Johannine Literature (Religion)

Despite John's distinctive and theological character, however, it still renders an independent memory of Jesus of Nazareth deserving full consideration in any effectively critical quest for the historical Jesus. The question is how do to so adequately, given the unique origin and development of the Johannine tradition. If John represents a self-standing Jesus tradition with its own points to make, however, differences with Mark and the Synoptics might contribute to a sense of history rather than diminishing it.

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.

¿Es lícito que los ministros ordenados se apliquen los antiguos textos bíblicos en los que aparece la metáfora del pastor como guía de la comunidad? ¿Qué criterios y enseñanzas pueden extraer? El presente ensayo hace un rápido recorrido sobre la metáfora pastoral en la tradición bíblica y se centra en la explicación de Jn 10, deteniéndose en las dos riberas de este diálogo: el origen del texto bíblico y la actualidad del ministerio hoy.

Jn 10, metáfora, pastor, ministerio pastoral, sacerdocio

Der vorliegende Band befasst sich mit der Geschichte der Bibelauslegung und ihrer fortdauernden Bedeutung im Lichte kultureller und materieller Ansätze zur Schriftauslegung. Im Mittelpunkt der Beiträge stehen die Bandbreite und Vielfalt der Erkenntnisse, die sich aus einer Vielzahl von Schlüsselmomenten in der Geschichte der Bibelauslegung ergeben, sowie die Art und Weise, wie die Auslegungsgeschichte nahe am Wort des biblischen Textes bleibt und ihn gleichzeitig im Lichte der Botschaft und der Bedürfnisse der Kirche in verschiedenen Epochen auslegt.

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

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 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.

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."

Time and again, scholars who privilege the Synoptics over the Gospel of John preface their remarks by claiming that Synoptic favoritism results from greater certainty as to how to approach the Markan traditions than the Johannine. This is understandable, as a good deal of disunity remains about how to approach many of the Johannine riddles. However, what if a solid and plausible theory of Johannine origin and development should emerge? Might that make a difference in terms of scholarly thinking about how to make use of its material? While the John, Jesus, and History Project cannot hope to answer even the leading Johannine questions, it will undoubtedly be the case that literary theories regarding John's composition, tradition development, and authorship will play important roles in addressing historical and theological issues.

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.

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

This essay builds upon a basic Synoptic Hypothesis, in keeping with what most scholars believe to be the relations between the Synoptic traditions; distinctive, however, is the adding of the Johannine tradition to the mix, featuring Mark and John as "the Bi-Optic Gospels" and developing a new overall theory of gospel relations with John IN the mix. Put succinctly, Matthew and Mark built upon Mark; John (at least its first edition) built AROUND Mark. John is different in purpose. Published in my new contextual introduction to the New Testament: From Crisis to Christ (Nashville: Abingdon, 2014), 102-126.

Presented at the Enoch Seminar at Camaldoli, Italy in June 2016, this essay is to be included in the volume edited by Ben Reynolds, Reading the Gospel of John’s Christology as Jewish Messianism: Royal, Prophetic, and Divine Messiahs.
Central to the presentation of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel is his association with the Eschatological Prophet, anticipated within first century Judaism. Rooted in Jewish agency typologies of Jesus as the Son of Man and the Prophet like Moses, these primitive associations reflect historical proximity to Jesus of Nazareth, who as a Galilean prophetic figure continued in the trajectory of John the Baptist while also challenging Jewish institutions and religious conventions in Galilee, Samaria, and Judea. From his prophetic demonstration in the temple to his healing on the Sabbath, the Johannine Jesus furthered the social concerns of the Hebrew prophets, and when challenged by the religious leaders in Jerusalem, he legitimated his actions on the basis of Deuteronomy 18:15-22. This Mosaic agency schema is the key to the Father-Son relationship in John, and even in the Johannine Prologue and in later confessional references to Jesus as the Christ in John we see the adaptation of this Jewish agency schema within more Hellenistic friendly terms. Seeing John 6 as a case study in a two-level reading of John, we see four or more crises in the later Johannine situation addressed rhetorically instead of a single dialectical engagement with synagogue leaders. From beginning to end within the Johannine tradition, the prophetic ethos remains central within its development reflecting a synchronicity of tradition within a diachronicity of situation.

