Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John: A Christological Spectrum 9780567675125, 9780567675149, 9780567675132

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

589 formerly the Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement series

Editor Chris Keith

Editorial Board Dale C. Allison, John M. G. Barclay, Lynn H. Cohick, R. Alan Culpepper, Craig A. Evans, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole, Juan Hernandez, John S. Kloppenborg, Michael Labahn, Love L. Sechrest, Robert Wall, Steve Walton, Catrin H. Williams

PORTRAITS OF JESUS IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

A Christological Spectrum

Edited by Craig R. Koester

T&T CLARK Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain in 2019 Paperback edition first published 2020 Copyright © Craig Koester and Contributors, 2019 Craig Koester has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Editor of this work All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Koester, Craig R., 1953– editor. Title: Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John: a Christological spectrum / edited by Craig R. Koester. Description: 1 [edition]. | New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2018. | Series: Library of New Testament studies, ISSN 2513-8790; volume 589 | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2018019116 (print) | LCCN 2018033179 (ebook) | ISBN 9780567684837 (ePUB) | ISBN 9780567675132 (ePDF) | ISBN 9780567675125 (hardback: alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. John–Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Jesus Christ–Person and offices–Biblical teaching. Classification: LCC BS2615.52 (ebook) | LCC BS2615.52 .P763 2018 (print) | DDC 226.5/06—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018019116 ISBN: HB: 978-0-5676-7512-5 PB: 978-0-5676-9453-9 ePDF: 978-0-5676-7513-2 eBook: 978-0-5676-8483-7 Series: Library of New Testament Studies, ISSN 2513- 8790, volume 589 Typeset by Newgen KnowledgeWorks Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, India To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

CONTENTS Preface List of Abbreviations List of Contributors

vii viii x

Chapter 1 PORTRAITS OF JESUS IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN: A SPECTRUM OF ROLES Craig R. Koester

1

Chapter 2 THE HUMAN JESUS IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN: THE WORD MADE FLESH Marianne Meye Thompson

17

Chapter 3 JESUS THE JEW IN JOHN’S GOSPEL: “SCRIPTURE CANNOT BE BROKEN” Wendy E. S. North

31

Chapter 4 JESUS THE GALILEAN IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF EARTHLY ORIGINS IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL Chris Keith Chapter 5 JESUS THE RABBI AND TEACHER IN JOHN’S GOSPEL: THE GIFT OF DIVINE INSTRUCTION Craig R. Koester

45

61

Chapter 6 JESUS THE HEALER IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL: BRINGING LIFE FROM GOD 77 Graham H. Twelftree Chapter 7 JESUS THE PROPHET: CROSSING THE BOUNDARIES OF PROPHETIC BELIEFS AND EXPECTATIONS IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN Catrin H. Williams

91

vi

Contents

Chapter 8 JESUS THE MESSIAH: CONSERVATISM AND RADICALISM IN JOHANNINE CHRISTOLOGY Matthew V. Novenson Chapter 9 JESUS THE SON OF MAN: APOCALYPTIC INTERPRETATIONS AND JOHANNINE CHRISTOLOGY Benjamin E. Reynolds

109

125

Chapter 10 JESUS THE SON OF GOD IN JOHN’S GOSPEL: THE LIFE-MAKING LOGOS Alicia D. Myers

141

Bibliography Author Index Index of Ancient Sources

157 171 175

PREFACE The concept behind this book is that John’s portrayal of Jesus is multidimensional. The Gospel ascribes a variety of distinctive roles to Jesus, all of which are widely attested in early Christian tradition and all of which are to some extent preserved in the narrative. Rather than assuming that the people in the story who identify Jesus as a man, a Jew, a Galilean, or a teacher are showing a lack of insight into his true identity as the Word of God who comes down from above, the essays in this volume explore a spectrum of roles for Jesus. They ask how each role has its own qualities, which contribute to the whole. The project grew out of work I had done on John’s symbolic language, character portrayal, and theological perspectives, which adopted a multidimensional approach to interpreting the Fourth Gospel.1 In those studies, I considered how the narrative regularly holds seemingly contradictory elements in creative tension, and that seemed to be a promising approach for further collaborative work. The rich insights offered by the contributors to this volume show the value of a multidimensional approach. Many of the essays were presented in earlier, briefer forms in a series of sessions entitled Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John. These were held at the annual meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature in 2013, 2015, and 2016 under the auspices of the John, Jesus, and History Group. Some of the essays were also written especially for this volume. I am grateful to the authors for these valuable contributions to the understanding of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel and to the members of the Society of Biblical Literature whose questions and comments in the discussion sessions enriched the project. I also want to thank Chris Keith, the editor of the Library of New Testament Studies, along with the staff at Bloomsbury for their interest and support throughout the process of publication. My hope is that the collection will contribute to ongoing reflection on the literary and theological aspects of John’s Gospel.

Craig R. Koester

1.  Craig R.  Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel:  Meaning, Mystery, Community, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 33–44, 152–59, 192–200, 207–46; idem, The Word of Life: A Theology of John’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 82–107.

ABBREVIATIONS AB ABD ABR AGJU AJEC ANTC BBR BETL Bib BIS BN BNTC BSRel BZ BZAW BZNW CBET CBQ CGL CJA CNT ConBNT CurBR DPL EBib EDNT EJL ETL FRLANT HeyJ HTR JBL JJS JQR JSNT JSNTSup LNTS LSJ

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary Australian Biblical Review Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity Abingdon New Testament Commentaries Bulletin for Biblical Research Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblica Biblical Interpretation Series Biblische Notizen Black’s New Testament Commentaries Biblioteca di scienza religiose Biblische Zeitschrift Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Coptic Gnostic Library Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Commentaire du Nouveau Testament Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament Series Currents in Biblical Research Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Etudes bibliques Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament Early Judaism and Its Literature Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Heythrop Journal Harvard Theological Review Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Jewish Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series The Library of New Testament Studies Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Henry Scott Jones, A GreekEnglish Lexicon

Abbreviations NA NHMS NovT NovTSup NTL NTS NTTSD OBO RBS SBLDS SBLSBS SBT SE SHR SNTSMS SP SPhiloA SSEJC TANZ TDNT TJ TSAJ WUNT ZNW ZTK

Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies Novum Testamentum Supplements to Novum Testamentum New Testament Library New Testament Studies New Testament Tools, Studies, and Documents Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Resources for Biblical Study Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical Study Studies in Biblical Theology Studia Evangelica Studies in the History of Religions Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Sacra Pagina Studia Philonica Annual Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Trinity Journal Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

ix

CONTRIBUTORS Chris Keith Director of the Centre for the Social-Scientific Study of the Bible; Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity, St. Mary’s University, London. Craig R. Koester Asher O. and Carrie Nasby Professor of New Testament, Luther Seminary, Saint Paul, Minnesota; research fellow, Department of New Testament, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa. Alicia D. Myers Assistant Professor of New Testament and Greek, Campbell University Divinity School, Buies Creek, North Carolina. Wendy E. S. North Honorary research fellow in the Department of Theology and Religion, University of Durham, United Kingdom. Matthew V. Novenson Senior Lecturer in New Testament and Christian Origins, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Benjamin E. Reynolds Associate Professor of New Testament and Chair of the Department of Biblical Studies and Theology, Tyndale University College, Toronto. Marianne Meye Thompson George Eldon Ladd Professor of New Testament, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California; research fellow, Department of New Testament, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa. Graham H. Twelftree Academic Dean and Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity, London School of Theology, United Kingdom. Catrin H. Williams Reader in New Testament, University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter; Wales, research fellow, Department of New Testament, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.

Chapter 1 P O RT R A I T S O F J E SU S I N T H E G O SP E L O F J O H N :   A S P E C T RUM O F   R O L E S Craig R. Koester

The expression “the Johannine Jesus” is familiar to those who work in New Testament studies. It functions as a kind of shorthand, a convenient way to designate the portrait of Jesus that one finds in the Fourth Gospel.1 For many readers the connotations of that expression reflect the perspectives so powerfully presented in the Gospel’s opening lines. Through exquisite prose the writer tells readers what to look for in the scenes that follow. They are to see a Jesus who is the embodiment of the Word of God, who was present at the dawn of creation, who summons all things into existence, who is the source of life and light for all humanity (Jn 1:1-5). They are to see in Jesus the manifestation of the glory or δόξα of God, for in him—in the incarnate Word—the God whom no one has ever seen is made known (1:14-18). That elevated perspective on Jesus, introduced through the prologue at the beginning of the Gospel, is matched by the confession of Thomas at the end. He is the one who calls Jesus both his Lord and his God (20:28). By placing these statements about the deity of Jesus at the beginning and end of the Gospel, the writer creates a frame that shapes the way we construe the picture of Jesus that emerges in the narrative in between. The effect is much like the shimmering gold frames that adorn works of great art. The elegant craftsmanship of the frame calls attention to the grandeur of the subject, whose face the artist has portrayed on the canvas. Those who approach the Gospel from this elevated perspective will find their expectations confirmed at many points. When Jesus turns water into wine and later raises Lazarus from the dead, the Gospel declares that he reveals divine glory, for his actions make the power of God palpable; they make the presence of deity accessible to the human senses (2:11; 11:40). Jesus speaks as the one who has come

1.  E.g., Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1994), 137, 139; Christopher Tuckett, Christology and the New Testament: Jesus and His Earliest Followers (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 161, 166–67.

2

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

from above (8:23), who can do what he sees his Father doing (5:17-24), and he refers to himself as the I Am, recalling God’s own self-designation (8:58). Yet, interpreters of the Fourth Gospel also find that there is more to the Johannine Jesus than initially meets the eye. John’s portrayal is multidimensional, and various aspects of Jesus’ character stand in tension with one another. He may have come from above, but the people who meet him in the narrative recognize that he is a man, a Jew, a rabbi, and prophet. As these and other facets of Jesus’ identity emerge, readers learn that the Johannine Jesus has an intriguing complexity. The experience might be compared to stepping closer and closer to a portrait on the wall, and discovering that what initially appears to be a painting is actually a mosaic. The mosaic consists of smaller images, each with its own color and shape, and yet each one also contributes to the shape of the whole. Modern versions of such portraits are not hard to find. The digital artists, whose work appears in the galleries of cyberspace, often create images that from a distance bear the definite outlines of someone’s face. Yet when one takes a close-up view, the image proves to be a collage of discrete images, perhaps the images of many different faces, whose individual traits add texture to the picture and suggest dimensions of meaning. When the analogy of the mosaic or collage is extended to the Jesus we meet in the Fourth Gospel, it suggests that we should speak not of one portrait but of many. We can enhance interpretation by looking not only at “the Johannine Jesus” in the singular, but at a spectrum of portraits of Jesus in the plural.2

1. Literary patterns and the portrayal of Jesus Focusing on ways of portraying Jesus in John’s Gospel draws in part on literary studies of characters and characterization. Alan Culpepper described “characterization as the art and techniques by which an author fashions a convincing portrait of a person within a more or less unified piece of writing.”3 In a literary work, a character may be purely fictional or be someone who exists outside the narrative and is known through various sources, as is the case with Jesus. In each case the writer selects certain traits and shapes the way they function in the book, so that readers will see the person in a particular way. A person’s character is disclosed by what the person says and does, by what others say about the person, and by the settings in which the person appears. Characters can be portrayed along a continuum ranging from simple to complex. Simple figures have one primary

2.  For background on the approach taken here see Craig R. Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, Press, 2003), 33–44; idem, The Word of Life: A Theology of John’s Gospel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 82–107. 3.  R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel:  A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 105.

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

3

trait or function in the narrative, while complex characters have multiple traits that work in tension with each other and may even seem contradictory. Much of the attention to character portrayal in John’s Gospel has centered on the people who meet Jesus.4 A key question is whether they respond to him positively, negatively, or in a manner that is more ambiguous, because through their responses to Jesus they disclose something of who they are. At the same time these interactions are a way in which the Gospel draws out aspects of Jesus’ character. As the people in the narrative try to discern who Jesus is, the interactions sometimes lead to misunderstanding and sometimes to moments of insight. The readers are to follow the characters’ attempts at discernment, and as they do so the Gospel shapes their sense of who Jesus is. The result is complex rather than simple, because different characters see Jesus in different ways, and even a single character’s perceptions of Jesus can change over time. In some cases the Gospel makes clear that a particular perception of Jesus is simply wrong, as in the episodes where his opponents charge that he is a sinner and blasphemer (9:24-34; 10:3133). But in other cases the Gospel gives the impression that multiple perspectives are actually appropriate, since each brings out a genuine aspect of Jesus’ identity. Culpepper commented that the characters in the Gospel “are in effect the prism which breaks up the pure light of Jesus’ remote epiphany into the colors readers can see.”5 The image of a prism displaying multiple dimensions of light is a valuable way to consider the patterns of interaction that enable readers to see multiple dimensions of Jesus’ identity. In the opening chapter, for example, the disciples who meet Jesus first address him as a rabbi, and to make sure readers catch the significance of this, the narrative explains that a rabbi is a teacher (1:38). That explanatory comment calls attention to the teaching role, and raises the expectation that in scenes to come Jesus will be someone who gives instruction. Then a second dimension is introduced. After spending a short time with Jesus, the disciple named Andrew announces that Jesus must also be the Messiah, and to make sure readers discern the importance of that expression the narrator again gives an explanation, indicating that Messiah means Christ or anointed one (1:41). Philip soon adds further clarification by indicating that Jesus is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets (1:45). Then, after a cryptic conversation about a fig tree, Nathanael concludes that Jesus is indeed the Son of God and King of Israel—titles that fit the expectation that the Messiah is to be a royal figure (1:49). In the end,

4. For surveys of recent approaches to characterization in John’s Gospel see Steven A. Hunt, D. Francois Tolmie, and Ruben Zimmermann, “An Introduction to Characterization in John and Related New Testament Literature,” in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Approaches to Seventy Figures in John, ed. Steven A. Hunt, D. Francois Tolmie, and Ruben Zimmermann, WUNT 314 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 1–33; Christopher W. Skinner, “Introduction: Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John: Reflections on the Status Quaestiones,” in Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John, LNTS 461 (London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2013), xvii–xxxii. 5. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, 104.

4

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

however, Jesus takes things to a third level by promising that they will see the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man (1:51). The imagery suggests that the Son of Man is the one in whom the presence of God is revealed. In the space of half a chapter, readers are introduced to several ways of understanding Jesus’ identity: He is a Jewish teacher, he is a royal messianic figure, and he is the Son of Man, who reveals the divine presence. This raises a significant question: How do these different ways of identifying Jesus relate to each other? One option is to construe the sequence in a linear way, in which the characters voice several plausible but ultimately incorrect options, and finally receive the right answer from Jesus. If we follow this approach, we will conclude that the initial perception of Jesus as a rabbi is a failure to comprehend his identity as Lamb of God, and that even calling him Messiah falls short of seeing him as the incarnate Word of God. Accordingly, the idea is that readers must move beyond seeing Jesus as a rabbi and beyond regarding him as messianic king in order to arrive at the truth, which is that he is the divine revealer.6 A possible implication of a linear reading is that the final portrayal supersedes the ways of identifying Jesus that were previously introduced. But I would argue for an alternative approach, which is that the characters are functioning like the prism mentioned by Culpepper. They identify a spectrum of colors in the shaft of light, which are the varied aspects of Jesus’ identity: He is a rabbi, though not only a rabbi; he is the messianic king, though not only the messianic king; and he is the divine revealer though not only the divine revealer. To develop this idea we can trace a similar progression in 4:1-42.7 When Jesus meets a Samaritan woman, who comes to draw water, she immediately recognizes that he is a Jew (4:9). For the evangelist, her comment is quite correct. Jesus is a Jew, who gathers with other Jews for worship at the Jerusalem temple rather than with the Samaritans at Mount Gerizim (4:20; cf. 2:13; 7:14; 18:20). Jesus reaffirms that aspect of his identity by telling the woman that salvation is “from the Jews,” because the narrative assumes that salvation comes through Jesus, who is Jewish (4:22). Second, the woman concludes that Jesus is a prophet, because he has an extraordinary ability to discern things about her, and she pursues this aspect of his identity by asking him about the disputed issue of the location of worship (4:19-20). Jesus then exercises the role of prophet by announcing that “the hour is coming” when current patterns will change and the hallmark of authentic worship will be spirit and truth (4:21-24). Third, the woman refers to the coming

6. Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, SP 4 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1998), 54– 62; idem, Belief in the Word: Reading the Fourth Gospel: John 1–4 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 68–76. 7.  C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, [1955] 1978), 228–44; Susan E. Hylen, Imperfect Believers: Ambiguous Characters in the Gospel of John (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 41–58; Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel According to Saint John, BNTC 4 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson and London: Continuum, 2005), 172–82.

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

5

of the Messiah, whom she expects will declare “all things” (ἅπαντα, 4:25), and then she either knowingly or unknowingly confirms Jesus’ messianic identity by announcing that he indeed told her “all things” (πάντα) she had done (4: 29). The fourth dimension is expressed by the townspeople, who call Jesus “the Savior of the world” (4:42). The title evokes connotations from the Scriptures and Roman practice, since it was used for the emperors, whose influence extended beyond Judea and Samaria to the wider “world.”8 Such a title has a climactic role, yet it does not supersede what has come before. The Savior (σωτήρ) of the world continues to be Jesus the Jew, in whom salvation (σωτηρία) comes. The story of Jesus healing the blind beggar provides a similar collage of portraits. The healing that takes place in the opening scenes enables the man to see physically (9:1-7), and the rest of the chapter shows him coming to see his healer’s identity more clearly. When asked how his eyes were opened, he rightly says “the man” (ὁ ἄντρωπος) called Jesus healed him (9:11). Later, when pressed to say more, he calls Jesus a prophet (9:17). The scene with the beggar’s parents indicates that the question is about whether Jesus is Messiah (9:22) and the beggar soon asserts that Jesus is from God (9:33). The sequence reaches a climax when the beggar learns that Jesus is the Son of Man and worships (προσεκύνησεν) him (9:35-38). There is clearly a progression in the way in which Jesus is understood, and I would argue that each successive portrait adds to the mosaic, while preserving many features of the portraits that have come before. Calling Jesus the Son of Man at the end of the story does not negate the sense that is also a man and a prophet. Rather, each way of portraying Jesus contributes to the whole. The importance of considering multiple perspectives is also apparent in that we find Jesus speaking of himself in different ways. In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus refers to himself as a teacher (13:13), prophet (4:44), Messiah (4:25–26), Son of Man (9:35–37), and Son of God (11:4). The categories are not synonymous; each opens up a distinctive angle of vision on who Jesus is. Taken together, they provide a multidimensional perspective on his significance.

2. Johannine portrayal of Jesus and early Christian tradition John’s ways of portraying Jesus have a complex relationship to early Christian tradition. The aspects of Jesus’ identity just noted regularly appear in the other New Testament Gospels. A useful point of reference is James Dunn’s book, Jesus Remembered, which considers the various ways in which Jesus was understood in early Christian tradition.9 He asks how people are said to have perceived Jesus and 8. Craig R. Koester, “ ‘The Savior of the World’ (John 4:42),” JBL 109 (1990): 665–80. 9.  James D.  G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, vol. 1 of Christianity in the Making (Grand Rapids, MI:  Eerdmans, 2003). On the roles of Jesus see pp.  615–762. Also see Craig A. Evans, “Prophet, Sage, Healer, Messiah, and Martyr: Types and Identities of Jesus,” in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, eds. Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 1217–43.

