The Expository Times http://ext.sagepub.

com/

Recent Johannine Studies: Part Two: Monographs

Francis J. Moloney The Expository Times 2012 123: 417 DOI: 10.1177/0014524612442266 The online version of this article can be found at: http://ext.sagepub.com/content/123/9/417

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for The Expository Times can be found at: Email Alerts: http://ext.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://ext.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - May 15, 2012 What is This?

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com by guest on September 6, 2012

442266
2012

EXT123910.1177/0014524612442266MoloneyThe Expository Times

Article

Recent Johannine Studies: Part Two: Monographs

Francis J. Moloney
Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

The Expository Times 123(9) 417428 The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub. co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0014524612442266 ext.sagepub.com

Abstract
This survey presents recent studies of the Gospel of John that have attended to the long-standing question of the relationship that may or may not exist between the Johannine story of Jesus and words and events from his life. A renewed interest in a closer link between John and history is taking place. Recent work on the role of witness in the early Church and in the transmission of traditions is also related to this search for the relationship between John and history, as is the ongoing debate over the relationship between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptic Tradition. The debate over the religious and social background to John has been enriched by recent studies that attempt to locate the Gospel in the Roman Empire, and trace the influence of Roman religion and Imperial practices in the Johannine text. Rich studies of Johannine Theology continue to appear, and the recent turn to a more literary evaluation of the Gospel has led to a strong growth in interest in the role of Johannine characters within the story. Some claim that they are entirely subject to the Johannine rhetoric, while others prefer to single them out as distinct and identifiable personalities.

Keywords
John and history, John as witness, John and the Synoptic Gospels, John and the Roman Empire, Johannine Theology, Johannine symbols, Johannine characters.

A presentation of current monographic literature on the Gospel of John must face the fact that scarcely a month goes by without the publication of a significant new book. I will approach my task by surveying three areas of Johannine scholarship: (1) John and history, (2) John within the Roman Empire, (3) some brief remarks on Johannine theology and characterisation.1 So much has been written and
1I am grateful to my former doctoral student, Professor Christopher Skinner, for his assistance in current discussions of Empire and Johannine characterisation.

published but there is little point in listing dozens of monographs, without indicating their contribution to contemporary Johannine scholarship.2
2 Lengthy

and complete surveys do exist for the consultation of Johannine scholars. Professional readers are urged to follow the periodical review of Johannine studies that appears in Theologische Rundshau. Distinguished Johannine scholars have contributed to this Rundshau.

Corresponding author: Francis J. Moloney Email: fmoloney@salesians.org.au

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com by guest on September 6, 2012

418

The Expository Times 123(9) result of the hellenisation of the Christian tradition, reflecting early Gnosticism. This view has been steadily eroded by studies that have shown the relationships that exist between the Johannine narrative and a broadly based Jewish background, especially in the sectarian Judaism reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls.6 Perhaps the most significant indication of the increasing interest in John and history comes from the group closely associated with the Society of Biblical Literature, established by Tom Thatcher: John, Jesus and History Group. In an increasingly subtle use of more contemporary techniques (e.g., orality, performance, first century media), every possible angle that might lead back to the establishment of close contact between the Gospel of John, Jesus and Nazareth and his history is explored, presented and critiqued at the Annual General Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. The best of the papers presented at these meetings to this point are now available, and indicate the current enthusiastic and innovative search for history in the pages of the Gospel of John. Johns topography, chronology (especially of John 18-19), the historicity of some or all of the characters in the Gospel, the basic Jewishness of some claims made by Jesus traditionally regarded as theologically too late to come from Jesus, come under careful scrutiny.7
6 For

John and History

As the historical-critical method had its origins in nineteenth-century source criticism, John was disregarded as a possible source for the Jesus of history. The establishment of Mark as the first Gospel to be written led most critics to focus on the Jesus of the Gospel of Mark for the framework of Jesus life, ministry, teaching, death and resurrection.3 John had little to contribute to this discussion. Three issues call for attention: (1) the authenticity of the historical data recorded in the Gospel, (2) John as witness, and (3) the relationship between John and the Synoptic Gospels.

Authentic historical data

A epoch-making study that turned the tide was the work of Charles Harold Dodd on Johns close relationship with an independent Christian historical tradition that was closer to Jesus life and times than was often allowed.4 This work was somewhat against the grain in the days of Rudolf Bultmanns powerful existentialist reading of the Gospel, expounded in his commentary on the Gospel and his Theologie des Neuen Testaments.5 The Fourth Gospel was widely regarded as the
Hartwig Thyen has produced many valuable surveys. He has now been replaced by perhaps the foremost Johannine scholar currently working in Germany, Udo Schnelle. See, most recently, Udo Schnelle, Aus der Literatur zum Johannesevangelium 1994-2010. Erster Teil: Die Kommentare als Seismographen der Forschung, Theologische Rundschau 75 (2010): 265-303. In an extended review, Schnelle surveys the change of direction reflected in contemporary Johannine commentaries. He presents the work of Dietzfelbinger, Moloney, Schenke, Schnelle, Stibbe, Theobald, van Tilborg, Wengst and Wilkins, many of whom were reviewed in my earlier survey in The Expository Times 123.7 (2012): 313-322.
3For

an excellent survey, leading to the conclusion that Johns roots are found in Judaism, see Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the Gospel of John (ed. Francis J. Moloney; New York: Doubleday, 2003), 115-50. On John and the Dead Sea Scrolls, see also John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 205-37. Ashton suggests that the author was an Essene. See also Mary L. Coloe and Tom Thatcher, eds., John, Qumran, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Early Judaism and Its Literature 32; Atlanta: SBL, 2011).
7 Paul

a documented summary, see Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of Mark. A Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 1-10.
4 Charles

H. Dodd, Historical Tradition and the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963).
5 Rudolf

Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes (Meyer Kommentar; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1941); Idem, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1948). Both of these works are available in English. I am listing the originals, as that was the context within which Dodd was working against the grain.

N. Anderson, Felix Just and Tom Thatcher, eds., John, Jesus and History, Volume 1: Critical Appraisals of Critical Views (Symposium Series 44; Atlanta: SBL, 2007); Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just and Tom Thatcher, eds., John, Jesus and History, Volume 2: Aspects of Historicity in the Fourth Gospel (Early Christianity and Its Literature 2; Atlanta: SBL, 2009). The first volume considers methodological issues, and the second highlights historical features in the Johannine narrative. See also Robert T. Fortna and Tom Thatcher, eds., Jesus in the Johannine Tradition (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001); Tom Thatcher, Why John Wrote a Gospel: Jesus Memory History (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006).

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com by guest on September 6, 2012

Moloney This renewed interest in the relationship between the Gospel of John and history has become part of recent studies on the Jesus of history. Most significantly, the mammoth studies of John P. Meier and Nicholas T. Wright never discount the evidence of the Fourth Gospel, but use it regularly to support or correct conclusions that have been made on the basis of the Synoptic Tradition only.8 As Meier states it, succinctly, and with some passion:
Johns Gospel, in my opinion, is not to be rejected en masse and a priori as a source for the historical Jesus. To be sure the rewriting of narratives for symbolic purposes and the reformulation of sayings for theological programs reach their high point in John. Yet such tendencies are not totally absent from the Synoptics, and at times John rather than the Synoptics may be historically correct. Each case must be judged on its own merits; the tyranny of the Synoptic Jesus should be consigned to the dustbin of the post-Bultmannians.9

419

John as witness
This issue is closely linked with the work of Richard Bauckham who has devoted a great deal of energy to establishing the role of witness at the roots of the Christian tradition, with special attention devoted to the witness of the Beloved Disciple.11 Bauckham has pursued a rich and informative vein, depending on the work of Samuel Byrskog on the intimate link between historical witness and theology, and Jan Vansina on oral tradition.12 Briefly, his argument is twofold. The Gospel traditions began in the experience of eyewitnesses and as the traditions developed, these original eyewitnesses continued to play a constructive and critical role in what was said (and eventually written). Secondly, linking the Gospel traditions, and the eventual Gospel narratives that they formed, with historical experience of witnesses does not limit the possibility of the articulation of a profound theological perspective. The eyewitnesses themselves regarded their experience as a disclosure of God.13 He can thus argue: The texts of our Gospels are close to the eye-witness reports of the words and deeds of Jesus.14 Bauckham leaves no stone unturned in his search for that eyewitness, including perhaps the best current analysis of the testimony of Papias, Polycrates and Irenaeus
11 Richard

Meier, Wright, and other contemporary scholars, judge each case on its own merits, and care must be taken in such detailed studies of the relationship between the material in the Gospel of John and history, as is the case with similar analyses of the data found in the Synoptic Tradition. No doubt, elements from the life and teaching of Jesus can be traced in John, without sacrificing the unique theological perspective of that Gospel.10
8 John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew. Rethinking the Historical Jesus (4 vols.; New York/New Haven: Doubleday/Yale University Press, 1991-2009); Nicholas T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003).

Bauckham, John for Readers of Mark, in The Gospel for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (ed. Richard Bauckham; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 147-71; Idem, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006). On the Beloved Disciple, see pp. 358-472. Idem, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007); Richard Bauckham and Carl Mosser, eds., The Gospel of John and Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008). On the Beloved Disciple, see pp. 120-139.

A Marginal Jew, 1:45. On this issue, see the important remarks of Dwight Moody Smith, The Fourth Gospel in Four Dimensions (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2008), 47-129.
10 For

9 Meier,

12 Samuel

Byrskog, Story as History History as Story (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 123; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000); Jan Vansina, Oral Tradition as History (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985). passim). Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 411 (and Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 240.

my own contribution, arguing this case in linking the early pages of Johns Gospel with historical events from the life of Jesus, see Francis J. Moloney, The Fourth Gospel and the Jesus of History, New Testament Studies 46 (2000): 42-58.

13 Bauckham,

14 Bauckham,

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com by guest on September 6, 2012

420 concerning the name hidden by the anonymity of the Beloved Disciple.15 Although leaning strongly towards Irenaeus identification of the Beloved Diciples as John the Apostle, his scholarship indicates that we still cannot be sure of the exact identity of the Beloved Disciple.16 But the Beloved Disciple is the eyewitness who provided the Johannine account. Indeed, he wrote it. The case that Bauckham wishes to make is that the Gospel of John reaches back to an eyewitness, indicated by many features in the text itself, and that as a player in the cosmic trial that is recorded in the Gospel of John he has produced a story based in the life and teaching of Jesus, yet deeply and uniquely theological.17 It is best to allow Bauckham speak for himself:
It is a view from outside the circles from which other Gospel traditions largely derive, and is the perspective of a man who was deeply but distinctively formed by his own experience of the events.
15 See Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 412-37 (Papias), 438-68 (Polycrates and Irenaeus). 16 For Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth (2 vols; London/ San Francisco: Bloomsbury/Ignatius, 2007-2011), 1:218-38, it is essential for the theological value of the witness of the Fourth Gospel that it be the immediate and authentic witness of John, the Son of Zebedee, the author of the Gospel. 17 There

The Expository Times 123(9)

In its origins and in its reflective maturation this testimony is idiosyncratic, and its truth is not distinguishable from its idiosyncrasy. As with all testimony, even that of the law court, there is a point beyond which corroboration cannot go, and only the witness can vouch for the truth of his own witness.18

are many features in the text itself that are open to serious question. To mention only one, for Bauckham, across the Gospels and other ancient literature there is the practice of using a literary inclusion to identify an eyewitness, even though s/he remains anonymous in the text (see The Fourth Gospel as the Testimony of the Beloved Disciple, 131-34; Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 124-47). For Bauckham, the unnamed disciple in John 1:35 and the appearance of the Beloved Disciple across John 21 forms that inclusion and guarantees his role as an eyewitness. Most would reject that the figure in 1:35 is the Beloved Disciple or the other disciple of the rest of the narrative. The majority of scholars would also not regard John 21 as an integral part of the narrative as a whole. The case for an inclusion between John 1:35-51 and 21:1-25 has been regularly argued. On this, see Francis J. Moloney, John 21 and the Johannine Story, in Anatomies of Narrative Criticism. The Past, Present , and Futures of the Fourth Gospel as Literature (eds. Tom Thatcher and Stephen D. Moore; SBL Resources for Biblical Study 55; Atlanta: SBL, 2008), 237-51.

I have cited this elegant statement from Bauckham because it expresses a concern for truth. I have been enriched through my exposure to this work, but I wonder why the link between the Gospel traditions, in this case the Gospel of John, and an eyewitness who repeatedly intervened in the telling of the story to maintain its truthfulness, no matter how idiosyncratic, is so important. Bauckham and his followers are driven by a desire to avoid any loosening of the proclamation found in the Gospels from what actually happened in the life and teaching of Jesus. I would also insist that the tradition must look back to events from the life and teaching of Jesus. I would equally insist that the Beloved Disciple (whoever he was) is not fictional, and is the originating (but not the final) source for the Gospel as we now have it. I do not accept, however, that the Gospel reflects an eye-witness report, nor that it was written for all Christians.19 The life of the Christian community is Spirit-driven, and the ongoing telling of Jesus story, in all its manifestations, reflects the life of the interpreting and teaching Spirit within the community (see
18 Bauckham,

The Fourth Gospel as the Testimony of the Beloved Disciple, 139.

19 For

a very negative assessment of Bauckhams work from a psychological evaluation of the impact of eyewitness on much later documents, see Judith C. Redman, How Accurate are Eyewitnesses? Bauckham and the Eyewitnesses in the Light of Psychological Research, Journal of Biblical Literature 129 (2010): 177-97. For a full-length study that is less severe on Bauckham, see Robert K. McKiver, Memory, Jesus and the Synoptic Gospels (Resources for Biblical Study 59; Atlanta: SBL, 2011). Note, however, that this applies only to the Synoptic Gospels. Perhaps the best assessment comes from Dale C. Allison, Constructing Jesus. Memory, Imagination and History (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2010). See especially pp. 1-30, 435-62.

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com by guest on September 6, 2012

Moloney John 16:12-15).20 I fully recognise that this is a theological position that depends upon my faith commitment. I suggest that Bauckhams program, articulated in his work on the Fourth Gospel as an eyewitness report, as well as his agenda in the collection of essays The Gospel for All Christians, depends upon his faith commitment. Not only the author(s) of the Fourth Gospel have their idiosyncrasies. It is important that we all recognise and own them, and work accordingly.21

421 has raged around this question ever since.23 I will consider three contributions, and other studies will be referred or alluded to in passing. Noticeable is the fact that most studies focus their attention on John 6 or John 18-20, those passages where parallels between the Gospels are most apparent.24 Manfred Langs study of the Johannine passion and resurrection narratives (John 18-20) has led him to conclude that the Fourth Evangelist did not invent the Gospel form.25 Narratives that told the story of Jesus in a theological key must have been known to him. However, the Fourth Evangelist was no slave to that narrative tradition. Lang wants to show a dependence upon a prior tradition, but a dependence that exercises maximum freedom. He writes of continuity and freedom.26 This approach makes the bulk of the study an
23 For

John and the Synoptic Gospels

Breaking from the long-established belief that the Fourth Gospel depended upon the Synoptic Gospels, Percival Gardner-Smith asked a crucial question in 1938: is it easier to explain the differences between John and the Synoptic with a theory of dependence or to explain the similarities without one?22 A complex debate
20 For example, I cannot imagine how the literary and theological artistry of John 13:1-17:26 could be the result of written testimony from an eye-witness, however idiosyncratic. See Francis J. Moloney, Glory not Dishonor. Reading John 13-21 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1998), 1-126. For the view that it does come from Jesus via John, the Son of Zebedee, see Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth, 2:53-102. 21 See, for example, John Redford, Who Was John? The Fourth Gospel Debate After Pope Benedict XVIs Jesus of Nazareth (London: St Pauls Publishing, 2011). For further reflection and support for my all-too-brief statement, see the perceptive essay of Adele Reinhartz, Gospel Audiences: Variations on a Theme, in The Audience of the Gospels. Further Conversations about the Origin and Function of the Gospels in Early Christianity (Library of New Testament Studies 353; ed. Edward W. Klink, III; New York: T. & T. Clark, 2010), 134-52. For Bauckhams earlier essay on Gospel audiences, see Richard Bauckham, For Whom Were Gospels Written? in The Gospel for All Christians. Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (ed. Richard Bauckham; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 9-48. See the appropriate remarks of Margaret M. Mitchell, The Emergence of the Written Record, in The Cambridge History of Christianity. Volume 1: Origins to Constantine (eds. Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 186-87. 22 Percival

an excellent review of this discussion, see Dwight Moody Smith, John Among the Gospels (2d ed.; Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2001), and the briefer survey of Brown, An Introduction to the Gospel of John, 94-114. work on the development of the miracle tradition and its integration into the Johannine narrative and theological structure has come from the pen of Michael Labahn. In his Jesus als Lebenspender. Untersuchungen zu einer Geschichte der johanneischen Tradition anhand ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche Wissenshaft 98; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999) he examines the pre-history and the eventual reception and role all the miracles in the Fourth Gospel. In Idem, Offenbarung in Zeichen und Wort. Untersuchungen zur Vorgeschichte von Joh 6,1-25a und seiner Rezeption in der Brotrede (Wissenchaftliche Unteruchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.117; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), Labahn expands his earlier work on John 6. For an extended review, see Francis J. Moloney, Where does one look? Reflections on some recent Johannine scholarship, Salesianum 62 (2002): 232-38. Lang, Johannes und die Synoptiker. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Analyse von Johannes 18-20 vor dem markanischen und lukanischen Hintergrund (Forshungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testament 192; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999).

24 Impressive

25 Manfred

Gardner-Smith, Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938).

26 On

this Kontinuitt und Freiheit, see Lang, Johannes und die Synoptiker, 56-60.

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com by guest on September 6, 2012

422 analysis of the possible links between the Johannine passion and resurrection narratives and Mark, Luke and Johannine traditions. This diachronic reading is balanced by many insights into the theological and literary shaping of the elements that were received by the Evangelist. One is left with an appreciation of the Johannine story because Lang turns to that story to locate both signs of material which pre-existed the Gospel in the Johannine community, and the theological motivation of the final Johannine redaction. He is not only interested in establishing word-for-word relationships between John and the Synoptics; he is more interested in his sub-title: a redactioncritical analysis of John 18-20. This is traditional redaction-critical work: establish the sources and then determine how a creative author has used them. Impressed as I am with Langs presentation of the Johannine theological agenda, his hardwon tracing of literary relationships between the final text of the Fourth Gospel, the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke does not convince as the best way to explain similarities. I agree with Udo Schnelle that the Johannine community was aware that it was not the first group of Christians to have a gospel, and may well have been aware of Mark, or Luke, or Matthew, or variations on each of them, but the Fourth Evangelist does not rely upon direct literary, word-for word, borrowing from one or several of the Synoptic Gospels.27 Langs major contribution is an assessment of the richness of the Johannine redaction on the basis of two putative sources: Mark, and to a lesser extent,
27 Udo Schnelle, Johannes und die Synoptiker, in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Franz Neirynck (eds. C. M. Tucker, Gilbert van Belle and Jan Verheyden; Biblioteca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 100; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 3:1801-1815. I am comfortable with the conclusions of Schnelle, Johannes und die Synoptiker, 1813-1814, that John was aware of the Synoptics, but wrote his own Gospel for his community. He builds upon his own traditions and does not use the Synoptics in a way analogous to Matthew and Lukes use of Mark.

The Expository Times 123(9) Luke.28 He is ultimately interested in what the Fourth Evangelist did with what he received from his traditions. Despite my doubts about the use of Mark and Luke in the generation of John 18-20, Lang has produced a well-argued exposition of the Johannine theology of the crucified and risen Jesus.29 Ian Donald Mackays work on the relationship between Mark and John is a fine blend of well-researched traditional source criticism and a hermeneutic that does not rule any possibility out of court.30 It is a singular presentation of the debate over Johns relationship with the Synoptics, and with Mark in particular. He is firm in his commitment to both Mark and John as literary pieces that stand on their own, but argues for the Johannine use of Mark, exemplified by the literary relationships he traces between John 6 and Mark 6 and 8. He concludes:
Since none of the differences between John 6 and the relevant passages in Mark has resisted explanation in terms of Johannine interest, and almost all the material between Marks first feeding and his version of Peters confession reverberates in tune with that between Johns feeding and confession, it seems plausible to suggest that John 6 was put together with an eye on Mark 6:30-9:1 in particular.31
28 Lang

provides a helpful appendix (Anhang) guiding his reader to places where he suggests the Johannine redaction was influenced by Mark and Luke, the Johannine traditions, and the work of the redactor. See Johannes und die Synoptiker, 350-53.
29 In a final chapter (Johannes und die Synoptiker, 307342) Lang shows how John goes well beyond Mark, and examines Johannine hyperbole, the motives of free selfgift, guiltlessness, substitution, royalty, and fulfillment. He offers a study of the Johannine passion chronology, showing that it matches the opening of the Gospel, also marked by seven days. For an extended review of this study, see Moloney, Where does one look?, 238-48. 30 Ian

Donald Mackey, Johns Relationship with Mark. An Analysis of John 6 in the Light of Mark 6-8 (Wissenchaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.182; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004).
31 Mackay,

Johns Relationship with Mark, 298.

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com by guest on September 6, 2012

Moloney Perhaps the most thorough recent attempt to explain the relationships between the Four Gospels comes from Paul N. Anderson.32 He has argued that the Fourth Gospel is dialectical, or dialogical, in almost every aspect. Although the Johannine tradition was an autonomous and independent tradition, it did not grow in a vacuum. The way in which the community understood itself, worked out its theology, lived its history and eventually produced its story of Jesus was through continual interaction with other early Christian traditions.33 There are a number of steps in Andersons process. The Fourth Gospel had two editions. The first edition, the fruit of several years of Johannine preaching, appears between 80-85 as an augmentation of Mark, beginning with the ministry of the Baptist (John 1:6-8, 15, 19-42) and finishing with 20:31. Subsequently, the Johannine Epistles appeared, written by the Elder (85, 90, 95). The final edition is compiled by the Elder after the death of the Beloved Disciple. Major reshaping takes place: the insertion of John 6, the bulk of John 13-17, all references to the Beloved Disciple, and John 21.34 It is impossible to speak of dependence of one tradition on another, but the first edition of John, in dialogue with the Gospel of Mark, produces an augmented and corrected Gospel.35 Luke depends upon Mark, but often goes his
32 Like

423 own way. According to Anderson, on no less than six dozen times, when Luke departs from Mark, he sides with John. Aware of the first edition of John, Luke receives an orderliness and a depth of theological insight from that source.36 The Matthean and Johannine Gospels continue this dialogue, as they reinforce their conviction that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, make progress in establishing Church order, and encourage the missionary outreach of fundamentally Jewish communities.37 There is no need to establish that any of this is the result of direct literary dependence of one text upon another. It is one of several examples of the dialogical nature of the Johannine tradition and its message.38 My own sentiments are best expressed by Dwight Moody Smith:
It is not possible to prove that John did not know the Synoptics, and improbable that his Gospel was published without cognizance of them (21:25). But the Gospels independence is obvious, and it is a better working hypothesis for exegesis than the assumption that the late-firstcentury author was writing with the Synoptic Gospels principally in view, whether to supplement, correct, or displace them. John does, in fact, interpret them, but whether that is by the intention of humankind or the providence of God is likely to remain a moot question.39

many others interested in this question, Andersons dissertation focussed upon John 6. See Paul N. Anderson, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel. Its Unity and Disunity in the Light of John 6 (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996). It was published simultaneously by J. C. B. Mohr in Tbingen. It will be shortly reprinted, with an Epilogue: Responses to The Christology of the Fourth Gospel and Continuing Inquiry. I am grateful to Professor Anderson for sharing a proof of this text with me. especially Paul N. Anderson, The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus. Modern Foundations Reconsidered (Library of New Testament Studies 321; New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006). His work is now readily available in Idem, The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel. An Introduction to John (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2011).
34 See 35 See 33 See

Moody Smith puts his finger on the issue at the heart of the question when he states unequivocally: the Gospels independence is obvious, and it is a better working hypothesis for exegesis. The stress is mine. In the end, what is best for our understanding of the
36 See 37 See 38 The

Anderson, Quest for Jesus, 112-19. Anderson, Quest for Jesus, 119-125.

Anderson, Quest for Jesus, 39-41. Anderson, Quest for Jesus, 101-12.

above description summarises Anderson, The Riddles, 141-55. See also Anderson, Quest for Jesus, 126, and The Riddles, 151 for an excellent chart outlining the Johannine-Synoptic Interfluential Relationships.
39 Smith,

John Among the Gospels, 241. See further, Idem, Four Dimensions, 133-43.

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com by guest on September 6, 2012

424 Johannine message (exegesis) must direct our scholarly options. In my opinion, it is easier to explain the similarities without a theory of dependence.

The Expository Times 123(9) on between the Synagogue and its leaders, and the Roman religious, social, political and cultural traditions and practices in Ephesus. For Carter, the expression the Jews designates the privileged lite in the Ephesian Synagogue who are over-accommodating to the ways of the Empire. The Fourth Gospel is a narrative presentation of Jesus, using other figures from Israels past to develop a rhetoric of distancing. This rhetoric shows that Jesus and other figures from the past are like yet transcend and challenge all that the Roman presence has to offer. Thus, through a reading of the Jesus-story within Roman Ephesus, the Johannine Christians are to recognise that they have the true life, the true King/Emperor, the true Father. They have a sacred identity; the mystery of Jesus ascension transcends all imperial apotheoses; believers are associated with Jesus return to the Father. This sketch does not do justice to Carters rich treatment of the Roman material (in which he is a well-established expert) and the Johannine Gospel. Methodologically, like most of us, he places major Johannine issues side by side with Roman treatments of parallel or similar themes, but this approach has its weaknesses.44 Nevertheless, this is an impressive study. If Carter is correct, he has set a new agenda for Johannine studies; everything written over the past 150 years will become marginal. In an amazing appendix, Carter argues that Caligulas attempt to install his statue as Zeus/Jupiter in the Jerusalem temple in 40 CE is the originating experience for every element within the Johannine Christology. Caligula is the father of Johannine Christology.45 Almost simultaneously, Lance Richey and Tom Thatcher have read John through Roman
44 See

John and the Roman Empire

Warren Carter has made a major contribution to the study of the Gospel of Matthew that gives due weight to its first Century Roman context.40 He has recently turned his attention to a reading of the Gospel of John against the background of the Roman Empire.41 Briefly, Carter denies the long-standing view in Johannine scholarship that the text of the Gospel suggests hostility between the Johannine Christians and the Synagogue (see John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2) and the infamous negative use of the expression the Jews.42 A subtle hermeneutic is in place. The Fourth Gospel:
is a hidden transcript, part of a debate among Jesus-believers over imperial negotiation, yet contestive of imperial power, whose rhetoric of distance tries to create lines between the empire and the faithful followers of Jesus, urging Jesusbelievers to a less accommodated and to a moredistinctive way of life as an anti-society or alternative community.43

The Johannine Christians are still in the Synagogue, but accommodation is going

40 See,

for example, Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins. A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2000).
41 Warren

Carter, John and Empire: Initial Explorations (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2008). See my extensive review article, Francis J. Moloney, Review Article: Warren Carter, John and Empire, Pacifica 22 (2009): 90-95.

42 On

this problem, see my survey and suggestions in Francis J. Moloney, The Jews in the Fourth Gospel: Another Perspective, in The Gospel of John: Text and Context (Biblical Interpretation Series 72; Boston/Leiden: Brill, 2005), 20-44.
43 Carter,

the warning against this well-used method in HansJosef Klauck, The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Greco-Roman Religions (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003), 1-11.
45 Carter,

John and Empire, 82.

John and Empire, 343-84.

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com by guest on September 6, 2012

Moloney eyes.46 Unlike Carter, Richey accepts that the Johannine Christians have been separated from the Synagogue, but this situation rendered them vulnerable to Roman social and religious pressures; they were no longer Jews, and thus not free from the imperial cult. Against this background, Richey identifies a number of elements in the Gospel which reflect a polemic against the Augustan ideology. This polemic is communicated by unique Johannine claims for Jesus as the saviour of the world (4:42) and the Son of God (1:39, 49; 3:10; 5:25; 10:36; 11:4, 27; 19:7; 20:31). For the Empire, these titles and the authority invested in them, belonged to Caesar; in the Fourth Gospel, they belong to Jesus. There is much that is helpful, and even likely, in this argument. However, Richey attempts the bridge too far in an attempt to read John 1:1-18 as an explicit polemic against Rome.47 He fails to explain the pre-existent logos, and the use of so many other uniquely Johannine themes (v. 4: life; vv. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9: light; vv. 7, 8, 15: witness; vv. 9, 10: the world; vv. 9, 14, 17: truth; v. 14: glory). Equally unconvincing is his comparison between the material on John the Baptist (vv. 6-8, 15) with the testimonies of the pagan prophets who supported the imperial cult. Thatcher also argues that the Fourth Gospel is shot through with anti-Roman rhetoric. He writes:
Johns Christology is negative in that it tells us less about who Christ is than about who he is not or what he is greater than. Johns response to Roman power is so wrapped up in his
46 Lance

425
Christology, and vice-versa, that the two cannot be separated. I do not believe, in other words, that John held an abstract set of beliefs about Christ that he pulled out of his mind and packaged in imperial terms to illustrate what he was talking about. I believe, rather, that imperial terms were foundational to Johns Christology, and that his thinking about Christ was always informed by the premise that Jesus is greater than Caesar.48

Not only is the Johannine Christology determined by the Empire, but also [I]n the Gospel of John the Jewish authorities essentially act like Roman prefects, or at least like a puppet aristocracy that serves as an interface between the procurator and the masses and thereby attempts to maintain the imperial status quo.49 What are we to make of the encounters between Jesus and the disciples in 1:35-51, Nicodemus in 3:1-21; the Samaritian woman in 4:1-42; the man born blind in 9:1-38; Martha, Mary and Lazarus in 11:1-55; the material in 13:1-17:6? However much the Christology is determined by a greater than process (which may certainly be present), it is not an all-determining factor that the evangelist plucked from his mind. It has solid roots in earlier Jewish and Christian speculation about the way God might act in the world. This recent work is timely.50 It has highlighted elements in the Gospel that show an awareness, in those who produced the final edition, of the Greco-Roman world in which the text was heard and read. The Johannine guild must look more carefully at this research. There were very few places where Christianity first settled and developed that were beyond
48 Thatcher, 49 Thatcher, 50 It

Byron Richey, Roman Imperial Ideology and the Gospel of John (Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 43; Washington, DC; The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2007); Tom Thatcher, Greater than Caesar: Christology and Empire in the Fourth Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2008).
47 See Richey, Roman Imperial Ideology, 107: In this chapter I will offer a new reading of the Prologue as the evangelists attempt to respond to the Augustan ideology and the figure of the emperor that it presented to Roman society.

Greater than Caesar, 11. Greater than Caesar, 52.

is not entirely new. See the earlier work of David Rensberger, The Politics of John: The Trial of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, Journal of Biblical Literature 103 (1984): 395-411; Richard J. Cassidy, Johns Gospel in New Perspective: Christology and the Realities of Roman Power (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1992), Idem, Christians and Roman Rule in the New Testament (New York: Crossroad, 2001).

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com by guest on September 6, 2012

426 the realm of the Roman Empire. But I am not convinced that this world has generated the driving hermeneutical principles that produced the final form of the Fourth Gospel. Nor is Caligula the father of Johannine Christology.

The Expository Times 123(9) Another Australian, Mary Coloe, published a valuable study on Temple symbolism in the Fourth Gospel.53 This perceptive work took on what appeared a well-trodden area of research to produce some surprising and well-founded conclusions. A study of the Prologue (1:1-18), the Temple as Gods dwelling place, and then the Christological transferal of that presence into the Temple who is Jesus (2:13-25; 4:1-45; 7:1-8:59 and 10:22-42), shows that the absence of Jesus from the community in the post-Jesus era of the Johannine experience, lived in the trauma of the post-destruction of Jerusalem Temple, led to the further transfer of the symbol of Gods presence within the Christian community, indicating its identity and role in the world (14:1-31; 18:1-19:42). The believing community is constituted as a new Temple raised up in Jesus hour.54 A further interesting development in studies of Johannine Theology is the rebirth of interest in its possible relationship with Old Testament Covenant formulae and theological motifs. Major protagonists in an earlier debate were Edward Malatesta, Aelred Lacomara, Yves Simoens and Sandra Schneiders.55 Surprisingly, as I do not see a great deal of evidence within the text of the Gospel in support of this suggestion, two of my doctoral students, Rekha M. Chennattu and Sherri Brown, have expressed their own opinion. They have pursued this literary and theological theme and published significant studies in support of it in the last five
53 Mary

Theology, Characters, and a Conclusion

It is ironic that I come to the end of this survey with the briefest of glances at the Johannine issues that interest me most: Theology, and literary elegance. A major recent theological study must be drawn to the readers attention, Dorothy Lees masterpiece, Flesh and Glory.51 Adopting a nuanced reading of the narrative in a symbolic fashion, and fully immersed in all exegetical traditions and practices, Lee has provided a book that demonstrates the unity and profundity of the symbolic use of flesh, water, love and friendship, God as Father, motherhood, walking in darkness, resurrection and life. Written in lucid prose that reminds me of the beauty of the writing of such scholars as Charles Harold Dodd, this book too little read and cited should be a watershed in Johannine scholarship. Dorothy Lee shows that an attentive reading of the Johannine text as a unified literary and theological narrative utterance, with the eyes, the heart, the mind and the imagination wide open, contributes to a deep and lifegiving theological affirmation of all that is human-divine, the richest and best in the Christian tradition.52
51 Dorothy

L. Coloe, God Dwells With Us. Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2001). God Dwells With Us, 189.

54 Coloe,

A. Lee, Flesh and Glory. Symbol, Gender and Theology in the Gospel of John (New York: Crossroad, 2004).
52 For me, the other most significant recent study of Johannine Theology is Klaus Scholtissek, In Ihm sein und bleiben: Die Sprache der Immanenz in den Johanneischen Schriften (Herders biblische Studien 21; Freiburg: Herder, 2000). It was briefly reviewed in my earlier article in The Expository Times, pp. 316-17, note 20. See my thorough review in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64 (2002): 394-95.

55 Edward

Malatesta, Interiority and Covenant: A Study of einai en and menein en in the First Letter of John (Analecta Biblica 69; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978) ; Aelred Lacomara, Deuteronomy and the Farewell Discourse (Jn 13:1-16:33), Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (1974): 64-84; Yves Simoens, La gloire daimer: Structures Stylistiques et Interprtative dans la Discours de la Cne (Analecta Biblica 90; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981); Sandra Schneiders, Written that You May Believe: Encountering Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (rev. ed.; New York: Crossroad, 2003).

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com by guest on September 6, 2012

Moloney years.56 It is obviously a matter of renewed interest. A final synthetic work that demands attention of all interested in the history and the contemporary shape of Johannine Theology is Craig Koesters outstanding yet succinct study, The Word of Life.57 A good story is populated with characters that capture the imagination. Interest in Johannine characters began in earnest with Alan Culpeppers survey in Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel. It has long been accepted by major commentators, and by Culpepper himself, that the ideological and theological motivation of the Johannine story is so powerful that characters do not emerge as singular personalities. They are all subordinated to God, Jesus, and the Johannine rhetoric.58 A number of recent studies of Johannine characters support this view, in different ways.59
56 Rekha

427 For Beck, named characters emerge in an unfavourable light, while unnamed characters (e.g. the Samaritan woman and the man born blind) are models of an appropriate response to Jesus. Beirne identifies six gender pairs that are portrayed in a parallel or contrasting faith encounter with Jesus (the Mother of Jesus and the royal official, the Samaritan woman and the man born blind, Mary of Bethany and Judas, the Mother of Jesus and the Beloved Disciple, Mary Magdalene and Thomas). Blaine presents Peter and the Beloved Disciple as colleagues. Together they are composite halves of the ideal Johannine Christian. Hylen argues that Johannine characters possess an inherent ambiguity that forces readers into equally competing views of Jesus. Skinner argues against the association made between the Thomasine literature and John, on the basis of the Johannine presentation of the character of Thomas. Most Johannine characters bear some of the characteristics of Thomas. Farrelly studies Peter, Judas, the Beloved Disciple, Thomas and Mary Magdalene. All are subordinated to a theme at the heart of the Johannine rhetoric: a nurturing of faith. Other studies attempt to show that characters emerge as significant individual role-players, responding to a much fuller understanding of characters in any narrative.60 Maccini locates the Gospel as a metaphor of a trial, attempting to show that Jesus is the Messiah. In this trial
Pickwick Press, 2009); Nicolas Farrelly, The Disciples in the Fourth Gospel (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.290; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010).
60 Robert

M. Chennattu, Johannine Discipleship as Covenant Relationship (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006); Sherri Brown, Gift upon Gift. Covenant through Word in the Gospel of John (Eugene, OR; Pickwick Publications, 2010). See also, Stephen Voorwinde, Jesus Emotions in the Fourth Gospel: Human or Divine (Library of New Testament Studies; London: T. & T. Clark, 2005).

57 Craig

R. Koester, The Word of Life. A Theology of Johns Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008). A presentation of the theological shape of the Gospel, and a history of its theological interpretation, is followed by up-to-date chapters on God, the world and its people, Jesus, crucifixion and resurrection, the Spirit, faith, present and future and discipleship in community and in the world.
58 See

R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel. A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 99148. See p. 148: Through the construction of the gospel as narrative, therefore, the evangelist leads the reader toward his own ideological point of view.
59 David Beck, The Discipleship Paradigm: Readers and Anonymous Characters in the Fourth Gospel (Biblical Interpretation Series 27; Boston/Leiden: Brill, 1996); Margaret M. Beirne, Women and Men in the Fourth Gospel: A Genuine Discipleship of Equals (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 242; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003); Bradford B. Blaine, Jr., Peter in the Gospel of John: The Making of an Authentic Disciple (Academia Biblica 27; Atlanta: SBL, 2007); Susan Hylen, Imperfect Believers: Ambiguous Characters in the Gospel of John (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009); Christopher Skinner, John and Thomas Gospels in Conflict? Johannine Characterization and the Thomas Question (Eugene, OR:

G. Maccini, Her Testimony is True: Women as Witnesses according to John (Journal for New Testament Studies Supplement Series 125; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996); Adeline Fehribach, The Women in the Life of the Bridegroom: A Feminist HistoricalLiterary Analysis of the Female Characters in the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998). See my extended review of this study in Where does one look?, 224-32). Colleen Conway, Men and Women in the Fourth Gospel (Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 167; Atlanta, SBL, 1999); Cornelis Bennema, Encountering Jesus: Character Studies in the Gospel of John (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009). See my review of this work in Review of Biblical Literature 03/2011 [http://www. bookreviews.org/pdf/7578_8315.pdf].

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com by guest on September 6, 2012

428 the women are not stereotypical, but are individuals who do not belong to a class. In their witnessing, they break neither Jewish law nor customs. Fehribach argues that the Johannine women are systematically eliminated from the story, and suggests a new reading of the Fourth Gospel to overcome this problem. Conway rejects the notion of representative figures. On the whole, women rather than men fare better than men, but the anonymous figures are those that fare best. Bennema argues aggressively against the suggestion that characters are subordinated to Johannine rhetoric and ideology. He studies all characters in the Gospel, plotting their roles as agent, type, personality and individual. We have pursued a long and winding road through contemporary Johannine scholarship. The discipline, itself only part of Biblical and

The Expository Times 123(9) New Testament scholarship, is alive and well. This all too brief and condensed presentation of contemporary Johannine scholarship indicates that much has been said and written (and much has gone unreviewed).61 Unresolved questions remain. I trust that these surveys of Johannine commentaries and recent monographic literature might lead others to enter the magic Johannine pool, where an infant can paddle and an elephant can swim.

61 For

two book-length surveys of contemporary Johannine scholarship, see Tom Thatcher, ed., What We Have Heard from the Beginning. The Past, Present, and Future of Johannine Studies (Waco, TX; Baylor University Press, 2007); Tom Thatcher and Stephen D. Moore, eds., Anatomies of Narrative Criticism. The Past, Present, and Futures of the Fourth Gospel as Literature (Resources for Biblical Study 55; SBL, 2008).

A CLEAR WORD CONCERNING THE WORD

Craig R. Koester, The Word of Life: A Theology of Johns Gospel (Grand Rapids, Michigan: 2008. 11.99. pp. 259. ISBN: 978-0-8028-2938-2). The Word of Life: A Theology of Johns Gospel by Craig Koester provides a clear and accessible introduction to the theology of the fourth gospel. Although the book is written with the non-specialist in mind, those engaged with the academic study of John will find valuable material in this volume. Koester begins this study with a brief introduction to the shape of the gospel and the role that it has played in a number of discussions throughout the history of the church. Although this is by no means exhaustive, the discussion helps to highlight the significant role this gospel has served in the subsequent development of Christian theology. The remainder of the book, then, is arranged topically, with chapters devoted to God, the World and Its People, Jesus, the Crucifixion and Resurrection, the Spirit, Faith, Present and Future, and Discipleship in Community and the World. The insertion of a chapter dealing with the world between discussions of God and Jesus is somewhat surprising, given the relationship between the two in the gospel. This order of discussion, however, is effective in highlighting the significant of the incarnation within the fourth gospel. The chapters can be read independently, but as a whole, the discussion moves clearly throughout the volume and helps to give a unified, though nuanced, discussion of Johns theology. One of the strengths of this study is the thoughtful articulation of various aspects of Johns theology. Koester frequently phrases descriptions in such a way as to allow distinctive aspects of Johns theology to emerge. In some places, however, further discussion would have been desirable. The endnotes, for example, are comprised largely of references to other key studies related to the discussion at hand. Although these are helpful, given the wide-ranging debates related to the theology of John, further explanation in the endnotes on at least some of the highly contested issues would have been appreciated. In addition, the chapter on discipleship, somewhat surprisingly, contains only a brief discussion of the role of the beloved disciple within the gospel. Finally, further explanation would have been helpful in the chapter on Faith, Present and Future as to how closely one may read the experiences of Johns readers into the narratives within the fourth gospel. These criticisms aside, Koesters The Word of Life provides a fascinating discussion of the material in the fourth gospel that will serve both scholar and layperson well.
MICHAEL NAYLOR School of Divinity, University of Edinburgh
Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com by guest on September 6, 2012