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

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

This is the first of two essays in the Bruce Metzger festschrift, edited by J. Harold Ellens, Text and Community, Essay in Commemoration of Bruce M. Metzger, Vol. 1 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007), 196-216. Serious errors of interpretation include the facts that: (1) "Antichrist" never occurs in Revelation--only in 1 John and 2 John; (2) the "Antichrists" are mentioned as plural rather than a singular individual--referencing an actualized schism and impending visits of false teachers; (3) their christological errors are different--the first schism refuses to believe in Jesus as the Jewish Messiah/Christ, the false teachers advocate a docetic Christology--refusing to believe Jesus came in the flesh. Therefore, the Antichrists in 1 and 2 John reference two distinctive threats in the late first century with implications for later interpretations.

This is an expanded version of Navigating the Living Waters of the Gospel of John (Pendle Hill Pamphlet 352, Wallingford, PA: Pendle Hill Press, 2000). It outlines how the Johannine narrative is constructed rhetorically so as to evoke belief among its audiences: presenting Jesus' signs, witnesses, and the fulfilled word.

Published in the festschrift for Jan van der Watt, Biblical Ethics and Application: Purview, Validity, and Relevance of Biblical Texts
in Ethical Discourse (Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik /
Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics Volume IX), Edited by Ruben Zimmermann and Stephan Joubert (Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017): 331-351. This essay analyzes the centripetal thrust of the Johannine Epistles' appeal for unity against centrifugal forces within and without the Johannine community--making interdisciplinary use of the cognitive-critical work of Carl Rogers: identity and congruence theory. Psychology and Biblical Studies are here combined with historical- and literary-critical approaches to the Johannine situation.

This Pendle Hill Pamphlet (#352, Wallingford, PA: Pendle Hill Press, 2000, 2013) outlines the rhetorical thrust of the Fourth Gospel, including elements designed to lead the reader into belief. This is an expanded version of that essay--see "On Wading with Children and Swimming With Elephants--Navigating the Living Waters of the Gospel of John" in the essay section, above.

This article explores the biopolitical dimension of the trial of Jesus in John 18:28–19:16a from the Agambenian perspective of “bare life.” According to Giorgio Agamben, bare life, namely, life at risk of death through sovereign power, operates in the “state of exception.” The state of exception is a state wherein the threshold between the juridical order and anomie, or that between an insider and outsider of the juridical order becomes blurred as a result of a law that is suspended from its effectiveness yet is effective in its suspension. Jesus can be interpreted as a bare life in a zone of absolute undecidability in which both the Jewish and Roman laws simultaneously are operative and ineffectual. More specifically, Jesus is an insider in both the Jewish and Roman worlds on the grounds that he is subject to both the rules of Judaism and the Roman Empire. But at the same time, Jesus is an outsider from both the Jewish and Roman worlds explicitly because his kingship goes beyond both earthly rules (18:36; cf. 8:23; 17:14, 16). Paradoxically, Jesus is simultaneously an insider in and an outsider from each of the Jewish and Roman sovereignties. That is to say, Jesus lives in both of the sovereignties, while at the same time belonging to neither of them. It follows from this that Jesus resides in an in-between zone between insider and outsider. My contention, therefore, is that Jesus is such a liminal character—an unfixed and unfixable character in a zone of uncertainty—that he subverts the sovereign power and hierarchical dualism of the Jewish and Roman worlds.

[The Theme of Creation in the Gospel of John]

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

Other than John 6 (see my monograph on John's Christology) John 18-19 contains the most similarities between John and the Synoptics. This essay assesses the character and literary origins of those similarities and differences. Published in Gilbert Van Belle, editor, The Death of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense LIV, 2005 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 200; Leuven: University Press / Peeters, 2007), 711-28.

[Why Doesn't the Johannine Peter Cry after His Denial of Jesus? Reflections on the Presentation of Peter in John 18:1-27]

The article seeks to shed light on the Johannine presentation of Peter, by focusing on the scenes surrounding Jesus’ arrest and his trial before the high priest. The analysis opens with pointing out the importance of Peter as a secondary character in the Gospel of John, specifically in John 18:1-27. There follows an overview of recent scholarly studies on the characters found in the Gospel of John, and how they are characterized. In the next four sections of the article, the figure of Peter is analyzed as he appears in four episodes: (1) Peter’s taking up the sword during Jesus’ arrest (18:1-12); (2) Peter’s accompanying Jesus as he is led to the place of trial (18:15); (3) Peter’s entering into the courtyard of the high priest’s house (18:15-16); (4) Peter’s three-fold denial (18:17-27). The final section of the article confronts the issue of Peter’s apparent lack of remorse in the wake of his third denial, as reflected in the Johannine narrative.

In this introduction to the new edition of Richard Cassidy's book on the Roman backdrop of John's gospel narrative, I locate this particular crisis among five others (not including Johannine-Synoptic engagements) within the three major phases of the Johannine situation between 30 and 100 CE.

By means of careful historical work and exegesis, Streett argues that the secession mentioned in 1 John did not have to do with a later complex Christological issue such as docetism, Cerinthianism, or a devaluation of the historical life/death of Jesus, but rather concerned the foundational belief in the Messiahship of Jesus, a tenet the secessionists had renounced in order to return to the Jewish synagogue. He critiques the common maximalistic mirror-reading approach to the letter as misguided, and contends that the letter is primarily pastoral, meant to comfort and reassure the community rather than to argue against the secessionists. Streett’s main contributions are his detailed examination of the ancient historical evidence (especially the Patristic evidence)  for the Johannine opponents, and his in-depth and innovative exegesis of the key opponent passages (1 Jn 2:18–27; 4:1–6; 5:6–12; 2 Jn 4–11).

[Fig Tree, Donkey and Living Water.
The Use of the Book of Zechariah in the Gospel of John]

In four sections, the article deals with four specific issues related to the use of the Book of Zechariah in the Fourth Gospel. First, nine different ways in which the Old Testament is employed in John’s Gospel are presented. In this section the article aims to justify focusing on the use of a single OT book in John’s Gospel, an approach which appeals to many scholars as the most appropriate way of dealing with the broader issue of the use of the OT in the Fourth Gospel. Such a seemingly narrow methodological choice enables the exegete to investigate virtually all possible uses of a particular OT text (book), applying the appropriate attention and thoroughness. Second, the article discusses two major methodological problems connected with the study of the OT in the Fourth Gospel, namely (1) the absence of careful, widely accepted definitions for the literary devices of quote, allusion, and echo; and, related to this, (2) the elusive nature of any objective criteria for identifying allusions and echoes. The article also broaches the issue of the rightly questioned legitimacy of using the term “intertextuality” within the realm of biblical studies employing the historical-critical method. As to the problem of definitions, Ben-Porat’s definition of literary allusion, together with Sommer’s approach to the phenomenon called an echo, are adopted in this article. Thirdly, the article presents a case study of one particular allusion in the Fourth Gospel, namely the mention of the fig tree in the narrative of the call of the first disciples in John 1:45-51. Indeed, the question of why Nathaniel confesses Jesus to be the Son of God and the king of Israel (1:49) following Jesus’ statement that he saw him under the fig tree (1:48) stands as a perennial crux interpretum in Johannine studies. Seeing an allusion to the prophecy of Zec 3:10 seems to solve this problem convincingly. Fourth, the article discusses the use of explicit quotations from Zechariah in the Fourth Gospel. The current study reveals that there are two basic focal points of the major Johannine references to Zechariah: (1) the cleansing narrative (Jn 2:13-22), with its references to Zec 6:12-13 and 14:21, and the triumphal entry narrative (Jn 12:12-16), which quotes Zec 9:9, both refer to the rebuilding of the temple; and (2) Jn 7:38, quoting Zec 14:8, and Jn 19:30-37, quoting Zec 12:10 both relate to the gift of the Spirit. Taken together, the references to Zechariah in the Fourth Gospel express two facets of a single, fundamental Johannine theological paradigm, i.e. that Jesus is the new temple: (1) the cleansing and rebuilding of the temple, understood as both Jesus’ body and the community of believers, and (2) the gift of the Spirit flowing out of the new temple, Jesus’ body.