6

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

how the how the tradition depicts Jesus’ his own self-understanding by recounting what he said and did. What is significant is that the categories that appear in John’s Gospel occur widely in early Christian sources, even as there are differences in how the categories are used in different contexts. Dunn notes that Jesus was regularly addressed as a teacher, who was accompanied by a group of disciples and responded by offering instruction to those he met.10 Yet there were also unusual aspects, since he is remembered for teaching with unique authority and for a message that went beyond conventional wisdom. Next, many regarded Jesus as a prophet, especially since he was said to perform miracles and to speak for God as prophets were understood to do. In some of his sayings, Jesus also refers to himself as a prophet, but with a different nuance, since he emphasizes the way prophets were often rejected.11 It is clear that Jesus was called Messiah in the early church, but the extent to which he was considered a Messiah during his public ministry is disputed by scholars. Dunn finds good evidence that the category was used by some prior to Jesus’ death. Reasons are that “messiah” often connoted kingship and Jesus’ message focused on the coming of God’s kingdom, and at the end of his career he was crucified as a would-be king. But the tradition also includes disputes over what messiahship entailed, and it remembers Jesus rejecting certain interpretations of that role. There is broad attestation that Jesus used the expression Son of Man for himself, but there is also surprising ambiguity as to what it means in various contexts. Interpreters point out that it sometimes seems to be a simple reference to “I myself,” but in other contexts it apparently has apocalyptic connotations like those associated with the “one like a son of man,” who comes on the clouds of heaven to receive kingly power (Dan. 7:13-14). If there is consensus that Jesus referred to himself as Son of Man, there is persistent disagreement as to what that meant.12 Finally, there are various passages in which Jesus is depicted as God’s Son during his public ministry. The relationship emerges especially in contexts where Jesus speaks of God as his Father, although the Synoptic Gospels do not provide extensive elaboration of how that relationship of Son to Father should be understood. For Dunn, this aspect of the tradition is especially developed in the Fourth Gospel.13

10. Jesus is said to have been addressed as a teacher by his disciples (Mk 4:48; 9:17) and others who met him (5:35; 9:38.) and he is pictured teaching in synagogues (2:21; 6:2), the temple (12:35), and other places (4:1; 6:34). See Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 696–704. 11.  On Jesus being identified as a prophet see Mk 8:28; Lk. 7:16, 39; 24:19; on Jesus identifying himself as a prophet who is rejected, see Mk 6:4; Lk. 4:24; 13:33; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 655–66. 12. On different ways of construing the expression Son of Man, see Delbert R. Burkett, The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); cf. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 724–62. 13. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 708–24.

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

7

Valuable contributions to the discussion of the way in which portraits of Jesus were developed in early Christian sources have been made by Dale C.  Allison, who considers the way individual and collective memory both preserves and creatively shapes tradition.14 Allison points out that in studies of the historical Jesus the dominant approach has been to look behind the written sources in order to identify the earliest recoverable fragments of tradition. Scholars try to identify the particular sayings that can most plausibly be attributed to Jesus, the particular actions that he most probably performed, and the particular encounters that bear the hallmarks of an early tradition about him. Allison observes that this method means that scholars doing historical Jesus research typically whittle away the layers of extraneous material that have accrued to those early traditions, seeking to find that small core of material that brings us as near as possible to Jesus himself. At that point they can again move outward and show how that small core was elaborated in various sources. It is that quest for a small core of particularities that Allison challenges. He proposes that human memory does much better with the general than the particular. He notes that long-term memories are constantly evolving generalizations, which retain whole events much better than details. People remember the general features of an incident, even as the specifics of that incident fade. Memory holds onto the substance or gist of a conversation, even though it may be difficult to reproduce the particular words that were exchanged. Both individuals and groups will fill in the blank spaces when recalling an episode from the past, often mingling the memory of one incident with that of another, or supplementing memory with what is known or assumed about the general context. For both individuals and groups, the particularities of the past are constantly being updated and revised in light of later experiences and changing contexts. Given his observations about memory, Allison proposes that “general impressions are typically more trustworthy than details.”15 He goes on to say that if that is the case, then it makes little sense to reconstruct a portrait of the historical Jesus by starting with just a few of those details, while setting aside the general impressions that our primary sources instill in us. He notes that many scholars have proceeded largely by way of subtraction, as they have tried to extract nuggets of tradition from their present literary contexts in order to send them through the refining filter of critical analysis. That small body of parables and aphorisms, which survive the test, are then taken as the basis for creating a reliable portrait of Jesus. In a very different move, Allison proposes that the larger the generalization and the wider the range of data upon which it is based, the more confident we can be in its value. He says that in the field of Jesus studies what seems most promising is not scholars’ abilities to authenticate disparate pieces of early tradition but the

14.  Dale C.  Allison Jr. Constructing Jesus:  Memory, Imagination, and History (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010). 15. Allison, Constructing Jesus, 14.

8

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

idea that the sources preserve broad impressions that are substantially reliable. He says, we “are more sure that Jesus was a healer than that any account of him healing reflects a historical event, more sure that he was a prophet than that any one prophetic oracle goes back to him.”16 Allison directs his line of inquiry at what he calls “recurrent attestation,” and by that he refers to “a topic or motif or type of story that reappears again and again throughout the tradition.”17 The notion of recurrent attestation is helpful for our study of the Fourth Gospel. It allows us to affirm that when portraying Jesus in the various roles noted earlier the Gospel both draws on and reshapes the tradition, even as we recognize that it generally not possible to make a clear distinction between pre-Gospel tradition and the Johannine interpretation of it. That is especially apparent when the dynamics of oral transmission of tradition are taken into account, since that process involves a repeated retelling of a story in changing contexts over a period of time. Studies of orality caution against positing one fixed form of tradition and propose that we reckon instead with recognizable traditions circulating in a multiplicity of forms.18 William Loader, following the lead of other scholars, has pointed out that the interplay between remembering and interpreting tradition are apparent in the Fourth Gospel itself.19 We can see it quite clearly in John’s accounts of Jesus cleansing the temple (2:13-22) and riding toward Jerusalem on a donkey (12:1216). The Gospel says that Jesus’ disciples did not understand the meaning of those events at the time they occurred, while adding that later, after the resurrection, the disciples remembered what had happened and interpreted Jesus’ actions in light of his own words and passages from Scripture (2:22; 12:16). At certain points we can also see how the distinction between past and present is blurred. A good example is the dialogue with Nicodemus, which is initially set during Jesus’ ministry but moves seamlessly into commentary on Jesus’ significance from a post-resurrection perspective, when the Son of Man has not only descended from heaven but has again ascended to heaven (3:13). The Gospel links the process of remembering and interpreting to the ongoing work of the Spirit among the followers of Jesus. The Spirit is understood to remind (ὑπομνήσει) the community about what Jesus said and did in the past, which involves preserving memories from the past, yet

16. Allison, Constructing Jesus, 19. 17. Allison, Constructing Jesus, 20. 18. Anthony Le Donne and Tom Thatcher, eds., “Introducing Media Culture to Johannine Studies: Orality, Performance and Memory,” in The Fourth Gospel in First-Century Media Culture, LNTS 426 (London: T & T Clark, 2011), 1–8, esp. 3. 19. William Loader, Jesus in John’s Gospel: Structure and Issues in Johannine Christology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 393–460. See also J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, 3rd ed. NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 136–44; Jean Zumstein, “Der irdische Jesus im Johannesevangelium,” in Kreative Errinerung: Relecture und Auslegung im Johannesevangelium, 2nd ed. (Zürich:  Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2014), 65–81.

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

9

the Spirit is also understood to teach (διδάξει) the community what those things mean, which involves new insight (14:26). Loader acknowledges that in this process the Fourth Gospel preserves memories of Jesus as a human being, a prophet, a miracle worker, Messiah, and Son of Man, yet he sees that these aspects of Jesus’ identity are encompassed within the dominant interpretive framework, which is that Jesus is the Son of God, who has been sent from the Father. Loader finds that vestiges of the multiple ways of identifying Jesus are still apparent and sometimes show “signs of turbulence where they mix,” but he emphasizes that much of their significance is muted, so that they serve the dominant motif of Jesus as the envoy sent from heaven.20 Here is where I want to reframe the question and ask again about the extent to which the multiple ways of portraying Jesus remain visible and are actually integral to the Gospel’s depiction of who Jesus is. The literary pattern noted earlier, in which the people who meet Jesus repeatedly discern different aspects of his identity, suggests that the distinctive elements remain important for literary and theological reasons, which we must now consider.

3. Preserving contours—transforming meaning Theologically, preserving multiple ways of portraying Jesus fits the Gospel’s incarnational perspective. To say that the Word became flesh (1:14) means that the incarnate Word had a distinctive identity. Jesus was a human being, who was Jewish, came from Nazareth in Galilee, and was remembered as a teacher and healer. The Gospel preserves and interprets those traditions about Jesus, while also making the case that Jesus can be understood as prophet and Messiah, Son of Man and Son of God. Our question concerns the extent to which the Fourth Gospel actually portrays Jesus in each of those roles. It is helpful to recall that Culpepper considered characterization to be fashioning “a convincing portrait” of a person.21 Accordingly, the essays in this volume will ask about the extent to which John depicts Jesus in various roles, both drawing on tradition and reshaping it. Each contributor provides valuable perspectives on the distinctive aspects of Jesus’ identity. Here I offer my own reflections about the Johannine portrayals of Jesus as a prelude to their work. The Fourth Gospel has a strong sense of paradox in which aspects of Jesus’ identity that seem mutually exclusive are held together in tension. First, John assumes that Jesus is a human being, a man, an ἄνθρωπος, which places him in the company of the others in the story, who are also called human beings (1:6; 2:25; 3:1; 5:5; 9:1). Jesus’ supporters and his opponents agree that he is a man (9:11, 16; 11:47, 50), but for the opponents his humanity discredits the claim that he came from above. They charge that he is a man elevating himself to divine status, which

20. Loader, Jesus in John’s Gospel, 476–78; quotation from p. 477. 21. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, 105.

10

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

makes him an opponent of God, not an agent of God (10:33; 19:7). Interpreters have noted that when Jesus speaks of having come from above it seems to diminish the reality of Jesus’ humanity. The Johannine Epistles give evidence that a Johannine perspective could develop in directions that deny the value of Jesus’ complete humanity, and some have seen tendencies in that direction within the Gospel itself.22 Yet the prologue is blunt in saying that the Word “became flesh” (1:14), and flesh (σάρξ) connotes limitation and mortality (3:6; 17:2). Jesus gives his flesh by dying (6:51), and when the crucifixion approaches, Pilate declares, “Behold the man (ἄνθρωπος)” (19:5), which in the Fourth Gospel is profoundly true. Jesus, who is crucified, is a human being.23 The Gospel preserves the conviction that Jesus is truly human, while portraying his humanity as a means of divine revelation. The narrative counters the opponents’ charge that Jesus is a man elevating himself to divine status by arguing that the movement is in the opposite direction: The Word who was with God and was God came down from above and became flesh. Theologically, the Gospel seeks to show that Jesus conveys the love of God in human terms so it can be received and lived out in human terms. For Jesus’ love to be real, his death must be real, and it is by dying that he conveys love most completely (15:13). The essay by Marianne Meye Thompson is an important contribution to our understanding of Jesus’ humanity in the Fourth Gospel. Next, the Fourth Gospel presupposes that Jesus was Jewish. What that means is not simple, because there were various assumptions about what being Jewish involved in antiquity and marks of identity would differ among various Jewish groups.24 For John, the significant aspects are that Jesus teaches in a synagogue (6:59; cf. 18:11) and goes to Jerusalem for pilgrim festivals (2:13-25; 7:10; 12:1, 12, 20-23). When recounting Jesus’ encounter with the woman by the well, the

22.  For the issue in the Johannine Epistles see 1 Jn 4:2; 2 Jn 7; Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John, AB 30 (Garden City, NT:  Doubleday, 1982), 50–55, 73–79. For the idea that the Gospel gives a diminished sense of Jesus’ humanity see Ernst Käsemann, The Testament of Jesus:  A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of John 17, trans. Gerhard Krodel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968); cf. Loader, Jesus in John’s Gospel, 476. 23.  On the importance of Jesus’ flesh, see Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John:  A Commentary, trans. G.  R. Beasley-Murray, R.  W. N.  Hoare, and J.  K. Riches (Philadelphia:  Westminster, 1971), 63; Marianne Meye Thompson, The Humanity of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia:  Fortress Press, 1988); repr. as The Incarnate Word:  Perspectives on Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA:  Hendrickson, 1993); Dorothy Lee, Flesh and Glory:  Symbolism, Gender, and Theology in the Gospel of John (New York: Crossroad, 2002), 29–64. 24.  John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (325 BCE–117 CE), (Edinburgh:  T & T Clark, 1996), 259–81, 320–35; Jörg Frey, Daniel R.  Schwartz, and Stephanie Gripentrog, eds., Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World, AJEC 71 (Leiden: Brill, 2007); Steve Mason, “Jews, Judeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of the Categorization in Ancient History,” JSJ 38 (2007): 457–512.

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

11

Gospel underscores differences between Jews and Samaritans over issues of purity and the location of worship (4:9, 20). In that episode, Jesus speak for the Jewish community’s tradition of worship when he says to the Samaritan woman, “You people worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews” (4:22). His words cohere with the earlier scene in which he calls the Jerusalem temple his Father’s house (2:16). A complicating factor in Jesus’ Jewish identity is that John’s Gospel often refers to his opponents as “the Jews,” which can give the sense that Jesus, who has come from above, is not really Jewish.25 The way Jesus heals on the Sabbath seems to show flagrant disregard for Jewish law (5:9, 16; 9:13-16), and the story of the man born blind being put out of the synagogue might suggest that Jesus’ followers cannot be considered part of the Jewish community (9:22, 34).26 Yet Jesus does not dismiss the observance of the Sabbath as irrelevant; instead he claims that his act of healing is deeply congruent with God’s purposes for the Sabbath and is therefore a way of keeping the Sabbath (5:16–47; 7:19-24). In the process, he builds his case in part through appeal to Scripture and Jewish tradition—although the way he invokes Scripture and themes of Jewish festivals as witnesses to himself is not characteristically Jewish (5:39). The questions are complex because the Jesus we encounter in John’s Gospel cannot be fully understood in terms of Jewish identity, but neither can he be understood apart from his Jewish identity. Wendy E. S. North offers valuable perspectives on how to consider the Jewishness of Jesus in John’s Gospel. The tradition that Jesus is a Galilean from Nazareth is preserved in John, even as it is recognized as problematic. In the opening scenes, Philip identifies Jesus as the messianic fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, and Nathanael promptly objects, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (1:45-46). The question is a good one, since the Jewish Scriptures never mention Nazareth. Yet Nathanael does come to regard Jesus as Son of God and King of Israel, his Galilean origins notwithstanding (1:49). As others entertain the idea that he might be a prophet or Messiah, his detractors again object that his connection to Galilee precludes any such notion, because the Messiah’s origin was either to be unknown or else Davidic and therefore tied to Bethlehem (7:26-27, 40-43, 52). Since Jesus’ responses to his critics point to his divine origin, one might conclude that the Gospel downplays the Galilean tradition (7:28-29). Yet he also responds by claiming to be “the light of the world” in a context that seems to recall Isaiah’s promise of light shining from Galilee (8:12; Isa. 9:1-2). The passion narrative can affirm that Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world (Jn 18:36) and yet it also gives the impression that the sign above the cross is quite right in saying that the crucified

25.  There has been extensive discussion of how John uses the expression “the Jews” (οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι). For a nuanced discussion see Wendy E.  S. North, “The Jews in John’s Gospel: Observations and Inferences,” in A Journey Round John: Tradition, Interpretation and Context, LNTS 534 (London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015), 148–67. 26. The most influential study of this aspect is Martyn, History and Theology.

12

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

king of the Jews is from Nazareth (19:19). Chris Keith gives careful attention to what it means to say that Jesus is both a Galilean and that he has come from above. Jesus is addressed as rabbi and teacher throughout the Gospel of John.27 He gathers a group of disciples, who receive his instruction. At the Last Supper he tells them, “You call me Teacher and Lord, and do so rightly, for that is what I am” (13:14). During his ministry he teaches in a synagogue, drawing on patterns of Jewish biblical exposition. Yet tensions arise, because what he teaches is that he is the true bread that comes down from heaven, which seems incongruous for any Jewish teacher to claim (6:32-59). Eventually his critics take issue with the idea that Jesus can be considered a legitimate teacher, since Jesus was not known to have studied under a recognized teacher. Moreover, his act of healing on the Sabbath seemed to show flagrant disregard for Mosaic law, which from their perspective undercut the integrity of his teaching (7:15, 23; cf. 5:16). One might expect the narrative to downplay the idea that Jesus was a teacher as irrelevant to his identity. Yet the Gospel does the opposite by offering a defense of Jesus’ identity as a teacher. If the traditional expectation was that anyone who taught was supposed to have received instruction from a master teacher, then Jesus qualifies, since he received his teaching from God (7:16-18). Moreover, if understanding the Scriptures and Jewish practice is deemed essential, then Jesus demonstrates his expertise in the law by pointing to his opponents’ inconsistency in condemning him for healing on the Sabbath even though they perform circumcision—a form of surgery—on the Sabbath (7:19-24). In my essay on this theme I  will propose that the Johannine portrayal of Jesus as teacher fits the theological emphasis of the book: God is the source of true instruction, and through Jesus’ teaching, God is teaching. Jesus is remembered as a healer in all of the New Testament Gospels. Where the Synoptics include many healings, John recounts only four: the official’s son with a fever, the paralytic at Bethesda, and the man born blind, and raising Lazarus from the dead. The healings themselves are recounted quite briefly, usually in just a few verses, and attention focuses on the question of what the healings reveal. Like the Synoptic Gospels, John recognizes that healings did not have universally acknowledged meanings, and they could elicit both positive and negative responses. For some, the healings demonstrated that Jesus was an opponent of God, who cured people on the Sabbath in what was considered a violation of Mosaic law. For others, the healings showed that Jesus was the agent of God, since God was understood to give life, and Jesus did so as well through his healings. Given the conflicting viewpoints, John presents the healings as signs that reveal Jesus’ unity with God (5:21), his identity as the light of the world (9:5), and his role as the resurrection and the life (11:25). The attention given to the theological

27. Jn 1:38, 49; 4:31; 9:2; 11:8, 28; 20:16. On the theme see Andreas Köstenberger, “Jesus the Rabbi in the Fourth Gospel,” in Studies in John and Gender: A Decade of Scholarship (New  York:  Lang, 2001), 65–98; Bruce Chilton, “The Gospel according to John’s Rabbi Jesus,” BBR 25 (2015): 39–54.

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

13

significance of the healings seems far more extensive than the healings themselves, yet the memory of Jesus as healer is preserved as an integral part of the Gospel. In John, life (ζωή) has both physical and relational dimensions, and Graham Twelftree’s essay emphasizes that portraying Jesus as the healer, who gives life through healing and evoking faith, is congruent with the Gospel’s incarnational theology. Prophets were understood to be sent by God and empowered to speak words from the Lord and in some cases to work miracles.28 In the Gospel’s opening scenes, a Jewish delegation asks John the Baptist if he is Elijah, who worked wonders by healing a widow’s dead son and miraculously providing bread. Elijah was also expected to return before the close of the age (1:21; 1 Kgs 17:8-24; 2 Kgs 4:1-5:19; Mal. 4:5-6). John denies that he fits the role, so they ask if he is “the prophet,” referring to the prophet like Moses, whom God promised to send someday (Jn 1:21; Deut. 18:15-18). Moses had spoken for God, worked wonders in Egypt, and led the people through the wilderness as they were fed with bread from heaven and drank water from a rock (Exod. 5:1; 16:4. 17:1-7; 34:10-12). John again denies the prophetic role and directs attention instead to Jesus, the Lamb of God (Jn 1:24-34). Jesus is the one who acts in the manner of an Elijah or Moses by speaking for God, miraculously feeding people with bread, healing the sick, and raising the dead.29 Those who experience his extraordinary power respond by calling him a prophet and even “the prophet,” whom God was sending into the world (4:19; 6:14; 7:40; 9:17). On one occasion the crowd misconstrues the role by attempting to make Jesus the prophet into a king on their own terms, and Jesus rejects the attempt by fleeing (6:14-15). Yet Jesus also identifies himself as a prophet who has no honor in his own country (4:44; cf. Mk 6:4; Lk. 4:24). Moreover, when Jesus says that Moses wrote of him, that he comes in God’s name, and that those who reject him are accountable to God, he effectively claims to be the prophet like Moses foretold in Deuteronomy (Jn 5:39–47; Deut. 18:15-18). The implication is that people are not to expect the biblical promises concerning Elijah or prophet like Moses to be fulfilled by other figures. All the promises are fulfilled in Jesus. The extent to which the Fourth Gospel portrays Jesus as a prophet is the focus of Catrin H. Williams’s essay. The Fourth Gospel clearly wants readers to know that Jesus is the Messiah (Jn 20:31), but what it means to portray him in that role is not simple because there were multiple forms of messianic expectation in the first century.30 One was related 28. David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983). 29. Martyn, History and Theology, 101–23; Adele Reinhartz, “Jesus as Prophet: Predictive Prolepses in the Fourth Gospel,” JSNT 36 (1989): 3–16; Richard Bauckham, “Messianism According to the Gospel of John,” in Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John, ed. John Lierman, WUNT II/210 (Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 34–68, esp.  40–54; and in the same volume see John Lierman, “The Mosaic Pattern of John’s Christology,” pp. 210–34. 30.  On the varieties of messianic expectation see John J.  Collins, The Scepter and the Star:  Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI:  Eerdmans,

14

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

to God’s promise to raise up an heir to David’s throne, which would mean that the Messiah would be a royal figure (2 Sam. 7:12-13; Jn 7:42). That idea is apparent when the first disciples call Jesus the Messiah, whose coming was foretold in the Law and the Prophets, and Nathanael announces that Jesus is the royal Son of God and King of Israel (1:41, 45, 49). From that perspective, turning water into wine in the next scene at Cana recalls the prospects of abundant wine being a sign of the coming of the Davidic ruler.31 The Gospel also mentions an alternative expectation, which is that the Messiah’s origin is to be unknown (Jn 7:27; cf. 1 En. 48:6). Since Jesus was known to have come from Galilee, many conclude that he does not meet this criterion for messiahship (Jn 7:26-27). Yet Jesus challenges that perspective by indicating that he has come from God, and people do not know that, so the implication is that he actually does meet the messianic criterion of having an origin that is unknown to his critics (7:25-29). The complexity of portraying Jesus as Messiah is magnified when yet another form of expectation is mentioned by the Samaritan woman, who says that the Messiah will come and declare all things to her people (4:25). The passage is odd, because Samaritans did not typically use the term “messiah” and focused instead on a coming prophetic figure or revealer. Yet, when the woman voices her understanding of the Messiah as prophet, Jesus directly says that he is the one (4:26). The Gospel develops the interplay between the categories of prophet and Messiah, and it rejects certain royal understandings of messiahship while seeming to appropriate others.32 When the crowd that declares Jesus to be a prophet attempts to make him king, he rejects their view (6:14-15). Yet he speaks about himself as a shepherd, which was a traditional image for a ruler, including a Davidic king, while transforming the image by defining his shepherding or leadership in terms of laying down his life (10:1-18).33 The crowd assumes that “the Messiah remains forever,” which in their judgment precludes dying (12:34). But the Gospel defines the messianic role in terms of dying and rising. It portrays Jesus meeting the expectation that the Messiah remains forever—not by avoiding death but by overcoming it through resurrection (12:30-33). In his essay, Matthew Novenson

2010); Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008). On the messianic themes in John’s Gospel see Bauckham, “Messianism According to the Gospel of John,” 54–67; John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 238–79. 31. Jn 2:1-11; on the relationship of wine to the Davidic hope see Gen. 49:10-11; Amos 9:11, 13; cf. 2 Bar. 29:5; Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel, 82–84. On the messianic dimensions of Nathanael’s confession see idem, “Messianic Exegesis and the Call of Nathanael (John 1:45-51),” JSNT 39 (1990): 23–34. 32. Wayne A. Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. NovTSup 14 (Leiden: Brill, 1967); Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 141–84. 33. Shepherd imagery was used for the prophet Moses (Exod. 3:1–6; LAB 19:3) and the coming Davidic ruler (Jer. 23:4–6; Ezek. 34:23; Pss. Sol. 17:40).

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

15

engages the question by pointing to the variety of messianic expectations that are encompassed in the Fourth Gospel. The expression Son of Man is one that Jesus uses for himself in all four New Testament Gospels. Traditionally the expression could simply mean “human being,” but apocalyptic sources also use it for a figure who comes from heaven, exercises judgment, and receives dominion (Dan. 7:13-14).34 In the Fourth Gospel the apocalyptic aspects are developed in portraying Jesus as the Son of Man, the person in whom God is revealed.35 To bring out the notion of revelation, Jesus speaks of the disciples seeing “heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man” (1:51). He says that the Son of Man comes from heaven and returns there (3:13); he exercises judgment (5:27) and gives eternal life (6:27, 53, 62). As the Son of Man, Jesus becomes the focus of worship at the conclusion of the story of the man born blind (9:35-38). At the same time, Jesus’ identity as Son of Man includes being “lifted up” (3:14; 8:28; 12:32-34) and glorified (12:23-24; 13:31-32), and the question is what that means. On the one hand, being lifted up has clear connections with crucifixion, when Jesus is physically elevated on a cross, just as Moses lifted up the serpent on the pole in the wilderness (3:14). It foreshadows the kind of death he is to die (12:32-33). On the other hand, glorification seems to have wider connotations of Jesus’ resurrection and return to the Father. In his essay, Benjamin E. Reynolds traces the connections between John’s use of the Son of Man expression and apocalyptic writings. He shows how it fits into Johannine eschatology and encompasses crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. Finally, John’s portrayal of Jesus as Son of God is integral to the purpose of the Gospel (20:31). Traditionally, the expression had royal connotations, since the heir to David’s throne was to be considered God’s son (2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7). Vestiges of that usage appear in John, where Nathanael identifies Jesus as Son of God and King of Israel (Jn 1:49), but the Fourth Gospel goes much further. In the context of divine begetting, the prologue says the incarnate Word is related to God the Father as the one who is unique (μονογενής) and reveals God (1:14, 18). As the Son, Jesus claims to exercise the power of God by giving life and exercising judgment (5:19-29). John’s portrayal of Jesus as Son of God expresses the underlying conviction that God has life in himself and is the source of life for others. The same is true of Jesus as God’s Son (5:26). Jesus’ acts of healing bear out his identity as the Son of God,

34. Allison’s treatment of the recurrent attestation of the Son of Man expression in various sources concludes that it fits within an eschatological scenario in which Jesus envisioned himself playing a central role. See Allison, Constructing Jesus, 293–303, 719–738; cf. Francis J. Moloney, “Constructing Jesus and the Son of Man,” CBQ 75 (2013): 719–38. 35.  Francis J. Moloney, The Johannine Son of Man, 2nd ed. BSRel 14 (Rome: Libreria Ateneo Salesiano, 1978); Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 240–76; Benjamin E. Reynolds, The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John, WUNT II/249 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).

16

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

who is his Father, because healing gives life, and giving life is central to God’s own identity. In her essay, Alicia D. Myers emphasizes the ontological aspects in John’s portrayal of Jesus as Son of God, and she shows how this way of understanding Jesus coheres with the Gospel’s core message about the eternal life Jesus brings. I introduced the question of John’s portrayal of Jesus by using the image of a mosaic, which is made of multicolored pieces. Each stone has its own distinctive contours and texture, even as each contributes to the image as a whole. By analogy, the people who meet Jesus in John’s Gospel identify him in different ways, each with its own connotations. These discrete images contribute to the larger portrait. The categories are drawn from early Christian tradition as attested in the other New Testament Gospels, and their features are both preserved and reshaped in John. As we give more extended attention to each way of portraying Jesus—to each stone in the mosaic—we recognize that no one of them can finally be taken alone, and that each is redefined by its place in the whole. But by pausing to consider each one in turn, my hope is that we might gain a more richly textured sense of what the Johannine portrait of Jesus entails, and how its features might relate to that dynamic interplay of early Christian traditions to which it belongs.

Chapter 2 T H E H UM A N J E SU S I N T H E G O SP E L O F J O H N :   T H E W O R D M A D E   F L E SH Marianne Meye Thompson

In The Testament of Jesus A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17, Ernst Käsemann provocatively labeled John’s portrait of Jesus as naively docetic, inadvertently diminishing or even denying Jesus’ genuine humanity. Even though the Gospel asserts that the “Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” its true heartbeat can best be detected in the subsequent statement, “and we beheld his glory” (Jn 1:14). Indeed, Jesus’ (divine) glory so swallows up his (human) flesh that “the incarnation” can scarcely be thought of as the hallmark of John’s portrait of Jesus. He is not subject to the vicissitudes of life. There is no humiliation, no true identification with humankind; rather, Jesus is always on the side of God. Käsemann assumed that John’s view of Jesus as one who is “totally on the side of God” and “God striding across the earth,” overruled the possibility that this Jesus is fully human. John’s “Christology of glory” depicts only Jesus’ divinity.1 There is, therefore, no truly human Jesus in John. Obviously, then, there is no portrait of the human Jesus to be painted, because the humanity of Jesus in John is but an illusion. Admittedly, the Gospel of John does not mount an argument for the “humanity of Jesus.” But it does not do so not because of its naive docetism, but because it did not need to advance such an argument:  Jesus’ humanity is what is presupposed. In fact, Jesus’ human identity becomes at times a stumbling block to accepting the claims that he makes (6:42, 52). To identify Jesus as human does not vitiate his claims to his heavenly origins or divine identity, nor does his divine identity 1.  Ernst Käsemann, The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17, trans. Gerhard Krodel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968). Quotations adapted from pp. 9, 11, 16. Käsemann readily acknowledged that he drew on the work of others, including F.  C. Baur, William Wrede, G.  P. Wetter, and Emanuel Hirsch, with whom he shared the view that John’s “Christology of glory” overrode any portrait of Jesus as truly, fully human. For a summary and discussion, see Marianne Meye Thompson, The Humanity of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia:  Fortress Press, 1988); repr. as The Incarnate Word: Perspectives on Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993).

18

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

vitiate his genuine humanity. Jesus of Nazareth is the Word made flesh, the human being who the divine Word became, and precisely as such he is the subject of every predication made in the Gospel. In its portrait of Jesus as “Word made flesh,” the Gospel assumes and embraces the genuine humanity of Jesus, subject to the vicissitudes of ordinary life and ultimately to death itself, and, in doing so, rejects contemporary assumptions that God cannot be flesh, genuinely human, or mortal. That this is how the Gospel implicitly portrays Jesus’ genuine humanity can be demonstrated by examining: (1) the use of flesh (σάρξ) to characterize mortality and humankind, and so also to designate Jesus’ human mortality; (2) the repeated use of ἄνθρωπος (“human being”) for Jesus and other human beings; (3)  the reserve that John manifests in speaking of Jesus of Nazareth as “God”; and (4) the description of Jesus as a historical figure, who lived among his people in the towns and villages of Galilee and Judea, and who died as mortals do.

1. “The Word became flesh” The assertion that “the Word became flesh” means that the Word became a human being. In the Bible, flesh is what human beings are made of; it can denote the human person; and it indicates mortality. At each of these three points, John’s use of “flesh” comports with its biblical usage.2 Human beings are created as flesh; humankind can therefore be described simply as “flesh” or “all flesh,” and flesh connotes their mortality.3 Flesh, of all kinds, dies. At times, flesh describes humankind as mortal and frail particularly in contrast to divine power and eternity (2 Chron. 32:7–8; Ps. 56:4, 73:26; Jer. 17:5). Human beings wither like grass; but God endures forever (Isa. 40:6-7). Hence, to say that “the Word became flesh” asserts that the Word became mortal; in other words, the Word became human. A related phrase, “flesh and blood” does not occur in John in that form, but is nevertheless important. The phrase is found in Wisdom and Sirach, as also elsewhere in the New Testament, where it describes what human beings are, sometimes in contrast to God or divine reality (Wis. 12:5; Sir. 14:18, 17:31; Mt. 16:17; 1 Cor. 15:50; Gal. 1:16; Eph. 6:12; Heb. 2:14). Hence, it can function, much as the single word “flesh” does, to refer to humankind. But elsewhere in the Old Testament, “flesh and blood,” singly or joined, appear in statements describing ritual sacrifice (Lev. 6:27; 16:27; 17:11; Deut. 12:23, 27). It is the flesh that is offered up; the blood that is poured out. Here the substance that is flesh is in view, as is its mortality.

2. The LXX σάρξ (flesh) most frequently translates the Hebrew ‫בשר‬. A few times ‫ בשר‬is translated as ἄνθρωπος (man or human being; Gen. 6:13; Job 12:10); a number of times as σῶμα (body), but most frequently (139 times) as σάρξ (flesh). 3. Among many references, see Gen. 2:21, 6:4, 24, 28, 7:21; Job 34:15; Pss. 78:39, 102:4, 11; 103:15; 136:25, 145:21; Isa. 40:6–8; 66:23; Ezek. 20:48, 21:5;

The Human Jesus in the Gospel of John

19

In the Gospel of John, flesh refers to humankind, sometimes in contrast with God or God’s Spirit. To be born of the flesh is contrasted with being born of God (Jn 1:12-13) or of the Spirit (3:6). Those “born of the flesh,” who claim to be God’s children through their human ancestry, must be “reborn” through the power of God’s Spirit. As those born of flesh, they will die; as those born of the Spirit, they will live. The destiny of those who are flesh is death; the destiny of those who are given life by the Spirit is eternal life, life with God, because it is the Spirit who gives life (6:63). Even as God breathed into a figure of dust so that this figure became a “living being” (Gen. 2:7), so God’s Spirit brings life to those who are “born of flesh” so that they may enter into life in God’s kingdom (Jn 3:6). But, to borrow from Paul, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 15:50). Flesh—and that includes the flesh of Jesus— is subject to death. In the discourse of Jn 6, Jesus identifies himself as the bread of life, bread that brings life to the world (Jn 6:35, 51). Whoever eats of this bread will have eternal life. Jesus then identifies that bread as his “flesh,” leading his audience to puzzle over the grotesque image of eating Jesus’ flesh. But Jesus presses the point, insisting that one must “eat the flesh of the Son of Man” and “drink his blood” in order to have life (6:53). The language of flesh and blood, and eating and drinking, resonates with the words spoken by Jesus at his last meal with his disciples, according to the Synoptic Gospels, and with Paul’s account of that meal in 1 Corinthians. But unlike the other Gospels and Paul, Jesus does not speak of his “body and blood”; he does not use the word “body” (σῶμα), but always the word “flesh” (σάρξ).4 It is Jesus’ flesh and blood that are true food and true drink. And “flesh and blood” point to Jesus’ death. When his hearers ask how he will give his flesh, the answer is that he will give it for the life of the world through his death.5 As the one who has become flesh (and blood), Jesus of Nazareth is also subject to death. One of the most puzzling statements in John about flesh is found toward the end of this very discourse. Jesus has just spoken of the life-giving character of his flesh and blood: those who “eat my flesh and drink my blood . . . will live because of me . . . Those who eat this bread will live forever” (6:56-58). But hard on the heels of those promises, Jesus tells his disciples “it is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless” (6:63). This statement seems to eviscerate the promise that Jesus has just made; namely, that his flesh and blood will confer eternal life. But while the connection of these statements remains challenging, they do fit with what John says elsewhere: what is begotten of flesh is flesh; what is begotten of Spirit is spirit. It is the Spirit that gives life (3:6; 6:63). Flesh is mortal; flesh dies. Jesus is the Word made flesh, and he dies. Hence, because flesh is mortal, flesh alone cannot confer life. But the death of Jesus that gives life to the world is the death of the Word made flesh: this is the one to whom God has “given it” to have “life in himself ” (5:26) and

4. Ignatius also speaks of “the blood” and “the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ” (Ignatius, Smyrn. 6:1-2). 5. The language of “giving” himself echoes other New Testament formulations that refer to the death of Jesus.

20

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

the one, therefore, whose flesh and blood bring life to the world, and who breathes the life-giving Spirit on his disciples. Those statements in the Gospel and Epistles of John that insist that Jesus has come “in the flesh” or that he “gave his flesh” (Jn 1:14; 6:56-58; 1 Jn 4:2) have sometimes been understood to target docetic or docetic-like beliefs.6 Although there are different expressions of docetic belief, they share in common a denial of Jesus’ genuine embodiment as a particular human being. Docetism —the view that Jesus only seemed to be human, or that he wore his humanity as a disguise to cloak his true divine identity—is also attested outside the New Testament in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch. In his letters to various churches in the province of Asia, the traditional site of the earliest circulation of the Gospel of John, Ignatius insists that “whoever does not confess [Jesus] to be flesh bearing (σαρκοφόρον) blasphemes” (Ignatius Smyrn. 5.2) and that “there is judgment for those who do not confess the blood of Jesus” (Ignatius Smyrn. 6.1). For he is “God existing in flesh” (Ignatius Eph. 7.1). In that same passage, as well as elsewhere, Ignatius notes that Jesus truly was descended from the line of David, born of Mary, baptized by John, and crucified under Pilate and Herod (cf. Ignatius Smyr. 1.1; Ignatius Trall. 9.1).7 Ignatius insisted on the historically embodied flesh of Jesus. If Jesus was not truly flesh, then he could not have truly suffered or died. Indeed, according to Ignatius’s opponents, Jesus only “seems” to suffer (λέγουσιν τὸ δοκεῖν πεπον θέναι αὐτόν αὐτοί; Ignatius Trall. 10; Smyrn. 2; 4.2). For Ignatius, much is at stake in denying the flesh of Jesus, including Jesus’ suffering “for our sins” (Smryn. 7.1); the reality of Jesus’ resurrection, which Ignatius characterizes as happening “in the flesh” (Smyrn. 1.2; 3.1; 7.1; Trall. 9.2; Eph. 20.1; Magn. 11); the efficacy of the Eucharist (Ignatius Smyrn. 7.1); and Ignatius’s own understanding of his call to martyrdom, to suffer as Jesus did (Ignatius Trall. 10). Although there are different expressions of docetic belief, they share in common a denial of Jesus’ genuine embodiment as a particular human being. Later Gnostic texts illustrate the beliefs most clearly. In the (second century) Trimorphic Protennoia, a divine Word or Voice asserts, “I put on Jesus. I bore him from the cursed wood, and established him in the dwelling places of his Father” (Trim. Prot. XIII, 50). Conspicuously missing is the word “flesh” (σάρξ), or the insistence that the Word became flesh. Jesus is “put on” as a garment, and carried away from the cross by another. In a similar vein, the third century Acts of John says that Jesus could take the form of any number of human beings, including a child, young or old man, sometimes big and sometimes small (Acts of John, 88–93). Sometimes

6.  For a discussion of docetism in relationship to the Johannine literature, see Udo Schnelle, Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992). 7.  “Jesus Christ who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and ate and drank. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; he was truly crucified; and truly died” (Ignatius Trall. 9.1). The emphatic use of “truly” (ἀληθῶς) points to what is being denied.

The Human Jesus in the Gospel of John

21

he is not a man at all (90); sometimes he has a material body, but at other times immaterial or incorporeal. In other words, Jesus is not a particular human being, but can appear as any number of them. Such accounts resemble those Greek and Roman stories that describe appearances of gods disguised as human beings. In both the Iliad and the Odyssey, for example, gods appear as a variety of human beings, acting so as to aid their favorites in ways that change the course of events. The gods take various forms. Athena appears disguised as both men and women, as individuals known to others (including Odysseus himself), or as anonymous persons.8 Rarely do the gods linger, although sometimes they return in the same disguise. They swoop in only to advance their causes or champion their favorites, and then disappear. In fact, their disappearances “into thin air” sometimes make their true identities known.9 It is precisely because they are other than flesh that they can be known as gods.10 Because the gods were known to visit human beings in disguise, people were admonished against mistreating beggars and strangers lest these be found to be gods (Od. 17.484–87).11 The Roman poets Virgil and Ovid recount many such tales as well, describing the visitations of various deities in a variety of guises, and sometimes warning of the consequences of failing to recognize or honor the deities.12 Here there is no true flesh, only the appearance of it. John also distinguishes Jesus from angels, not least by noting that he is the Son of Man on whom the angels ascend and descend (Jn 1:51).13 But John also 8.  Athena appears as Mentes (Od. 1.95–320; when she “flies upward” as a bird, Telemachus suspects she is a god) and Mentor (2.267–95; 2.399–401); as Telemachus himself in organizing a search for Odysseus (2.382–387); as the daughter of Dymas to Nausicaa (6.20–40); in various forms to Odysseus, including as a young maiden (7.20–35), a young shepherd (13:220–225), and a grown woman (13.288–310). In such brief appearances the goddess typically is not recognized, and offers encouragement or a promise about what will happen. One can find similar accounts in the Iliad about Athena (Il. 4.86–87; 17.554–56; 22.238–248); Poseidon (13.43–45); Apollo (16.715–20; 17:71–73); and Hermes (24.354–458). 9.  Among other accounts, see Virgil, Aen. 1.314–15 (Venus); 9.646–52 (Apollo; while he was still speaking, Apollo put aside “his mortal aspect [mortalis medio aspectus], and before their eyes melted to thin air,” thus revealing himself as a god). In Ovid, Metam. 1.212–13, Jupiter recounts how “although a god” he visited the earth “disguised in human form” [deus humana lustro sub imagine] (1.220; 8.618–724). 10. Epictetus asks, “What is the essence (οὐσία) of God? Is it flesh (σάρξ)? Certainly not! (μὴ γένοιτο)” (Diatr. 2.8.1–2). 11.  The account of Baucis and Philemon’s hospitality to the disguised gods Jupiter and Hermes is often thought to be reflected in the narrative of Paul and Barnabas’s visit to Lystra (Acts 14:8-20). 12.  Plato typifies the philosophical doubt that deity manifested itself in many different aspects, thus deceiving human beings (Rep. 2.380d). 13.  Some early Christian writers, such as Justin Martyr, did refer to Jesus as an angel (Dial. 34.2), but also “King, and Priest, and God, and Lord, and angel, and man, and captain,

22

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

implicitly distinguishes Jesus from angels by attributing to him the characteristics and habits of human beings, precisely when they distinguish human beings from angels.14 For example, according to various sources, angels do not eat,15 drink, or sleep, for they are incorporeal spirits (Tob. 12:19; 1 En. 39:12-13; T. Abr. 4:911; cf. Justin, Dial. 57.2).16 Angels can appear on earth as human beings.17 In the Testament of Abraham, Michael appears to Abraham as a human being to inform him that his time has come. But when Abraham welcomes his guest, and offers him food and drink, Michael must prevent Abraham from discerning his true identity by discovering that he cannot eat or drink. In some consternation, Michael asks God what to do, and God promises that he will send an “all-devouring spirit” to consume the food, so that Abraham never sees through the disguise. According to the Gospel of John, when the disciples return to the well in Samaria, having procured food in the village, they urge Jesus to eat. He replies, “I have food that you do not know about” (Jn 4:32). But that puzzling statement, suggesting that Jesus, like the angels, does not need to eat, is counterbalanced by the earlier statement that Jesus was tired and wanted a drink (4:6-7), by the fact that his disciples assume

and stone, and a Son born” (cf. Dial. 56.4; 60). Günther Juncker surveys patristic use of the “angel” to describe Christ in “Christ As Angel: The Reclamation of a Primitive Title,” TJ 15:2 (Fall 1994): 221–250. 14.  Recent decades have seen a significant discussion regarding both the function of angels and the possibility of angelomorphic Christology; among other works, see Larry Hurtado, One God, One Lord:  Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism, 3rd ed. (London:  Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015); C.  A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology:  Antecedents & Early Evidence, AGJU 42 (Leiden:  Brill, 1998); Loren T.  Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology:  A Study in Early Judaism and the Christology of the Apocalypse of John, WUNT II/70 (Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 1995). J.-A. Bühner argued that John presented Jesus as an “angelic prophet” (Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4.  Evangelium:  Die kultur- und religionsgeschichtlichen Grundlagen der johanneischen Sendungschristologie sowie ihre traditionsgeschichtliche Entwicklung, WUNT II/2 [Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck,  1977]). Crispin H.  T. Fletcher-Louis, Luke-Acts:  Angels, Christology and Soteriology, WUNT II/94 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) argues for the fluidity of the categories divine, angelic, and human as a backdrop for New Testament Christology, but also concedes that throughout the New Testament “Christ is . . . more fully human than would be expected of an angel” (p. 15). 15.  Although, contrast Ps. 78:25 and Wis. 16:20–21, which speak of manna as the “bread” or “food of angels.” Angels are created (on the first day of creation; Jub. 2:2). Angels apparently speak a distinct angelic tongue (T. Abr. 6:1–2; T. Job 48:3, 49:2, 50:1). 16.  According to the letter to the Hebrews, angels are “ministering spirits” (Heb. 1:14), who mediate the law (2:2, 3; cf. Gal. 3:19), visit God’s people in hidden form (Heb. 13:2), and worship and obey God’s firstborn Son in the heavenly assembly (1:6-9; 12:22). Precisely these sorts of descriptions, characterizing angels, are missing from John’s portrayal of Jesus. 17.  Adolpine Bakker deemed angelomorphic Christology to be essentially docetic (“Christ an Angel?: A Study of Early Christian Docetism,” ZNW 32 [1933]: 255–65).

The Human Jesus in the Gospel of John

23

that he does eat the kind of food that they had just brought, and that he is shown at a wedding feast (2:1-11), reclining at the table at a banquet in the Bethany home of Mary, Martha and Lazarus (12:2), and sharing a last meal with his disciples (13:1-11). He does not need to sneak out, like Michael, to avoid being discovered as something other than a (human) guest at table with friends.18 Indeed, early Christian authors thought the description of Jesus as weary and thirsty pointed to his genuine humanity (Irenaeus, Haer. 3.22.2; Tertullian, Prax. 21.8; 27:11; Carn. Chr. 9.7).19 The critic, Celsus, agreed, arguing that it further disproved Jesus’ divinity: a god has neither a body nor physical needs, nor is capable of suffering a natural death (Origen, Cels. 1.69–70). Human or divine: the one cancels out the other, or so the logic runs. It is not the logic of the Gospel of John. The Word made flesh is a genuine human being.

2. “You, being a man, make yourself God” There are a number of instances in the Gospel of John where Jesus is referred to as a human being by others. Once, the word used is ἀνήρ (male, man; 1:30), but elsewhere, the Greek word is ἄνθρωπος (human being). In all cases except one, the designation is found in the mouth of others, including the Samaritan woman (4:29); the authorities who question the man healed at Bethzatha (5:12); the servants who find themselves unable to arrest Jesus (7:46); Nicodemus (7:51); the blind man who is healed (9:11) and the authorities who question him (9:16, 24); the authorities who claim that Jesus “makes himself God” (10:33); the council that gathers after the raising of Lazarus, including Caiaphas the high priest (11:47; 11:50, repeated in 18:14); the servant who asks Peter if he is Jesus’ disciple (18:17); and Pontius Pilate (twice; 18:29, 19:5). Most occurrences of the word are found on the lips of Jesus’ opponents or detractors, making it initially tempting to hear their designation of Jesus as a man as an ironic sneer. They do not understand of whom they are speaking. Somewhat along these lines, Alan Culpepper writes, “When Jesus is called simply ‘a man’ the implied author winks at the reader.”20

18. In the Apoc. Abr. 12:1-2, Abraham says, “We went, the two of us alone together, forty days and nights. And I ate no bread and drank no water, because [my] food was to see the angel who was with me, and his discourse was my drink.” Abraham’s words do not imply that he never ate, but that for a period he fasted and was sustained by his accompanying angel. 19.  On thirst as a characteristic of human beings in John, see Craig R. Koester, “What does it mean to be human? Imagery and the Human Condition in John’s Gospel,” in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language, ed. Jörg Frey, Jan G. Van der Watt, and Ruben Zimmermann, WUNT 200 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 403–20, esp. 409–12. 20.  R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel:  A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 171; elsewhere I have quoted this in agreement, but now wonder whether this is the best formulation.

24

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

But there are several considerations that give one pause in adopting this interpretation. First, the Greek ἄνθρωπος (“human being”) is used of others in the Gospel, both of specific individuals, such as John (the baptizer; 1:6), Nicodemus (3:1), the man healed at Bethzatha (5:5, 15) and the formerly blind man (9:1), as well as more generically of every human being or all humanity (1:9; 2:10, 25; 3:4; 5:34). Much, of course, depends on what it means to say that Jesus is called “simply ‘a man,’ ” for the Gospel does not repudiate calling Jesus “a man.” At least two of those who call Jesus “a man” evince initial faith in him. To be sure, the statements of both the Samaritan woman (4:29) and the formerly blind man (9:11) become rounded out by fuller confessions of Jesus as prophet, Messiah, and Lord. The woman’s witness and invitation leads her townspeople to acknowledge Jesus as Savior of the world; the once blind man calls Jesus Lord and worships him. Nothing in the context demands that the reference to Jesus as a man is deemed in error, or that in making subsequent confessions about him, that designation is left behind. Rather it is this man of whom these very predications are offered. Second, Jesus refers to himself as “a human being” (ἄνθρωπος) when he tells the Jews who had once believed in him that they are seeking to kill “a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God” (8:40). The force of his criticism rests on the truthfulness of his claim: he is a man who has told them what he heard from God. Third, Pilate’s presentation of the scourged Jesus to the crowd who clamors for his death is accompanied with the declaration, “Behold the man!” (19:5), balanced by a similarly formulated declaration, “Behold your king!” (19:14). The statements are both true and interpret each other. The beaten man who stands before them indeed is their king; their king is this man. Two telling passages in John press the question of the significance of calling Jesus a man (ἄνθρωπος). Following the healing of the man at the pool of Bethzatha, Jesus is charged with “making himself equal to God” (5:18). Later the charge is repeated, albeit somewhat differently, when those who seek to stone Jesus for blasphemy explain that they do so because although he is a human being (ἄνθρωπος), he makes himself God (θεός; 10:33). In these charges, human (ἄνθρωπος) and God (θεός) are set over against each other: those who are human cannot act as God precisely because they are human and not divine, not God. These charges call to mind the oracles delivered against the various kings and kingdoms in the Bible and Jewish sources, who presumptuously claimed divine prerogatives or divine status, stepping outside the proper limits of what it means to be human. Among them are Pharaoh and Egypt (Exod. 5:2; Ezek. 29-32); Assyria (Isa. 10:7-17); Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon (Isa. 14:13–14; 47:6–8; Jdt. 3:8, 6:2); Antiochus Epiphanes (Dan. 11:36–39; 1 Macc. 1:10); Pompey (Pss. Sol. 2.28–32); Caligula (Philo, Embassy, 22; 74–80; 93–97, and especially 118; 162; Josephus, Ant. 19:4); Nero (Sib. Or. 5:33–35, 137–54, 214–21); and Herod Agrippa (Josephus, Ant. 19.345, 347; Acts 12:22). Similarly, on his deathbed Antiochus IV is said to have learned that it is “right to be subject to God, and no mortal should think that he is equal to God” (μὴ θνητὸν ὄντα ἰσόθεα φρονεῖν; 2 Macc.

The Human Jesus in the Gospel of John

25

9:12).21 To abandon one’s proper place as a human being and to claim to be “equal to God” is to set oneself up as a rival to God. Autonomy and self-divinization are two sides of the same coin. These sorts of charges are not limited to Jewish sources alone. “Know thyself,” the famous maxim attributed to the oracle of Delphi and often put on the lips of Socrates by Plato, warned that one should not overstep one’s bounds.22 According to Apollodorus, Salmoneus wanted “to make himself equal to Zeus,” by substituting the sacrifices to Zeus with sacrifices to himself; he was struck by lightning.23 Cassius Dio criticized Gaius (Caligula) for ordering temples and sacrifices in his honor, impersonating the gods, and calling himself “Jupiter Latiaris.”24 Mortals who usurped inappropriate divine honors were deemed arrogant and worthy of punishment. This charge of usurping divine honors is leveled against Jesus. The charge presupposes that one is either “god” or “human,” and that one who is human cannot rightly take the place of or be called god. In both instances in John, Jesus counters the charges by presenting himself as:  (1) the Son of God; who (2)  does the will or works of God. Jesus does not dispute the description of himself as a human being (ἄνθρωπος). His critics are wrong in alleging that he is a human being who has made himself equal to God, or made himself God. The charge is wrong because, on the one hand, the Father has “given all things” to him (5:26-27; 13:3) including the authority to act in ways that seem tantamount to claiming divine status; and it is wrong because, on the other hand, Jesus is the “Word made flesh,” the embodiment of the Word who was “with God” and who “was God” in the beginning. His human identity is never denied, for he is the “Word made flesh.”25 Hence, “human being” is not one more 21.  Philo notes that nothing is equal to God (οὐδὲ ἴσον αὐτουౝ ; Sacrifices 92); “God himself is equal to and like himself ” (ἴσος γὰρ αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ καὶ ὅμοιος ὁ θεός, Eternity 43); “nothing is equal or better than God” (οὔτε δὲ ἴσον οὔτε κρεῖσσόν ἐστι θεοῦ, Alleg. Interp. 2.3); nothing is more hostile than the one “who in his arrogance attributed to himself what belongs to God” (Cherubim 77). 22. Hence “know thyself ” and “be temperate” (the other well-known proverb of Delphi) were mutually interpreting (Charmides 164D). Plato’s Republic includes a story about a shepherd who found a gold ring that made him invisible (Republic 2.359e). Using the ring, he seduced the king’s wife and killed the king to possess his kingdom. He thus conducted himself as the equal of a god (ἰσόθεος; 2.360c), determining his own conduct without any external constraints. 23. Apollodorus, Library, 1.9.7. Attributed to Apollodorus of Alexandria (2nd c. BCE), The Library, is now thought to be a second century compilation. 24. Cassius Dio, Roman History 59.26.5; 59.28.5–6. 25.  Francis J. Moloney, The Johannine Son of Man, 2nd ed. BSRel 14 (Rome: Libreria Ateneo Salesiano, 1978) has argued that, in John, “son of man” refers to Jesus’ humanity, and that it is “entirely dependent on the incarnation” (p. 213). As Craig Koester rightly notes, Son of Man “identifies Jesus as the person in whom God is revealed” (The Word of Life: A Theology of John’s Gospel [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008], 97).

26

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

thing to be predicated of Jesus; the human Jesus is the subject of all predications in the Gospel.

3. “My Lord and my God” Discussions about whether the New Testament thinks of Jesus as “divine” have been complicated in recent decades by questions about the character and even existence of first-century Jewish monotheism, whether heavenly agent figures were thought of as divine and, if so, whether Jesus was conceived as one of them, and how one should speak of or characterize “divine identity” at all.26 In the past, the question was often formulated somewhat simply: “Does the New Testament call Jesus God?” When put that way, the most frequently cited “proof texts” have been drawn from the Gospel of John. In the beginning of the Gospel, the Word is explicitly called God: “and the Word was God” (1:1; καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος). It is this Word that becomes flesh. Later, Thomas confesses the risen Jesus as “my Lord and my God” (20:28). It is worth noting that these affirmations characterize the pre-incarnate Word and the risen Christ. These affirmations frame the narrative of Jesus’ work and mission. But nowhere in the body of the narrative does the earthly Jesus baldly say “I am God” nor does anyone confess him in those terms. There are plenty of other confessions: Jesus is Son of Man, Son of God, Messiah, Lord. But no disciple confesses him to be “God,” save for Thomas. Indeed, as already noted, the charge that Jesus makes himself God, or equal to God, is addressed carefully in nuanced fashion. This apparent reticence raises two questions: (1) Why is the explicit affirmation of Jesus as God appropriate in these contexts, but (apparently) not during his earthly life? (2) How should one conceive of the relationship between these confessions that frame the narrative and the presentation of Jesus within the Gospel narrative? At first glance, a fairly straightforward answer might appear to suffice: during his earthly ministry as portrayed in John, Jesus was not addressed as God because the historical figure of Jesus was not addressed as God. Thus the actual contours of Jesus’ life, or at least the traditions or sources on which John drew, curb John’s account in important ways. For example, as in the other Gospels, Jesus alone refers to himself as “Son of Man” (1:51 and following); he does not present himself in

26.  On monotheism, see Larry Hurtado, “First Century Jewish Monotheism,” in How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 111–33. On chief agent figures, see Larry Hurtado, One God, One Lord:  Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism, 3rd ed. (London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015) and especially the “Epilogue” which updates the discussion (pp. 135–88). For an influential but simultaneously disputed account of “divine identity” and its relevance for understanding Jesus, see Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998).

The Human Jesus in the Gospel of John

27

public as “the Messiah” (cf. 4:25-26), nor will he answer the question whether he is the Messiah directly when asked by the authorities (10:24-25). John’s portrait of Jesus has noticeable differences from those found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke; as is well known, in John, Jesus presents himself allusively through imagery (bread of life, light of the world) and indirectly by means of (exalted) claims for himself (“Before Abraham was, I am”; 8:58). But among the important similarities to be noted, in none of the four canonical Gospels does Jesus explicitly make the claim “I am God” nor does he ask his disciples to say so.27 But of course in John, Jesus has already been introduced in the prologue: Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the only Son of the Father, Word made flesh. While the Gospel’s narrative spells out the what of Jesus’ identity in a variety of ways, the prologue has made Jesus known—at least to the reader. In this regard, John is both like and unlike the other Gospels. Matthew and Luke contain introductory chapters that tell the story of Jesus’ birth and so of his identity as the one who was born by the power of God’s activity or Spirit, but their narratives involve figures in the Gospels or in Jesus’ own life (Mary and Joseph being chief among them). In John, no character in the narrative is a participant in the events that introduce Jesus. Characters in the Gospel struggle to discern Jesus’ identity, but Thomas confesses what the readers have known, even if not fully understood, all along.28 There is yet another important reason for the reserve in John’s Gospel: the risen Jesus returns to the glory and the life that he had with the Father, to the glory and eternal life that belong properly to God (17:5, 22, 24). The Word is the agent of God’s life in creation; Jesus, the embodied Word, is the agent of God’s saving life. And yet, as flesh—mortal—he succumbs to the fate of all human beings: he dies. Death is not the end of this story, but had it been, it would be difficult to imagine how Jesus would have been acknowledged as God, for in both Jewish and Graeco-Roman thought, mortality divides gods from human beings. Gods are immortal: they do not die. Thomas can confess the one standing before him as “my God” precisely because Jesus lives: the resurrection confirms him as the agent of the Father’s life-giving work. The resurrection of Jesus to life does not in itself mark Jesus out as “God.” Indeed, the resurrection of the dead to life “on the last day” is one of the fundamental convictions of the Gospel, shared with its Jewish heritage. And Jesus must rise because he has died, as mortals do. But in John, Jesus is himself resurrection and life; because he lives, those who abide in him will live because of him (6:57; 14:19). He is the source of life, and of the resurrection from the dead to life. In keeping with that emphasis, one of the peculiar features of John is the attribution of Jesus’ resurrection to his own power (10:15, 17-18). Jesus’ resurrection shows that Jesus “has life in himself ” even as

27.  According to Matthew, Jesus pronounces Simon Peter blessed by a heavenly revelation when he acknowledges Jesus to be the Messiah (Mt. 16:17). 28.  See the helpful comments of Morna Hooker, “The Johannine Prologue and the Messianic Secret,” NTS 21 (1974): 40–58.

28

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

the Father has life in himself (5:26). Jesus can truly, therefore, confer life on others (5:26; 10:18). The power to create and give life is a unique divine prerogative in Scripture: it is one of the prerogatives that the Father has given to the Son in such a way that he is “equal to God.” It is the risen, life-giving Jesus, now “ever with the Father” (1:18) whom Thomas confesses as “my Lord and my God.” Jesus has not become God; but his resurrection now makes such confession both appropriate and possible.

4. “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” The Gospel assumes that Jesus was a human being (ἄνθρωπος) of flesh (σάρξ), who hungers, thirsts, bleeds, and dies. But it also anchors the account of Jesus historically and geographically, in a specific time and place. Within the first chapter alone, Jerusalem, Bethany, the Jordan, Galilee, Bethsaida, and Nazareth are mentioned, and these will be supplemented by Samaria, Cana, Capernaum, another Bethany, Ephraim, and the Sea of Galilee or Tiberias. The characters in the first chapter, in addition to John, include priests and Levites, and in the rest of the Gospel, the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, the “Jews,” especially Pharisees, Barabbas, and Romans, including Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea from 26–36 CE. It is not difficult to locate Jesus very precisely both geographically and chronologically. Numerous other details further locate Jesus within a specific sociohistorical context. Jesus is identified, first, with respect to a Jewish prophet named John, who engaged in practices of purification akin to those that characterize various groups, including Pharisees and Essenes, within Second Temple Judaism. Jesus hails from Nazareth in Galilee. The Gospel refers to “six stone jars” used to hold water for purification, reflecting the preference for stone over clay jars in light of Jewish purity regulations and the consequent growth of the limestone pottery making trade in Galilee in the first century (2:6; m. Kelim 10.1). Jesus disputed with others about the interpretation of the Torah on issues of Sabbath observance, including its relationship to circumcision, alluding to the exception made for circumcision on the Sabbath, in keeping with increased emphasis on Sabbath observance in this period (7:22; m. Shabb. 18:3–19:4).29 During Jesus’ ministry the Jerusalem temple is standing. It serves as the locale for Jesus’ teaching, deeds, and conflicts with authorities, and pilgrimage feasts play a key role in John’s narrative. Jesus’ public deeds and teaching take place near Passover, on the Sabbath, at Tabernacles, and Hanukkah. The feasts not only provide the settings for interpreting the significance of Jesus’ words and deeds, but provide chronological movement. In fact, the Gospel contains the New Testament’s sole references to the feasts of Tabernacles (7:2) and Hanukkah

29.  Perhaps it is of note that Celsus’s assertion that Jesus “kept all the Jewish customs, and even took part in their sacrifices” (Origen, Cels. 2.6).

The Human Jesus in the Gospel of John

29

(Dedication; 10:22).30 Through repeated references to Jesus’ impending “hour,” the Gospel moves him ever closer to his death. Thus he moves through the calendar of the Jewish festival year more than once until he meets his death at the final Passover of the Gospel. He is not a god who descends occasionally from Olympian heights in order to change the course of earthly events, but one who is involved in a particular set of historical events; he “became flesh, and lived among us” (1:14). He is the subject of encounters with human friends and foes, ultimately subject to the political maneuvering of his foes, at whose hands he dies. In Contra Celsum, Origen reports that Celsus challenged Christian convictions about Jesus because “it is wicked to imagine that God should become a slave, suffer sickness or die” (Cels. 7.14, 16–17). A god cannot be subject to the ordinary conditions of human life, and a god cannot die. How could the divine Word, who was in the beginning with God, die? In the Gospel of John, that Word becomes flesh; the Word becomes a human being; and that Word made flesh dies. But if one denies the genuine humanity of Jesus, one denies that he was truly flesh, truly mortal. How, then, to interpret the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion? As noted earlier, in the Trimorphic Protennoia, the divine Voice “puts on” Jesus and bears him from the cross. And the Apocalypse of Peter famously presents the “living Jesus” laughing at and distinct from the “fleshly” one into whose hands and feet the nails are driven (Apoc. Pet. VII, 3, 81). The heavenly savior cannot die, because the heavenly savior is not flesh. The divine aspect of Jesus’ identity must be severed from that fleshly part subject to mortality.

5. Conclusion What Greek and Roman myths and philosophers, Gnostics and docetists, share in common is a view that draws a sharp line between flesh and spirit, human and divine. A god cannot be human, mortal, or flesh. The god may appear to be so, but that appearance will be a ruse. A god may show up in any number of human forms, and then disappear. A divine savior may appear to die, but that death will be an illusion or the death of the fleshly being rather than of the divine Savior. Jesus may seem to have a body, and seem to suffer, but he only seems to do so. It is easy to see, then, what Irenaeus meant when he wrote that “the Word became flesh” was an affirmation held by no heretic (Haer. 3.11.3), or how Augustine could have written that while he had found similarities to the doctrine of the Logos in Greek philosophy, “I did not read in them that ‘the Word was made flesh and came to dwell among us’ ” (Conf. 7.9). The affirmation distinguishes Johannine Christology

30. The Gospel reflects knowledge of rituals or hopes characterizing each feast, including the significance of the last day of the feast of Tabernacles and the water poured in front of the altar (7:37; m. Sukkah 4:1, 8, 9) and messianic hopes stirred by the celebration of the dedication of the temple.

30

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

in its ancient contexts because it affirms what others could not: that God entered the world as a fully embodied human being, living and dying as human beings do. John’s assertion that “the Word became flesh” also stands out in its biblical context. The Bible also assumes the contrast between spirit and flesh, between God and human beings. God is the creator of all things, the everlasting one, who gives life and who himself does not die. Human beings, by contrast, are characterized by their creatureliness, their fragility and mortality. Their days are numbered; their lives short; like the grass of the field, they wither and perish. The God who made all things, and who lives forever, does not then become subject to death and mortality; this God does not become a human being. There are times when an angel appears in human guise, but, like the gods in Homerian epic, they appear only for limited purposes and times. They do not live a human life from birth to death. And here, John differs. At the heart of Johannine Christology, laid out at the beginning of the Gospel, is this central truth:  the Word became flesh. It is that central fact that makes possible the narrative of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. In recounting that narrative, John does not separate the divine and human aspects of Jesus, predicating some actions of the divine Word and others of the human Jesus. All that Jesus says and does he does as the Word made flesh, a human being who suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was crucified, dead and buried. Other things can be predicated of Jesus: he is the Prophet, Messiah, Son of God, and Lord; bread of life, light of the world, resurrection and truth. But these things are all predicated of this one, Jesus of Nazareth: “Word made flesh.”

Chapter 3 J E SU S T H E J EW I N J O H N ’ S G O SP E L :   “ S C R I P T U R E CANNOT BE BROKEN” Wendy E. S. North

In John’s Gospel, the story of the Word become flesh is at once the biography of Jesus the Jew. While in the telling John does not neglect Jesus’ preexistent status (Jn 17:5, 24), the fact remains that the human reality of his life among his fellow Jews is presupposed throughout. Indeed, the fact that Jesus hails from Nazareth in Galilee is a commonplace in John. This is known to Jesus’ first disciples, who not only declare that he is the Messiah and the one attested in the Law and the Prophets, but also identify him as Joseph’s son from Nazareth (1:41, 45). It is also known to others, who question whether Jesus’ origin is consistent with such claims. Thus, if Nathanael doubts whether anything good can come out of Nazareth (1:46), so also the Pharisees find Jesus’ Galilean origin unpromising (7:52). Similarly, some find this a reason to puzzle over Jesus’ claim to a heavenly origin (6:42), or to question whether he can be the Christ (7:27, 41-42). Meanwhile, Jesus himself acknowledges his place of origin by identifying himself as a prophet without honor in his native Galilee (4:44).1 By the same token, the reality of Jesus’ ethnic identity is also not in question. Indeed, as we shall see, although John distinguishes between Jesus and those groups he calls “the Jews,” Jesus’ own identity as a Jew is never in doubt.2 Thus we note the Samaritan woman needs no telling that Jesus is a Jew when he asks her for a drink (4:7, 9) and later Pilate’s ironic “Am I a Jew?” recognizes the same aspect of Jesus’ identity before he points to the fact that Jesus’ own nation have handed him over (18:35). In this regard also, Jesus himself acknowledges his identity. In dialogue with the Samaritan, he insists that “we [Jews] worship what we know,” which is consistent with his regular presence at the feasts in Jerusalem and in 1. In agreement with the case for Galilee, rather than Judea, as Jesus’ home territory in this verse; see Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel According to St John, BNTC 4 (London: Continuum and Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005), 184–85. 2.  Throughout this study οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι will be translated as “the Jews.” See further, Ruth Sheridan, “Issues in the Translation of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι in the Fourth Gospel,” JBL 132 (2013): 671–95.

32

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

the temple (2:13-16; 5:1; 7:2, 10, 14, 37; 8:20; 10:22-23; 11:55; 12:1; 13:1) and the reason, he declares, is that “salvation is of the Jews” (4:22). This last point brings us to a second observation about John’s biography of Jesus, namely, that apart from the Samaritans and the predictable appearance of Pilate in the Passion narrative, John’s account focuses on Judaism. There is no “Legion” in this Gospel to be cured in the country of the Gerasenes (Mk 5:1-20; cf. Mt. 8:28-34; Lk. 8:26-39), no Syro-Phoenician woman who argues her case in the region of Tyre and Sidon (Mk 7:24-30; cf. Mt. 15:21-28), and the healing of the official’s son in John, despite its similarities with Synoptic equivalents (Mt. 8:5-13; Lk. 7:1-10), makes no move to identify the official as a Gentile or to remark his faith as exceptional in that regard (4:46-54). This is not to say, of course, that John does not envisage a reaching out beyond Judaism’s bounds. That much is plain enough from Jesus’ reference to “other sheep” he will bring into his fold (10:16) and from John’s emphasis that Jesus’ death was not for the nation only but to gather into one the scattered children of God (11:51-52). It is to say, however, that in John’s scheme of things that time is not yet. It is therefore no accident that the Greeks who ask to see Jesus in 12:20-21 do not have their wish granted but that, instead, Jesus recognizes this request as the arrival of the hour of his death (12:23-24). Indeed, it is precisely at that point that John brings this future trajectory into view in his report that the title on the cross was written in three languages that together encompass both Judaism and the ancient world at large (19:19-20).

1. The Prologue (1:1-18) Before that happens, however, John’s focus remains firmly on the life of Jesus within Judaism itself and, in that respect, his outlook is not only consistent with Jesus’ insistence in the Synoptics that his mission must first be to Israel (Mt. 15:24; cf. 10:56; Mk 7:27), but also and significantly with how John himself describes the Word in the world in his Prologue. In Jn 1:9-11, he begins with a general statement about the Word as the “true light” in the world, but then specifies that he came to his own place and among his own people. At the same time, John presses home the point that the Word found rejection in the world, even in its specific, local sense, before finally he describes those who received him and believed (1:12-13). In light of this evidence, it is clear that when John declares to his readers in 1:14 that the Word became flesh, he intends to relate the story of Jesus the Jew and the impact of his ministry within Judaism. The remainder of his Prologue is consistent with this. Accordingly, John now exchanges reference to the Word for the language of Sonship to describe Jesus in relation to God.3 In addition, he now speaks for believers as the “we” who have beheld the glory proper to the Son,

3.  The word “Son” is not in 1:14b, and a well-attested textual variant in 1:18b reads “God” rather than “Son.” Nevertheless, “Son” is implied by John’s use of the term μονογενής, not only because it properly pertains to a child (cf. Lk. 7:12; 8:42; 9:38) but

Jesus the Jew in John’s Gospel

33

which he then describes in 1:14b as “full of grace and truth” (πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας). It is important for what follows to recognize that this phrase is an allusion to Exod. 34:6, which belongs to a narrative in which Moses meets God on Mt. Sinai before receiving the Law (Exod. 33:12-34:9; cf. 34:1, 4). At this point, Moses is hidden by God in the cleft of a rock while his glory passes by (33:20, 22-23) and God declares he is “a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness” (RSV). John’s phrase “full of grace and truth” is the equivalent of “abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness” in this verse.4 Thus, the glory “we” have seen in Jesus is of the character of God himself as “full of grace and truth.” Having established this point, John moves on to interpret the significance of “full of grace and truth” for believers. In Jn 1:16, he affirms that from his “fullness,” all have received “grace in place of grace,”5 and in 1:17 he expounds this last phrase by relating the Law and the revelation through Jesus as follows:  “The Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” Thus, John sees the Law as a grace and what came about in Jesus as the second, and now primary, grace. Note especially that there is no “but” in this sentence; rather, a balance between the two is maintained even while the second “grace” surpasses the first. In 1:18, John concludes his Prologue by declaring that no one has ever seen God (cf. Exod. 33:20), which is the basis for his claim that Jesus, by virtue of his intimacy with the Father, has made God known. In sum, the revelation John describes here is personal and the medium is a person; comparison and contrast with the Law are both implied in this argument. The narrative that now unfolds is dominated by Jesus himself, whose impact on the social world of Judaism is carefully choreographed by John. Accordingly, the net effect, particularly in the public ministry, is of a central figure—empowered, certain—around whom swirls an atmosphere of speculation in which groups and individuals struggle to find a bearing. This raises important questions about John’s presentation of Jesus among his own people. Two in particular are key: First, how do others in that Jewish environment engage with Jesus and he with them? And, second, what are the terms of engagement, that is, what is at issue at those points where they interact? The aim of this study is to explore how John presents Jesus the Jew with special reference to these two questions. We shall begin by investigating the first of these. In this case, however, our quest is complicated by the fact, already touched on briefly, that John can refer to others who engage with Jesus as “the Jews,” a term he uses with a frequency that far

also because it is consistent with John’s own usage in 3:16, 18 (cf. 1 Jn 4:9). See further Ruth B. Edwards, Discovering John: Content, Interpretation, Reception, 2nd ed. (London: SPCK, 2014), 110–12. 4. See further, Lincoln, The Gospel According to St John, 105–06. 5. So Ruth B. Edwards, “Charin anti Charitos: Grace and Law in the Johannine Prologue,” JSNT 32 (1988): 3–15; reproduced in New Testament Backgrounds, ed. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 190–202.

34

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

outstrips other categories.6 He uses this in two basic ways: first, in describing the customs of the Jewish people as distinct from other nations, most notably feasts “of the Jews” (Jn 2:13; 5:1; 6:4; 7:2; cf. 2.6; 19:40, 42); and second, to our present point, as an alternative to individual social groups who interact with Jesus in the course of the narrative. In addition, the fact that he can introduce the term without explanation argues for a shared understanding between author and audience in this case, with the result that our own endeavors to understand this usage must rely tentatively on what may be gleaned from his text.7 With these points in mind, we shall proceed by delineating each main group and associated individuals John specifies before considering the relevance or otherwise to that group of his use of “the Jews.”

2. Those who engage with Jesus the Jew a. The disciples As we have noted, the response of Jesus’ disciples is initially positive and, by and large, this continues to be the case (e.g., 1:47-51; 2:11).8 Equally, they can also join the ranks of the baffled in dialogue with Jesus, which they do both individually and as a group (6:5-7; 11:11-14, 16; 13:36-38; 14:5, 8; 16:17-18, 29).9 Even so, however, their place in the post-resurrection future is assured. John is at pains to point out that the disciples were in no position to understand the meaning of events at the time (2:22; 12:16). Furthermore, as Jesus teaches them in his discourse in the upper room (13:13-14), they will eventually gain insight with remembrance through the agency of the Spirit-Paraclete, who will remain with 6.  See further, Wendy E.  S. North, “ ‘The Jews’ in John’s Gospel:  Observations and Inferences,” in A Journey Round John: Tradition, Interpretation and Context in the Fourth Gospel, LNTS 534 (London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015), 148–67, esp. 158–59. 7. Much has been written on “the Jews” in John, and detailed coverage of the complexities involved will not be attempted here. For a recent narratological study of John’s “Jews,” including an extensive bibliography, see Ruben Zimmermann, “ ‘The Jews’:  Unreliable Figures or Unreliable Narration?” in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel:  Narrative Approaches to Seventy Figures in John, ed. Steven A. Hunt, D. Francois Tolmie, and Ruben Zimmermann (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 71–109. 8. Apart from the predictable exception of Judas Iscariot, there are the “many” disciples who withdraw in 6:60-66. This secession, together with Jesus’ words in 16:1-2, may reflect current difficulties; note John’s use of σκανδαλίζω (to take offence/fall away) in both 6:61 and 16:1. 9. The notable exception here is the so-called Beloved Disciple, who is close to Jesus and Jesus-like (13:23 cf. 1:18; 18:15 cf. 10:2) and who gets everything right (13:25-26; 19:2627; 20:8; cf. 21:7, 20-24). See further Christopher R. Skinner, “Characterization,” in How John Works: Storytelling in the Fourth Gospel, ed. Douglas Estes and Ruth Sheridan, RBS 86 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2016), 115–32, esp. 130–31.

Jesus the Jew in John’s Gospel

35

them after he is gone (14:16-17, 25-26; 15:26; 16:7-15).10 In sum, the disciples as a group are represented positively by John and, in that regard, they are joined by other characters in his narrative who represent genuine faith: the official at Cana (4:50, 53), the man born blind (9:35-38) and Mary and Martha (11:25-27; 12:3). A final positive point about this group is that they are not referred to as “the Jews.” b. The crowd Those who believe because of the signs, in group terms represented by the crowd, are given a less favorable reception. Here, the tone is set by John’s comment in 2:2325 about Jesus’ mistrust of those who believed upon seeing the signs in Jerusalem. It also paves the way for his description of Nicodemus in 3:1-2, who exemplifies this signs-based acclaim. In the course of his only encounter with Jesus, Nicodemus is soon at a loss to grasp his meaning, as Jesus himself is quick to confirm (3:4, 910). Moreover, although in future appearances Nicodemus continues to be well disposed toward Jesus, whether he finally succeeds in emerging from the “night” that cloaked his arrival at the start remains unresolved (3:2; cf. 7:50-52; 19:39).11 Also included in this signs-faith category are the Galileans in chapter  4, who welcome Jesus after witnessing his deeds in Jerusalem (4:45; cf. 2:23-24), but who soon become the target of his rebuke of those whose belief is overly dependent on seeing “signs and wonders” (4:48). John’s “crowd,” although briefly mentioned in 5:13, come into their own in chapter 6. In 6:2, they flock to Jesus in Galilee because of the signs, and respond positively as a result of the feeding miracle (6:14). Nevertheless, Jesus later charges them with failing to understand this sign, and in the discourse they are soon out of their depth (6:26-27, 30-32). Following their solo turn with Jesus in Galilee, John locates the crowd in Judea. Here, they interact with Jesus occasionally (7:20; 12:28-34) but otherwise they play the role of spectators who comment on events. In that capacity, the crowd divide in opinion, some believing Jesus is a good man while others see him as a deceiver (7:12), and some claiming he is the prophet or the Christ while others question this on the basis of his Galilean origin (7:40–43; see also “Jerusalemites” in 7:25–27). Meanwhile, the signs continue to attract the crowd to Jesus (7:31). At this point it will be helpful to introduce the fact that John includes this signsfaith group within his “Jews” category. Not only does he describe Nicodemus as “a ruler of the Jews” (3.1), but he also refers to the crowd later in chapter 6 as “the

10.  See Tom Thatcher, “Why John Wrote a Gospel:  Memory and History in an Early Christian Community,” in Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity, ed. A. Kirk and Tom Thatcher, SBL Semeia Studies 52 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 79–97, esp. 82–85. 11.  See further, R.  Alan Culpepper, “Nicodemus:  The Travail of New Birth,” in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel, ed. Steven A. Hunt, D. Francois Tolmie, and Ruben Zimmermann (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 249–59, esp. 259.

36

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

Jews” (6.41, 52). In particular, those “Jews” who come to Bethany in 11:18-19 to console Martha and Mary over the loss of their brother are clearly also the crowd and are referred to as such by Jesus before he raises Lazarus (11:42). In response to this sign, many of these “Jews” believe (11:45) and consequently, John tells us, “a great crowd” of them flocks to Bethany to see not only Jesus but also Lazarus, on whose account “many of the Jews” believed in Jesus (12:9-11). Finally, after the triumphal entry, in which “a great crowd” went out to meet Jesus (12:12), John explains that this came about because “the crowd” that had witnessed the raising of Lazarus—who are plainly “the Jews” in that story—had borne witness to the sign (12:18-19). A final, brief appearance of these “Jews” as the general populace occurs in 19:20-21, in John’s account of the crucifixion. Here, he reports that “many of the Jews” read the title on the cross, since the place of crucifixion was near the city, and that in consequence “the chief priests of the Jews” requested Pilate to alter it. A final and significant point arises here with reference to John’s presentation of this group, which is that except for this brief glimpse of those “Jews” who can read the titulus from the city, there are no crowds in John’s Passion narrative. c. The authorities Finally, we come to John’s presentation of the Jewish authorities. He specifies that these are Pharisees, chief priests and, very occasionally, rulers. Here, although John points to occasional differences of opinion (7:47-52: 9:16; 12:42), their overall position in relation to Jesus is to oppose him. The Pharisees, already responsible for sending those who interrogated the Baptist (1:24; cf. 1:19), are soon seen as a threat to Jesus himself (4:1-3). This translates into action at the feast of Tabernacles when, having overheard the crowd’s response to the signs, they join with the chief priests to send officers to arrest Jesus (7:31-32; cf. 7:45-47). Later, having learned of the Lazarus miracle and the acclaim of the onlookers, the Pharisees and chief priests again act jointly, this time to convene members of the council who heed the advice of high priest Caiaphas and resolve to put Jesus to death (11:46-53). Thereafter, their joint plans for his arrest, initially thwarted by Jesus’ popularity (12:19), achieve success in 18:3, spearheaded by Judas and with Roman backing. After that point, the animus against Jesus becomes the preserve of the chief priests, who call for his crucifixion at the trial (19:6), and later request Pilate to change the title on the cross to defame him (19:21). The authorities as a group are John’s most characteristic referent for “the Jews.” This is clear from the beginning of his narrative when he specifies that those “Jews” who sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to question John the Baptist were Pharisees (1:19, 24). Next, we meet “the Jews” in Jerusalem itself, where they question Jesus’ behavior following his exclusion of traders from the temple (2:18). In his response, Jesus’ words “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it” (2:19) contain a cryptic reference to the threat they pose to his life, and although “the Jews” themselves do not respond to this, John intervenes to explain them as a reference to Jesus’ death and resurrection (2:21-22). These “Jews” again assert their authority in chapter 5 as they question the cured man on account of his breach

Jesus the Jew in John’s Gospel

37

of Sabbath law (5:8-10). Once they learn of Jesus’ involvement, however, John tells us that they sought all the more to kill Jesus, not only because he broke the Sabbath but also because of his claim to work as God works, which they construed as blasphemy (5:16-18). Further indicators that the Jewish authorities are in view include the fact that in chapter 9, John refers to the Pharisees, who question the man born blind following another Sabbath cure (9:13-17, 24-34), as “the Jews,” who have the power to evict others from the synagogue and are feared by the blind man’s parents in consequence (9:18-23) and, finally, after Jesus’ arrest in 18:3 involving officers sent by the chief priests and Pharisees, John refers to the same people in 18:12 as “officers of the Jews.” In sum, John’s “Jews” are predominately the authorities, who inspire fear in others (7:13; 9:22; 19:38; 20:19; cf. the Pharisees in 12:42) and who oppose Jesus and seek to kill him (5:16-18; 7:19, 25; 8:37, 40, 59; 10:31; 11:8; 18:40; 19:6, 15). We can now attempt some clarification on our first key question, which was to determine how others engage with Jesus and he with them in John’s narrative. Of the main groups concerned, the disciples are the exception; they respond positively toward Jesus and are accepted by him, they alone learn from his special teaching in the seclusion of the Upper Room, and they alone will be guided in the future by the Spirit-Paraclete in understanding with remembrance. Outside this intimate space shared by Teacher and taught, we find John’s “Jews,” occasionally the uncomprehending crowd but chiefly the hostile authorities, who neither listen nor learn. So placed, these people belong to “the world” where, as indicated in the Prologue, the Word found rejection (1:9-11). This brings us to consider those points in John’s narrative where Jesus engages with “the Jews” and so to explore our second key question, which concerns what is at issue when they interact. Here we shall consider four examples, beginning with those “Jews” who are the crowd.

3. Jesus and “the Jews”: Four points of interaction First, in chapter 6, those in dialogue with Jesus are the crowd, later identified as “the Jews.” As such, they play a major role both as recipients in the feeding miracle and also in the later discourse. The subject matter of the discourse arises from the character of the sign (6:1-13). The crowd, who have flocked to Jesus because of the signs (6: 2), respond in this case by declaring that Jesus is the prophet to come (6:14), a designation that draws on the expectation of a prophet like Moses, rooted in Deuteronomy (Deut. 18:15, 18).12 This comes to the fore when the crowd later demand a sign from Jesus, citing as precedent the Exodus miracle of the manna in the wilderness, traditionally linked with the giving of the Law.13 They support this 12. See Maarten J. J. Menken, Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996), 47–65. 13. See Peder Borgen, Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo, NovTSup 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1965), 99–121, 157.

38

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

with a quotation from Scripture, “He gave them bread from heaven to eat” (cf. Ps. 78:24; Exod. 16:4, 14-15), which could be construed to mean that “he” who gave the bread was Moses (Jn 6:30-31). In Jesus’ response, he first corrects the impression that Moses gave the bread and, second, he applies the quotation directly to the present (6:32). In this interpretation, which is amplified throughout the discourse, the bread from God becomes the “true” bread that God now gives, which is Jesus himself, and the life that was given to the Israelites now becomes the gift of eternal life for those who believe (6:32-33, 35, 40, 48-51, 57-58). The key point to note here is that what Jesus has taught them, appropriately in a synagogue setting (6:59), is a systematic exegesis of the same Scripture, that is, “he gave” (6:32) “bread from heaven” (6:33–48) “to eat” (6:49–58),14 now understood as witnessing to himself. Second, since the exegesis of Scripture undertaken in chapter 6 is organically linked with Jesus’ claims at the close of the previous chapter, we shall now turn to 5:37-47 as our next example. As noted earlier, John’s “Jews” here are those in authority. As we also noted earlier, the intention of these people is malign; after the Sabbath healing and their subsequent involvement, John reports that they sought all the more to kill Jesus, not only as a Sabbath-breaker but also as a blasphemer (5:16-18; cf. Exod. 20:8-11; Deut. 5:12-15; Lev. 24:16). That said, John then devotes the rest of the chapter to a monologue by Jesus in refutation of this charge. The first section articulates the basis on which Jesus does God’s Sabbath work. Here we see the familiar disclaimer that Jesus does not act on his own accord but only heeds God’s will. On this basis, he argues, God’s Sabbath powers to give life and to judge, both now and at the last day, are bestowed on him as Son (Jn 5:19-29). Two points emerge from this argument: first, that Jesus’ works are God’s and so in accomplishing these he is not in breach of Sabbath law; and, second, that to honor Jesus, in this representative capacity as agent, as God is honored is not blasphemy (5:19-29). In the second section, following a repetition of the disclaimer (5:30), Jesus refers to witnesses that justify these claims. Having begun with the Baptist (5:33, 35; cf. 1:19, 24), he then refers to the “greater witness” of the works he has accomplished (5:36) before, finally, he comes to the witness of God himself (5:37). This brings us to the climax and close of the monologue (5:3747) that has proved formative for chapter 6, which we shall now consider in detail. In 5:37-47, the tone shifts to polemic as Jesus levels a series of accusations against “the Jews.” The key to the substance of the argument lies in the charges that they lack “the love of God” (5:42) and fail to seek the glory of “the one who alone is God” (5:44). Taken together, these charges are an allusion to Scripture, specifically to the Shema (Deut. 6:4-5), delivered by Moses on the occasion of giving the Law, and the defining “creed” of Israel as a holy people enjoined to love the one God. This scriptural backdrop is confirmed by echoes of the Sinai theophany and the gift of the Law in Jn 5:37-39 where, because of their failure to believe God’s witness, Jesus denies that “the Jews” have ever heard God’s voice or seen his form or that they have God’s “word” remaining in them (cf. Deut. 5:4,

14. For further detail, see Lincoln, The Gospel According to St John, 223–25.

Jesus the Jew in John’s Gospel

39

22-26; 6:6). Hence, their study of the Scriptures will not gain them “life” (cf. Deut. 5:33) because the Scriptures witness to Jesus whom they reject (Jn 5:39-40). The passage concludes with a reference to Moses himself who, contrary to their hopes, is the accuser of “the Jews” before God, because what Moses wrote was God’s witness to Jesus (5:45-47; cf. 1:45; 5:37-38).15 In sum, the nub of Jesus’ argument here is that “the Jews” misunderstand the Scriptures because they fail to interpret them as witnessing to him. Third, the polemic resumes as Jesus confronts “the Jews” who seek to kill him in chapter 8 (8:37, 40). Here, battle is rejoined over the issue of identity and Jesus’ allegation of their murderous intent is seen as confirmation that “the Jews” are the devil’s children (8:41-44). Note that once again the Shema comes into view: if “the Jews” were truly God’s children, they would love Jesus whom God sent (8:42). At this point, we shall focus on the final section of the chapter in which paternity figures again (8:48-59). In 8:48-49, Jesus responds to the accusation of “the Jews” that he has a demon and specifically that he is a Samaritan—that is, a heretic— with a citation from the Law received by Moses on Sinai, at the very foundation of Judaism. The reference is to the Decalogue, specifically the commandment or “word” of God to honor one’s parents (Exod. 20:1, 12; Deut. 5:16).16 Jesus declares that he fulfils this commandment in honoring God his Father (τιμῶ τòν πατέρα μου, John 8:49), while contrasting the dishonor shown him by “the Jews.” He returns to this point in 8:54-55, where he declares that “the Jews,” despite their claim to be the people of God, have not known him, but that he knows God and, accordingly, he keeps God’s word (τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ τηρῶ, 8:55). Thus, Jesus is seen to be faithful to the Law in honoring God, whereas “the Jews,” who seek to kill Jesus (8:37, 40, 59), disprove their affiliation and show they are the devil’s kind. Our fourth and final passage comes from Jesus’ confrontation with “the Jews” in chapter 10. In 10:25-30, in a brief return to the Good Shepherd imagery that began the chapter, Jesus makes the point that “the Jews” do not believe, despite the witness of the works he does in God’s name, because they do not belong to his sheep. Then, having affirmed the unassailability of those in his care because they are also in God’s keeping, he concludes with the claim, “I and the Father are one” (10:30). This prompts “the Jews” to take up stones to kill him. This time, they are explicit that this is for blasphemy, “because you, being a man, make yourself God” (10:31, 33; cf. Lev. 24:16). In response to this charge, Jesus himself cites Scripture, which he refers to as “your law,” as follows: “I said, you are gods” (Jn 10:34). These words are taken from Ps. 82:6 (81:6 LXX), where they are addressed by God to

15.  For further references to the Shema in Deuteronomy and a detailed study of the Deuteronomic basis of the passage, see Maarten J.  J. Menken, “Jesus and the Scriptures According to John 5:37–47,” in Studies in John’s Gospel and Epistles: Collected Essays, CBET 77 (Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 251–70, esp. 266–67. 16. So Maarten J. J. Menken, “Allusions to the Minor Prophets in the Fourth Gospel,” in Studies in John’s Gospel and Epistles: Collected Essays, CBET 77 (Leuven: Peeters, 2015) 167– 86, esp. 182.

40

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

those who are “sons of the Most High.” While John does not quote this part of the verse, the logic of the argument that follows seems to take it as read. Thus, as Jesus points out, if those to whom the word of God came (that is, his sons) he called gods—and Scripture, he insists, cannot be broken—then he, as the Son consecrated and sent by God into the world, cannot be accused of blasphemy in claiming this status (10:35-36).17 Jesus then closes the argument with a further reference to his works—for which “the Jews” did not stone him (10:32-33)—as witness that the Father is in him and he in the Father, to a predictably hostile response (10:37-39). As in Jesus’ earlier refutation of the blasphemy charge in chapter 5, this is a claim to an identity with God that is justified by the fact that he exercises the powers devolved upon him by the Father who sent him (cf. 5:19-23). In this case, however, Jesus’ defense is directly based on Scripture that “cannot be broken.” I have included these examples as salient points in a broader presentation by John of Jesus the Jew in dialogue with those whom he calls “the Jews.” In these cases, this is a single-issue debate; what is at stake is the meaning and application of Scripture. This can be expressed both by appeal to specific texts and also by general reference to Moses and the Law as befits their foundational status.18 Thus, in chapter 6, the crowd cites Scripture about the gift of manna in the wilderness, traditionally associated with Moses and the Law, and in response Jesus interprets the same text with reference to himself as the true bread from God that gives eternal life; in chapter  5, “the Jews” seek to kill Jesus as a Sabbath breaker and blasphemer and, in response, Jesus charges them with failing to understand the Scriptures as God’s witness to him, pointing to Moses as their accuser before God; in chapter 8, Jesus responds to the allegations of “the Jews” with reference to the fifth commandment, which he fulfils, while “the Jews,” who claim he is their God, disprove this by their hostile action; and finally, in chapter 10, “the Jews” again charge Jesus with blasphemy and, in response, Jesus himself cites Scripture, which he interprets in his defense. As I  have indicated, this situation of claim and counterclaim on the basis of Scripture is generally echoed elsewhere. Here a few key examples will suffice. In 3:14, Jesus points to Moses’s action in the wilderness as foreshadowing his death on the cross; in 7:22-23, he defends his cure of the paralyzed man on the basis that circumcision on the Sabbath does not contravene the Law of Moses; and, in debate with the Pharisees in 8:12-19, he cites “your law” on witness in his favor (8:17). Meanwhile, the Pharisees themselves claim superior knowledge of the

17.  Pace Anthony Tyrrell Hanson, The Prophetic Gospel:  A Study of John and the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), 144–49, it is unlikely that John’s argument here requires that “the word of God” be read as a reference to the preexistent Word of John’s Prologue. 18. On Moses in John, see Catrin H. Williams, “Patriarchs and Prophets Remembered: Framing Israel’s Past in the Gospel of John,” in Abiding Words: The Use of Scripture in the Gospel of John, ed. Alicia D. Myers and Bruce G. Schuchard, RBS 81 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015), 187–212, esp. 192–201.

Jesus the Jew in John’s Gospel

41

Law (7:49) and readily declare their allegiance as “disciples of Moses” (9:28-29; cf. Num. 12:8). Finally, we note that John can also draw on other figures from Israel’s heritage in Jesus’ support, notably Abraham in chapter 8, claimed by “the Jews” as their forefather, which is denied them by Jesus who declares instead that Abraham rejoiced to see his day (Jn 8:33, 56). Similarly, in 12:38-40, John himself quotes Isaiah as key witness to the general unbelief in Jesus on the grounds that Isaiah “saw his glory and spoke of him” (12:41). In sum, Scripture is the proving ground on which both parties build their case; it is the point at issue that at once unites and divides them. Moreover, if “the Jews” are shown to misunderstand “their law” or their Scriptures (15:25; cf. 8:17; 10:34), what is not at issue is the fact that appeal to them is made. Indeed, as we have observed, John presents Jesus himself engaging in the exegesis of Scripture to prove his point.19 One final observation in this connection is that John’s anti“Jews” argument in these passages is consistently framed on the basis of the “the word of God” as Scripture; Scripture which, Jesus insists, cannot be broken (5:38; 8:55; 10:35).

4. Conclusion: Jesus the Jew, John the Jew, and “the Jews” The aim of this study has been to examine how John presents Jesus the Jew. In particular, we have sought to explore how Jesus engages with others within that Palestinian setting and on what terms. We have been able to ascertain that the confrontational exchanges take place in the public arena between Jesus and those groups (and individuals) whom John can refer to as “the Jews,” namely, the crowd and, more frequently and bitterly, the authorities. We have also found that the focus of these disputes is the meaning and application of Scripture, regarded on all sides as sacrosanct. How, then, do we evaluate these exchanges between Jesus and “the Jews” in John? An important consideration here is that John’s story of Jesus is an interpretation of his life executed at the behest of the Spirit-Paraclete, as John himself would name that process, at a point chronologically distant from it. Hence, just as Jesus’ last ringing words in the Gospel point beyond Thomas to bless those who have not seen and yet believe (20:28-29), so John’s account sets out to address his readers at a later time and to accomplish this from that post-resurrection, Spirit-guided, vantage point. I suggest that this narrative point of view has an important bearing of John’s use of the expression, “the Jews.” Given that he tells of Jesus as a Jew among his own people, his use of “the Jews” to denote certain people as distinct from Jesus, his disciples, John the Baptist, and even Moses, Abraham and Isaiah, reads oddly within that narrative setting. However, as I have indicated more fully elsewhere,

19.  So, rightly, on these points, see Judith Lieu, “Narrative Analysis and Scripture in John,” in The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. L. North, ed. Steve Moyise, JSNTSup 189 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 144–63, esp. 158–59.

42

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

this usage compares well with references in the New Testament and beyond to distinguish Jewish groups from others in a non-Palestinian setting.20 Hence, there is reason to suppose that John’s use of the expression “the Jews” to describe those who interact with Jesus in his Gospel is drawn from the post-resurrection present of his readers’ experience and visited on the past of his narrative. An additional, and telling, point in support of its contemporary relevance for Gospel readers is that there are no “Jews” in the Johannine Epistles. If, then, we grant the relevance of John’s “Jews” to contemporary circumstances, what insight may we derive from his presentation of these confrontations? First, given that they are set in a story from the remembered past that is tailored by John to the interests of his audience, then, while they may resonate with current concerns, they will not easily yield evidence of them.21 In particular, John’s representation of “the Jews” is likely to be stereotyped, a two-dimensional construct to be knocked down in the irony game as Jesus exposes “their” failure to understand “their law.”22 A second, and crucial, point relates to our earlier observation about the intensity with which John’s narration of Jesus’ life focuses on Judaism. In this context, Jesus’ confrontations with “the Jews” in which Scripture is common ground are telling, for the simple reason that the same common ground runs through the very fabric of the Gospel itself. From its first words, John’s Gospel is grounded in Scripture and cannot be properly read in isolation from it. Scripture is not only quoted in his text but, more characteristically, whole tracts of John’s composition are informed by its exegesis and colored by its language.23 Seen in this light, John’s reference to “grace in place of grace” in his Prologue (1:16) only serves to sharpen the point. If we have correctly understood his application in 1:17 to mean that the grace of the Law is replaced by the grace of the revelation in Jesus, then “to replace” in this case has certainly not meant “to obscure.” Neither has it meant that Scripture is not now relevant, otherwise the Gospel would not read as it does. Furthermore, as we have noted, on the one hand John can have Jesus claim that the role of Scripture is to witness to him, which is consistent with the thrust of 1:17, while on the other, he can have Jesus produce a thoroughly Jewish argument on the basis of Scripture itself as the word of God that cannot be broken, which further illustrates the extent of Scripture’s influence as a grace from God in John’s text and, perhaps also, that the balance between the two

20. See further, North, “The Jews’ in John’s Gospel,” 166–67. 21. See further, Ruth Sheridan, “Johannine Sectarianism: A Category Now Defunct?” in The Origins of John’s Gospel, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Hughson T. Ong (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 142–66. 22.  On the irony involved in Jesus’ references to “their law” and generally throughout these debates, see Jaime Clark-Soles, “Scripture Cannot Be Broken: The Social Function of the Use of Scripture in the Fourth Gospel,” in Abiding Words, ed. Alicia D. Myers and Bruce G. Schuchard, RBS 81 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015), 95–117, esp. 113. 23. See especially Lieu, “Narrative Analysis,” 144.

Jesus the Jew in John’s Gospel

43

is at times more delicate than his Prologue would suggest.24 Above all, however, these Scripture-based arguments provide an invaluable insight into the profound significance for John of Jesus’ Jewish identity. In sum, there is nothing here to indicate that John has loosed his hold on Judaism or on the reality of Jesus’ identity as a Jew. Moreover, while these confrontations point to a serious rift at the time of writing, the nub of the issue as he conveys it in his Gospel is the failure of those who oppose Jesus to understand the true meaning of the heritage that he and they call home. Thus, while “the Jews” may be on the wrong end of Jesus’ rhetoric in this Gospel, not all Jews are intended, as John’s audience, who may well include Jews who have not seen and yet believe, will recognize. On the contrary, in John’s biography of Jesus the Jew, “salvation is of the Jews” is nonnegotiable.

24.  So, rightly, Richard B.  Hays identifies Jn 1:17 as “a key hermeneutical test case” in that the question of the relation between the two clauses “hovers over the Gospel as a whole” (Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels [Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016], 287).

Chapter 4 J E SU S T H E G A L I L E A N I N T H E G O SP E L O F J O H N :   T H E S IG N I F IC A N C E O F E A RT H LY O R IG I N S I N T H E F O U RT H   G O SP E L Chris Keith

He entered his headquarters again and asked him, “Where are you from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. Jn 19:91 At several key points in the Gospel of John, characters identify Jesus as a Galilean. A clear example is Nathanael’s disbelief that Jesus could be the one about whom Moses and the prophets wrote because he is from Nazareth (1:45-46). At the same time, the narrative also frequently identifies Jesus as one who is from above and has come down from heaven. A clear example of this emphasis is the Prologue (Jn 1:1-18). As these two examples make clear, then, before a reader proceeds even beyond the first chapter of John’s Gospel, the question of Jesus’ origins has played an important role. Scholars have, as a result, debated the relationship between Jesus’ Galilean and heavenly origins in the Fourth Gospel. In this chapter, I will forward two related arguments concerning the portrayal of Jesus’ origins in the Gospel of John. First, I will argue that the author of the Fourth Gospel affirms Jesus’ earthly origins in addition to affirming that he is from “above” (Jn 3:31; 8:23). This first argument will challenge the notion that Johannine characters’ assessments of Jesus as a Galilean, such as Nathanael’s and the disciples’ in Jn 1:43–46, are inaccurate on the narrative’s terms.2 Second, and related to the first argument, I will argue that Jesus’ earthly origins in Galilee are a key aspect of the narrative rather than being ancillary. This second argument will challenge the notion that the Fourth Gospel’s symbolic presentation of Jesus 1. Scriptural citations are from the NRSV unless otherwise noted. 2. Steven A. Hunt, “Nathanael: Under the Fig Tree on the Fourth Day,” in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel, ed. Steven A. Hunt, D. Francois Tolmie, and Ruben Zimmermann, WUNT 314 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 195; Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, SP 4 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1998), 54, 254.

46

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

“robs” his earthly existence “of all intrinsic significance,”3 as well as the notion that “John cannot be said to have a clear or consistent idea about the respective roles of Galilee and Judaea.”4 Overall, therefore, I will argue that the Fourth Evangelist affirms that Jesus was from Galilee and uses these origins to generate significant claims about Jesus’ identity and his contemporaries’ perceptions of that identity.5

1. Jesus as a Galilean in the Gospel of John Jesus’ identity as a Galilean is related to the wider question of Jesus’ origins, which is a major one in the Fourth Gospel. In Jn 19, after “the Jews”6 inform Pilate that Jesus had claimed to be “Son of God” (19:7), Pilate reenters the praetorium and asks Jesus in fear, “From where (πόθεν) are you?” (19:9). The narrator then tells the reader that “Jesus gave him no answer.” By the time the reader of the Fourth Gospel comes to this point, however, this question concerning “from where” (πόθεν) Jesus comes has been building for some time, as Wayne Meeks has observed.7 In Jn 7:27,

3.  Ernst Käsemann, “The Problem of the Historical Jesus,” in Essays on New Testament Themes, trans. W. J. Montague, SBT 41 (London: SCM Press, 1964), 32. 4.  C. H.  Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1963), 238, n.1. 5.  I will therefore build upon, among others, Sean Freyne, “Locality and Doctrine: Mark and John Revisited,” in Galilee and Gospel:  Collected Essays, WUNT 125 (Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 297; Craig R.  Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, Press, 2003), 41; Wayne A. Meeks, “Galilee and Judea in the Fourth Gospel,” JBL 85 (1966): 163; Wayne A. Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology, NovTSup 14 (Leiden:  Brill), 38–41, 313–14. For a more comprehensive overview of the social and historical study of Galilee, see David A.  Fiensy and James Riley Strange (eds.), Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods, 2 vols. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015). Among the essays in those volumes, see especially the discussions of the relationship between Galilee and Judea in Roland Deines, “Galilee and the Historical Jesus in Recent Research,” (vol. 1, pp. 26–37), and, more generally, Morten Hørning Jensen, “The Political History in Galilee from the First Century BCE to the End of the Second Century CE,” (vol. 1, pp. 51–74). The focus of the current chapter, however, is on the Johannine presentation of this relationship. 6. The identity of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι in the Gospel of John is complicated and beyond the scope of the present chapter. Most recently, see Adele Reinhartz, et al. “Jew and Judean: A Forum on Politics and Historiography in the Translation of Ancient Texts,” Marginalia, released August 26, 2014, http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/jew-judean-forum/ (accessed April 16, 2017). Later in this chapter I will suggest that the Gospel of John likely reflects multiple possible meanings of the term. 7. Meeks, “Galilee,” 162–63.

Jesus the Galilean

47

some among the Jerusalemites state that Jesus cannot be the “Christ” because no one knows “from where” (πόθεν) the Christ is coming, whereas they know “from where” (πόθεν) Jesus is. Jesus responds in 7:28:  “You know me, and you know from where (πόθεν) I am.”8 In Jn 8:14, Jesus tells the Pharisees that he knows “from where” (πόθεν) he has come while they do not know “from where” (πόθεν) he has come. In Jn 9:29, “the Jews” (9:18, 22) contrast knowing that God spoke to Moses with not knowing “from where” (πόθεν) Jesus comes. Meeks did not observe, however, that in other contexts πόθεν also takes on christological significance obliquely. In Jn 2:9, the steward at the wedding in Cana is said not to know “from where” (πόθεν) the wine has come, but the servants knew it was from Jesus, who, importantly, later claims, “I am the true vine” (15:1). Jesus tells Nicodemus in 3:8 that Nicodemus does not know “from where” (πόθεν) the wind/ spirit (τὸ πνεῦμα) comes, but Jesus claims that he and the Father will send it (14:15, 25; 15:26), and the narrator states that Jesus “hands over” the spirit when he dies on the cross (19:30; cf. 7:39). In 4:11, the Samaritan woman asks Jesus “from where” (πόθεν) he has living water; Jesus claims that he gives it (4:14) and the believer may come to him and drink (7:38). Finally, in Jn 6:5, Peter asks Jesus “from where” (πόθεν) he will find bread to feed the large crowd (6:2), but Jesus claims “I am the bread of life” (6:35) and “I am the living bread” (6:51). In these instances, the origins of Jesus are not questioned, but the unknown origins of the item in question point toward some aspect of Jesus’ identity. That some of these texts combine a character’s not knowing “from where” something (wine, wind/spirit, water, or bread) comes with an “I AM” statement of Jesus (6:35, 51; 15:1)9 reinforces my present point: origins, and especially Jesus’ origins, relate directly to characters’ ability to know who Jesus is. Related to the narrative significance of πόθεν is the second relevant aspect of Pilate’s interchange with Jesus in Jn 19:9: Jesus’ refusal to answer Pilate’s question about his origins. Jesus’ silence concerning his origins mirrors his evasion of Pilate’s earlier question “Are you the king of the Jews?” (18:34), to which Jesus did not respond with a “yes” or “no.” Implicitly affirming that he is a king, but not the type of king that Pilate has in mind, he states, “My kingdom is not from this world” (18:36). Jesus similarly failed to answer “plainly,” as requested by “the Jews,” when they asked if he was the Messiah in 10:24. In these cases, Jesus neither explicitly rejects nor confirms other characters’ understandings of his identity. Each of these titles—Son of God, king, Messiah—were royal titles,10 but particularly significant is whose understanding of these royal titles Jesus fails to affirm. Jesus refused to affirm whether he is “Son of God” as defined by “the Jews”

8. Modified from the NRSV. 9.  Catrin H.  Williams, I Am He:  The Interpretation of ‘Anî Hû ̓ in Jewish and Early Christian Literature, WUNT II/113 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). 10.  Among many others, see Richard Bauckham, “Jewish Messianism according to the Gospel of John,” in The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 225–31.

48

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

(19:7-9), whether he is “king of the Jews” as defined by Pilate (18:33-36), and whether he is “the Messiah” as defined by “the Jews” (10:24). Jesus also refuses to allow Galileans make him a king in 6:15. Within the larger narrative, these royal titles are otherwise used by the narrator, Jesus, or reliable characters in ways that indicate their appropriateness. For example, the narrator identifies Jesus as the “Son” of the Father and “God the only Son” in the Prologue (1:14, 18), and John the Baptist soon thereafter testifies that Jesus is “the Son of God” (1:34). Jesus refers to himself with the title “Son of God” in 10:36 and 11:4 and seemingly accepts Nathanael’s identification of him as “Son of God” and “King of Israel” in 1:49-50 (cf. 12:13). Jesus explicitly affirms to the Samaritan woman that he is “Messiah” in 4:25-26 with another “I AM” statement (4:26). The problem, then, is not necessarily the title but what a specific character means by it. Therefore, readers of the narrative must pay attention to whose understanding of a given title is affirmed, not affirmed, or redefined. This will be important later, when we return to what people say about Jesus being from Nazareth and Galilee. a. Jesus’ origins according to the Gospel of John If the Gospel of John foregrounds questions about Jesus’ origins as an intrinsic part of constructing his identity, how does it answer those questions? On the one hand, the narrative’s answer to the question that Pilate asks Jesus in 19:9 is perhaps simple: Jesus is from “above” (3:31; 8:23). He does “not belong to the world” (17:14, 16), but “came to” it (1:11; 9:39; 18:37), was “sent into the world” (3:17; 10:36; cf. 7:28; 8:42), and came down “from heaven” (6:32, 35, 41, 58). Jesus is “from God” (8:42), was “with God” (1:1), and what God was, he was (1:1). On the other hand, the people of the synagogue in Capernaum claim to know Jesus in biological terms as a local: “Jesus, the son of Joseph” (6:42; cf. also 1:14). Philip is another Galilean who identifies Jesus as Joseph’s son and one who is “from Nazareth” (1:45). Although disagreeing with the conclusions that “the crowd” draws from the fact that they know “from where” Jesus is (7:27-28), Jesus never denies or even qualifies their identification of him as a Galilean (7:41) or the authorities’ similar identification of him (7:52). And when the arresting party in the garden states that they are looking for “Jesus of Nazareth,” Jesus affirms, “I AM” or “I am he” (ἐγώ εἰμι) (18:7-8). Similarly, the titulus Pilate places over the cross identifies him as “Jesus of Nazareth” (19:19). Therefore, one intrinsic part of the Gospel of John’s complex answer to the question of Jesus’ origins is that he is a Galilean from Nazareth. This claim is not restricted to characters whose perspectives may be unreliable or inaccurate. Accordingly, I differ from those who argue that the Gospel considers the way that Nathanael and other characters identify Jesus as a Galilean to be inaccurate.11 This assessment of Jesus by characters is not inaccurate so much as it is incomplete, as yet uninformed by the Spirit that will lead the disciples into all truth, including

11. See footnote 2 earlier.

Jesus the Galilean

49

Jesus’ heavenly origins (14:26; 16:13). The Gospel thus affirms seemingly conflicting origin stories within its narrative. Jn 18:5 brings together the Johannine portrayals of Jesus’ origins from “above” and “below,” since Jesus responds to the search for “Jesus of Nazareth” with an “I AM” statement. Reflecting its purposefully ambiguous meaning as “I AM” and “I am he,” Jesus’ response is presented as an amplification of his identity as a Nazarene, not a negation of it. He is both the one from Nazareth and the bearer of the divine name, who comes from above. Indeed, it is the stubborn reality that Jesus is a Galilean that contributes to the conflict in the narrative as characters attempt to understand his identity. b. The problem of Galilee At least three passages, all of which have already been briefly discussed, give a more nuanced indication of how Jesus’ origins relate to his identity: Jesus’ uncontested origins as a Galilean prove to be a problem for characters’ abilities to affirm his contested identity as a messianic figure or as someone from “above.” To reiterate, the problem emerges not from the fact that Jesus is either from Galilee or from “above,” but from the fact that he is both (cf. 6:42). This state of affairs also proves interesting in light of the reference to Jesus’ πατρίς in 4:44, which I will consider at the end of this section. c. Nathanael and Jesus the Galilean The first passage where a character is perplexed by the dissonance between the lofty claims about Jesus and his Galilean identity is in John 1. After Andrew leaves John the Baptist to follow Jesus, he brings his brother Peter to Jesus as well, having claimed that Jesus is “the Messiah,” which the narrator translates for readers as “Christ” (1:41). Jesus then goes to Galilee, where he recruits Philip, a Galilean from the same town as Andrew and Peter (1:43-44). Philip then tells Nathanael that they have found “him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth” (1:45; cf. 5:46). Here one Galilean tells another Galilean, on the basis of two other Galileans, that a fellow Galilean is the promised messianic king and/or the prophet.12 Nathanael is famously skeptical that a local Nazarene could really be such an individual:  “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (1:46). Nathanael nevertheless follows Philip to see Jesus, and, upon arriving, Jesus refers to Nathanael as “truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit” (1:47).13 After Jesus reveals supernatural knowledge to Nathanael, Nathanael changes his tone and heaps titles upon Jesus: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” (1:49). Jesus then promises that disciples will see “heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man”

12. Jn 1:45 likely refers to the promised prophet like Moses from Deut. 18:15, 18; 34:10. 13.  Gen. 27:35 LXX describes Jacob as tricking Isaac “with deceit” (μετὰ δόλου) when he stole his brother Esau’s birthright.

50

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

(1:51). This verse contains an allusion to Jacob’s ladder, which spanned the earth and heaven (Gen. 28:12). Whereas the patriarch was said to have had this bridge between the heavenly realms and earth revealed in a dream, Jesus claims to be that bridge. Jesus’ superiority to Moses (e.g., Jn 1:17; 5:39-47; 6:32-35) and superiority to Abraham (e.g., 8:39-59) are well-recognized Johannine points of emphasis. The Gospel, however, is also adamant about Jesus’ superiority to Jacob. This theme will appear again in John 4 when, at Jacob’s well (4:5-6), the Samaritan woman asks, “Are you greater than our ancestor Jacob?” (4:12). Therefore, when Nathanael questions whether the Messiah/prophet could come from Nazareth, Jesus responds by asserting his superiority to the patriarch Jacob. Significantly, although Nathanael viewed Jesus’ Nazarene origins as problematic for recognizing his more exalted identity, his eventual confession of Jesus as “Son of God” and “King of Israel” shows that it was not an insurmountable problem. At no point does Jesus or the narrator deny that Jesus is from Nazareth; he is presented simply as more than what his Galilean origins would lead others to believe. d. “The crowd” and Jesus the Galilean For two separate audiences at the Festival of Booths in John 7, or at least subgroups within those audiences, Jesus’ Galilean origins prove more difficult than they do for Nathanael. Some Jerusalemites (7:25), later identified as “the crowd” (7:32, 40), question whether Jesus might be “the Messiah” (7:26). Like Nathanael, they immediately identify Jesus’ uncontested origins as a problem for ascribing him this title: “Yet we know where this man is from (πόθεν); but when the Messiah comes, no one will know where he is from (πόθεν)” (7:27). As in the account of Nathanael, neither Jesus nor the narrator claims that their assumption about “from where” Jesus comes is wrong. Jesus, in fact, affirms: “You know me, and you know where I am from (πόθεν)” (7:28).14 Once more, the problem is not that their assumptions about Jesus are wrong, but that they are not completely right, since they do not know the one who sent him (7:28). Later in the festival, “the crowd” again identifies Jesus’ Galilean origins as a problem for messianic claims for him. When some of “the crowd” claims, “This is really the prophet,” and others claim, “This is the Messiah,” still others object: “Surely the Messiah does not come from Galilee, does he? Has not the scripture said that the Messiah is descended from David and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?” (7:41–42). This statement may be an ironic allusion on the part of the narrator to the Matthean or Lukan infancy narratives, though it need not necessarily be understood in that way.15 Regardless, in John 7 some within “the 14. Pace Meeks, Prophet-King, 38, whose claim that “The reply by Jesus (verse 28f.) shows that they do not know where he is from, since they do not know the one who sent him” (emphasis original) reads directly against Jesus’ affirmations of their knowledge in 7:28. 15.  This text is possibly an instance of Johannine irony that assumes the author’s or reader’s knowledge of the birth stories in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke or similar traditions. If such an interpretation is correct, the characters in John 7 consider Jesus

Jesus the Galilean

51

crowd” claim that the Messiah’s origins will be unknown, while others claim that his origins are in Bethlehem, per Scripture; but both agree that Jesus’ origins in Galilee are not part of the messianic resume. Like Nathanael, then, this character group specifically cites Jesus’ identity as a Galilean as an objection to his messianic status. e. The Jewish leadership and Jesus the Galilean The assessment of Jesus by “the crowd” in John 7 is interlaced with the assessment of the Jewish leadership (the Pharisees in 7:32 and the chief priests in 7:45), so that the reader is simultaneously watching two different groups struggle with Jesus’ identity.16 Like “the crowd,” the Jewish authorities cite Jesus’ Galilean identity as a primary reason why he cannot be who some claim he is. Also like “the crowd,” the authorities cite Scripture as a reason why a Galilean cannot be a prophet. Concerned about the faction within “the crowd” that is responding positively to Jesus, however, the leadership asserts that they—and they alone— truly have knowledge of the law, whereas “the crowd” does not: “Has any one of the authorities or of the Pharisees believed in him? But this crowd, which does not know the law—they are accursed” (7:48-49). When Nicodemus, introduced in 3:1 as a Pharisee, challenges his fellow authorities concerning their judging of Jesus without first giving him a hearing, they chastise him by casting him as a Galilean who, like “the crowd,” does not know the Scripture: “Surely you are not also from Galilee, are you? Search and you will see that no prophet is to arise from Galilee.”17 As with the claim of “the crowd” that the Messiah is to come from Bethlehem in 7:42, it is difficult to know if the words of the authorities in 7:52 are an instance of Johannine irony. If they are, the narrator is here portraying the authorities as ironically ignorant of Scripture precisely when they claim to have a Scripture

unqualified to be Messiah or a prophet because of his status as a Galilean, whereas the author and reader know that he was born precisely in the city of David. The Fourth Evangelist uses irony often, to great effect, and possibly does so in the immediate context of John 7 (cf. 7:52). Nevertheless, whether the reference to Bethlehem is an instance of irony is not clear. If the author assumes knowledge of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem on the part of the reader, it is strange that he otherwise makes no usage of it and includes no birth narrative. (See also Meeks, Prophet-King, 37.) Also unclear—if Jn 7:42 is an allusion to the Bethlehem birth traditions—is whether the author ironically alludes to the tradition in order to affirm or reject it. Elsewhere the author of the Fourth Gospel reflects familiarity with Synoptic tradition but seemingly rejects it, as is the case with Jn 12:27’s and 18:11’s insistence that Jesus did not ask to have his suffering (his “cup”) removed (cf. Mk 14:36//Mt. 26:39//Lk. 22:42), as well as Jn 19:17’s claim that Jesus carried his own cross (cf. Mk 15:21//Mt. 27:32// Lk. 23:26). 16. Further on this text, see Chris Keith, The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy of Jesus, NTTSD 38 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 141–60. 17. ो66 reads “the prophet” (ὁ προφήτης) instead of “a prophet” (προφήτης).

52

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

knowledge that is superior to “the crowd” as well as Galileans; for the prophet Jonah was from Gath-hepher in Galilee (2 Kgs 14:25) and many may have believed that Nahum, whose home is identified as Elkosh in Nah. 1:1, was from Galilee based on the meaning of Capernaum in Hebrew (“village of Nahum”).18 Regardless, their response constitutes the third time in John’s Gospel that a character questions whether Jesus could be a prophetic or messianic figure specifically because he is from Galilee. That the narrator presents this same scenario—Jesus’ Galilean origins proving problematic for characters—in three different versions indicates the importance the narrator places upon readers understanding what those origins do and do not mean. Nathanael does not allow his knowledge of Jesus as a Galilean ultimately to stop his confession of him as the “Son of God” and “King of Israel,” while both “the crowd” and the authorities are divided over whether a Galilean can qualify for such roles. The narrator’s overall point is thus clear: Jesus was from Galilee; people knew he was from Galilee; and these origins do not preclude his lofty status or origins “from above,” though they can for some. f. Jesus’ hometown (πατρίς) in Jn 4:44 A fourth example where Jesus’ origins relate directly to characters’ acceptance or rejection of him is Jn 4:44. This text will require extended discussion because what it assumes about Jesus’ origins is less than clear. Translated literally, Jn 4:44 reads, “For Jesus himself testified that a prophet has no honor (τιμὴν) in his own hometown (ἰδία πατρίδι).”19 With slight variations, Jn 4:44 attests a tradition that appears also in the firstcentury Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, as well as the second-century Gospel of Thomas.20 The Johannine version is the only one that places the saying of Jesus on the lips of the narrator instead of Jesus himself and the only one that qualifies Jesus’ hometown as his “own” (ἴδιος).21 Mk 6:4: “A prophet is not dishonored (ἄτιμος) except in his hometown (πατρίδι αὐτοῦ) and among his relatives and in his house.”

18. On the connection of Elijah and Elisha with Galilee also, see Sean Freyne, “Messiah and Galilee,” in Galilee and Gospel: Collected Essays, WUNT 125 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 230–70, esp. 256–57. 19. Πατρίς can refer to a “hometown” (Mk 6:1; Mt. 13:54; Lk. 4:24; Josephus, Ant. 11.165; Philo, Legat. 278)  or “homeland” (Heb. 11:14). See further U.  Hutter, “πατρίς, ίδος, ἡ,” EDNT 3:58; “πατρίς, ίδος,” LSJ 1349. 20.  For the dating of the Gospel of Thomas, see Mark Goodacre, Thomas and the Gospels: The Case for Thomas’s Familiarity with the Synoptics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012), 154–71. 21. I here follow NA28. Ἴδιος appears as a variant in Mk 6:4 (‫א‬2 A L et al.) and Mt. 13:57 (‫ א‬Z f13 et al.).

Jesus the Galilean

53

Mt. 13:57:  “A prophet is not dishonored (ἄτιμος) except in his hometown (πατρίδι . . . αὐτοῦ) and house.” Lk. 4:24: “No prophet is accepted (δεκτός) in his hometown (πατρίδι αὐτοῦ).” Jn 4:44:  “A prophet has no honor (τιμὴν) in (his) own hometown (ἰδία πατρίδι).” Gos. Thom. 31: “A prophet is not accepted (δεκτὸς) in his hometown (πατρίδι αὐτοῦ).”

Despite the various differences, what each of these texts has in common is the reference to Jesus’ rejection in his πατρίς. The Gospels that antedate the Gospel of John identify this πατρίς as Nazareth (Mk 6:1, 4//Mt. 13:54, 57//Lk. 4:23-24).22 (The Gospel of Thomas reports only the saying with no reference to Nazareth or Galilee.) On this basis, as well as the Johannine narrative’s affirmation of Jesus’ Galilean origins, one might assume that Jn 4:44 portrays Jesus’ hometown as Nazareth as well. Such an assumption would be premature, however. The Johannine narrative alone can justify cases (of varying strength) for Samaria, Judea, or Galilee and that has led to much scholarly discussion.23 Prior to Jn 4:44, the narrative states that Jesus went to Galilee from “that place” (ἐκεῖθεν; 4:43). After 4:44, the narrative states that the Galileans “welcomed him” (4:45). In the immediate context, then, the narrative seems to portray the warm reception of Jesus in Galilee (4:45) in contrast to rejection without honor in Jesus’ πατρίς (4:44), from which he has come. The confusion begins with the fact that Jesus has most recently come from Sychar in Samaria (4:4-42). Sychar is certainly “that place” in 4:43 since the verse states that Jesus left “that place” after staying two days, which 4:40 has already stated was the duration of Jesus’ stay in Samaria. The problem is that the γάρ (“for”) of 4:44 links “that place” of 4:43 with Jesus’ πατρίς, since it explains that Jesus left “that place” because a prophet has no honor in his hometown. Despite this syntactical clarity, however, Sychar is not Jesus’ hometown in the Gospel, which is made clear in the narrative of the Samaritan woman, where Jesus appears as an outsider to the inhabitants of that city. The reader must therefore look elsewhere to identify the πατρίς where Jesus was rejected according to 4:44. Prior to the Samaritan interlude, Jn 4:4 stated that “he left Judea and started back to Galilee.” Jn 4:43-45 similarly describes Jesus’ journey from Jerusalem/Judea to Galilee, and this is repeated in the immediate context (4:47, 54). In light of this travel itinerary, the rejecting πατρίς that Jesus has left prior to coming to Galilee would be the city of Jerusalem and region of Judea. Strengthening this identification of Jesus’ πατρίς is 4:44’s reference to it as his “own” (ἴδιος). The rejection by Jesus’ “own” hometown coheres with Jn 1:11’s

22.  Mark 6 and Matthew 13 do not name the “hometown” specifically as “Nazareth,” as does Lk. 4:16. It is nevertheless clear from earlier in the narratives that they consider Nazareth to be his hometown (e.g., Mk 1:9; Mt. 2:23). 23. M.-J. Lagrange, Évangile selon Saint Jean, EBib (Paris: Gabalda, 1925), 123.

54

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

description of Jesus’ rejection by his “own” (ἴδιος): “He came to what was his own (ἴδια), and his own people (οἱ ἴδιοι) did not accept him.” Over the course of the Gospel of John, Jesus typically meets rejection in Jerusalem/Judea and acceptance outside it, so it would be natural to conclude that Jesus’ “own” who reject him are the Judeans/Jews in and around Jerusalem.24 This rejection is prefigured already in 2:23-25 and finds its fullest expression in Jesus’ crucifixion in Jerusalem. Also supporting Jerusalem/Judea as the πατρίς is 4:45. This verse specifies that Galileans welcomed Jesus on the basis of what happened in Jerusalem when they too were there for the festival (cf. 2:13).25 For such reasons, many scholars agree with Meeks that the narrative “require[s] that Judea be understood as the πατρίς.”26 As C. H. Dodd notes, however, “All is not plain sailing.”27 The most significant problem for this conclusion is the otherwise amply attested Johannine idea that Jesus hails from Nazareth in Galilee. Rudolf Bultmann thus notes that the idea that Jesus’ hometown is in Judea “comes to grief ” over 1:46 and 7:41, 52.28 Raymond Brown adds the reference to Nazareth on the sign above the cross (19:19) to the list, notes correctly that “this Gospel does not even tell us that Jesus was born in Judea,” and concludes that 4:44 was added by a redactor in order to illustrate the inadequacy of Jesus’ reception in Galilee also.29 For Brown, then, Jesus’ πατρίς in 4:44 is Galilee. Bultmann and Brown are correct that the rest of the Gospel consistently presents Galilee as Jesus’ place of origin. Brown’s argument for a Galilean πατρίς in 4:44 is weak, however.30 It requires interpreting the Galilean response to Jesus as inadequate, which is far from obvious. Brown insists that the official’s dependence upon “signs and wonders” must be understood as “crude.”31 Admittedly, requests for signs can be negative in John’s Gospel (e.g., 2:18; 6:30-32). Yet the royal official did not request a sign and Jesus’ statement that signs will lead to faith can be read

24.  C. H.  Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1953), 351–52. 25. One can thus read Jn 2:23-25 as Jesus’ anticipation of rejection in Jerusalem despite the acceptance of Galileans who were, at the time, also in Jerusalem. 26. Meeks, “Galilee,” 164; Prophet-King, 39. See also F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983), 116; Jo-Ann Brant, John, Paideia (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 89; Dodd, Interpretation, 352; Edwin Clement Hoskyns and Francis Noel Davey, The Fourth Gospel, 2nd ed. (London: Faber and Faber, 1956), 260–61. 27.  Dodd, Historical Tradition, 239. Dodd earlier identified the πατρίς in John 4:44 as Jerusalem (Interpretation, 352). 28.  Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 204, n.4. 29.  Raymond E.  Brown, Gospel According to John, 2  vols. AB 29–29A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966–1970), 187. 30. Similarly, Meeks, Prophet-King, 40, regarding Bultmann’s argument: “Only by a very strange logic can such language be supposed to describe a rejection of Jesus.” 31. Brown, Gospel, 187.

Jesus the Galilean

55

positively, since the narrator has been counting signs for the reader (2:11; 4:54). It is therefore not clear that Jesus’ comment about signs in 4:48 indicates that the Galilean welcome of him in 4:45-54 is insufficient. Earlier than Bultmann and Brown, Marie-Joseph Lagrange had supported Nazareth as the πατρίς by proposing that 4:44 is unintelligible in itself, but intelligible on the basis of the reader’s knowledge of the Synoptics. Thus, the γάρ in that verse refers not to “a logical causality” (une causalité logique) but to “a literary causality” (une causalité littéraire).32 That is, the Evangelist has Jesus go to Galilee because readers otherwise know (from the Synoptics) that this is where he made this statement.33 Lagrange’s hypothesis similarly faces the problem that Jesus is generally not rejected but received favorably in Galilee in the Fourth Gospel, including in the immediate context of 4:45-54, which stands in contrast to the context of the Synoptic version of the saying. Another problem is that Lagrange must appeal to the Synoptics in order to render the Johannine narrative intelligible.34 There is also a questionable assumption in Lagrange’s solution, which is that if the Fourth Evangelist is employing the saying in 4:44 from earlier tradition, he must necessarily do so with the same meaning as it has in its earlier contexts. In short, although neither the Judean nor the Galilean solution is without difficulty, the theory that Jesus’ πατρίς in 4:44 is Jerusalem/Judea makes more sense of the Johannine narrative.35 This conclusion proves most interesting for considering how the Evangelist’s portrayal of Jesus as a Galilean leads him to employ earlier tradition. The saying in 4:44 is “undoubtedly traditional” in the sense that it was inherited and not the Evangelist’s creation.36 Whether he got it from the Synoptic Gospels, and if so, which one, is a topic beyond what space constraints will presently allow.37 It is significant, however, that each of the Synoptics claims that Jesus’ πατρίς (for them, Nazareth) rejects him early in his career when he visits there, in contrast to his acceptance elsewhere in Galilee.38 This point is significant precisely because the Fourth Evangelist, though changing the locale of Jesus’ rejection, preserves the tradition’s connection between rejection

32. Lagrange, Évangile, 124. 33. Lagrange, Évangile, 124. 34. Lagrange acknowledges these matters (Évangile, 124). 35.  More recently, Richard Horsley and Tom Thatcher, John, Jesus, and the Renewal of Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 111, have identified the πατρίς as Cana. This position is not argued and is not defensible on the basis of the narrative 36. Dodd, Historical Tradition, 239. 37.  Cf. however, Hartwig Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, HNT 6 (Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 284. He argues on the basis of the aorist for ἐμαρτύρησεν and the fact that Jesus has not actually said this previously in John’s Gospel that one should understand 4:44 “as the narrator playing with Synoptic pretexts” (my translation); also p. 286. 38.  Chris Keith, Jesus’ Literacy: Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee, LNTS 413 (New York: T & T Clark, 2011), 132–46.

56

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

and Jesus’ πατρίς. Stated otherwise, Jesus is rejected in Galilee in the Synoptic version of the story and accepted in Galilee in the Johannine version, but he is rejected in his πατρίς in both. I suggest, then, that the Fourth Evangelist has redeployed an inherited tradition along the lines of the north-south symbolic axis in the Gospel.39 Galilee is typically the place of welcome throughout the Gospel, as is explicit here in 4:45. It needs to be, because Galilee is the promised witness to the “light” in Galilee of Isa. 9:1-2 (cf. John 7:52; 8:12) and because Jerusalem is the locality of Jesus’ “own,” who do not accept him (1:11) and ultimately orchestrate his death (18:33–19:25). According to this proposal, therefore, the Evangelist reassigns the role of the rejecting πατρίς to Jerusalem/Judea not necessarily because Jesus’ origins were known to be in Judea (which, in John’s Gospel, they otherwise are not), but because his rejection ultimately was there. In this sense, the driving force behind the Johannine portrayal, at least in this instance, is not the narrative parameters of the inherited tradition, but the symbolic geography of the Johannine narrative.

2. Galilee and the symbolic significance of Johannine geography In light of the facts that (1) the Gospel of John clearly indicates that Jesus’ Galilean origins were a problem in some circumstances, and (2) many other early Christians from the first and second centuries ascribe little or no significance to the fact that Jesus was from Galilee,40 one may ask why the Gospel of John did not simply omit or deemphasize Jesus’ identity as a Galilean. I suggest that in addition to the fact that Jesus was already widely believed to be a Galilean among early Christians, the author of the Fourth Gospel found great theological import in that accepted fact. Both of these matters revolve around a central reality for the author—it is crucial that Jesus was an earthly, historical figure because without his life and death occurring in a very specific sociohistorical and geographical context, the author of John’s Gospel cannot ascribe to the “enfleshment” of the λόγος the particular meaning that he does.

39. My argument is similar to that of Thyen, who emphasizes that the author was able to use previous tradition in a new way (Johannesevangelium, 286). 40. Paul never mentions Galilee or Nazareth; neither does the epistle of James, the Petrine epistles, nor any New Testament author other than the Gospel authors. Later, the Gospel of Thomas does include Jesus’ saying about a prophet’s rejection in his πατρίς (Gos Thom 31), but does not mention Galilee or Nazareth. The Protevangelium of James (ca. 185 CE) is intensely concerned with Jesus’ birth and upbringing, but locates the important events in Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Most critical editions of Infancy Gospel of Thomas (ca. 185 CE) do not mention Galilee or Nazareth, but some manuscripts contain variants referencing it in Infancy Gospel of Thomas 1 (Tony Chartrand-Burke, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas: The Text, Its Origin, and Its Transmission” [PhD diss., University of Toronto, 2001], 144–45).

Jesus the Galilean

57

As with other Gospel authors (e.g., Mt. 2:23), the author of the Gospel of John found great symbolic significance in the widely accepted idea that Jesus was a Galilean. Sean Freyne plausibly suggests that the Johannine portrayal of Galilee as a region that welcomes Jesus, in contrast to Judea and Jerusalem as a place that is hostile to Jesus, is intertextually related to the Isaianic claim that “in the latter time [God] will make glorious” the northern part of ancient Israel, “Galilee of the nations” (Isa 9:1).41 In Jn 8:12, Jesus claims, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness (ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ) but will have the light (φῶς) of life” (see also 1:4-5; 9:5; 12:46). Since this claim comes immediately after the authorities’ denigration of Galileans (7:52) and specifically mentions “walking in darkness,” this text likely has the promise of Isa. 9:2 (9:1 LXX) to Galilee as an intertext: “The people who walked in darkness (ἐν σκότει) have seen a great light (φῶς).”42 This proposal need not preclude that Zech. 14:6-8, Isa. 42:6-7, or other texts may also be in the background.43 The symbolic significance of Galilee extends beyond the mere fact that they were more welcoming to Jesus, however, and aligns with an emphasis in the narrative on locating several crucial turning points geographically outside Judea. The narrative begins with John the Baptist’s ministry outside Judea at Bethany beyond the Jordan (1:28). Jesus’ ministry begins outside Judea by calling disciples at Bethany beyond the Jordan and then transitioning to Galilee (1:35-43). The Gospel formally ends outside Judea, back at the Sea of Galilee (John 21).44 The first two of Jesus’ “signs,” and the only that are explicitly enumerated, occur outside Judea at Cana in Galilee, where Jesus’ “glory” (δόξα) is first revealed (2:11; 4:54). I  am not claiming that the Gospel portrays Jerusalem as insignificant or as only rejecting; neither am I  claiming that Jesus receives only warm welcome in Galilee. Sometimes Jesus meets disbelief in Galilee (6:36; 7:5) and belief in Jerusalem (10:42). Nevertheless, the Gospel insists that many pivotal moments in the revelation of Jesus’ identity occurred outside Judea and often in Galilee, and that Jesus is typically received in Galilee better than he is in Judea. Furthermore, Jesus’ identity is typically grasped more rightly by characters outside Judea than in it. As noted earlier, he accepts the titles “Son of God,” “King,” and “Messiah” outside Jerusalem (1:41-51; 4:1-42), but either fails to accept or redefines the terms in Jerusalem (10:22-30; 18:33-38). The exception is his seeming acceptance of the title “King of Israel” from the crowd from Bethany in the Triumphal Entry (12:12-15). Combined with the earlier observation that what matters is who perceives him with these categories, it is significant that Jesus

41. Freyne, “Locality,” 289–92. 42.  See also Craig S.  Keener, The Gospel of John:  A Commentary, 2  vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 739; Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 422–23. 43. Among others, see Brown, Gospel, 343; Keener, Gospel of John, 739–40; Moloney, The Gospel of John, 266; Thyen, Johannesevangelium, 423. 44. On John 21, see Chris Keith, “The Competitive Textualization of the Jesus Tradition in John 20:30-31 and 21:24-25,” CBQ 78 (2016): 321–37, esp. 322–24.

58

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

affirms the perceptions of him in Transjordan, Galilee, and Samaria more readily than those in Judea and Jerusalem. Jens Schröter has argued that this symbolic geography is traceable to the historical Jesus. He contends that the appointment of the twelve disciples and the geographical contours of his ministry in Galilee, the wilderness, and Judea all point in the same direction: “a restitution of Israel within the borders of the twelve tribes.”45 He concludes, “Thus, both places of activity—the wilderness and the regions that belonged to the ideal Israel—have symbolic meaning. They point, each in its own way, to the renewal of Israel as the goal of the activity of John and Jesus.”46 Whether this symbolic geography was intentional on the part of the historical Jesus or John the Baptist is not important for my present argument. It is enough to observe that the Gospel of John’s portrayal of Jesus as a Galilean who is active in Transjordan, Galilee, Samaria, and Judea participates in this emphasis:  “In John’s Gospel . . . Jesus’ mission extends to all areas of Israelite heritage.”47 I  have already noted Jesus’ activity in Transjordan, Galilee, and Samaria. The reconstitution of the twelve tribes appears in the references to the disciples as the Twelve (6:67, 70, 71; 20:24). The gathering of Israel also appears in John 11, where the narrator explains the significance of Jesus’ death in Jerusalem as extending beyond the local: “not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God” (11:52).48 Although the symbolism associated with the reconstitution of the ideal Israel may not be developed in the Fourth Gospel to the extent that it is in, for example, Mt. 19:28//Lk. 22:30, it is nevertheless present. In this sense, Jesus’ identity as a Galilean whose ministry began and ended outside Judea and included Transjordan and Samaria is absolutely crucial to understanding correctly his identity as the unique Son whom the Father sent “from above” to Israel. The Fourth Evangelist did not omit or ignore Jesus’ Galilean origins, as did other Christian authors, precisely because Jesus’ origins in Galilee, no matter how difficult they prove to be for characters in the narrative, are an important part of a larger theological point.

45. Jens Schröter, Jesus of Nazareth: Jew from Galilee, Savior of the World, trans. