those of the Good Shepherd and the True Vine, in which each element corresponds to a specific person, group, or thing. Other scholars consider stories like the childbearing woman^[161] or the dying grain^[162] to be parables.^[h]

According to the Synoptics, Jesus' arrest was a reaction to the cleansing of the temple; according to John, it was triggered by the raising of Lazarus.^[136] The Pharisees, portrayed as more uniformly legalistic and opposed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels, are portrayed as sharply divided; they frequently debate. Some, such as Nicodemus, even go so far as to be at least partially sympathetic to Jesus. This is believed to be a more accurate historical depiction of the Pharisees, who made debate one of the tenets of their belief system.^[163]

In place of the communal emphasis of the Pauline literature, John stresses the personal relationship of the individual to God.^[107]

Johannine literature

The Gospel of John and the three Johannine epistles exhibit strong resemblances in theology and style; the Book of Revelation has also been traditionally linked with these, but differs from the gospel and letters in style and even theology.^[164] The secession was over Christology, the "knowledge of Christ", or more accurately the understanding of Christ's nature, for the ones who "went out" hesitated to identify Jesus with Christ, minimising the significance of the earthly ministry and denying the salvific importance of Jesus's death on the cross.^[165] The epistles argue against this view, stressing the eternal existence of the Son of God, the salvific nature of his life and death, and the other elements of the gospel's "high" Christology.^[165] Most scholars agree that the Johannine epistles were modeled after the Gospel of John.^[166] Most scholars identify a direct literary borrowing between the prologue of the Gospel and 1 John.^[35][167]

Historical reliability

Jesus' teachings in the Synoptics greatly differ from those in John. Since the 19th century, scholars have almost unanimously accepted that the Johannine discourses are less likely to be historical than the synoptic parables, and were likely written for theological purposes.^[168] Nevertheless, they generally agree that John is not without historical value. Some potential points of value include early provenance for some Johannine material, topographical references for Jerusalem and Judea, Jesus' crucifixion occurring prior to the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and his arrest in the garden occurring after the accompanying deliberation of Jewish authorities.^{[169][170][171]}

Recent scholarship has argued for a more favourable reappraisal of the historical value of the Gospel of John and its importance for the reconstruction of the historical Jesus, based on recent archaeological and literary studies.^{[172][173][174][175][176]} The works of the John, Jesus, and History Seminar have contributed to the overthrow of the previous consensus that the gospel of John was of no historical value, and many scholars now see John as a source for the Historical Jesus.^[177]

Paul N. Anderson, for example, has argued that the Gospel of John contains independent historical traditions rooted in first-hand eyewitness memories and shows realistic details that make it a valuable source for understanding Jesus rather than something to exclude from historical study. He proposed the Gospel of John represents an independent "bi-optic" tradition that developed alongside the Synoptic tradition through oral stages, offering realistic itineraries and details that complement rather than contradict the other Gospels and deserve consideration in historical research.^[178]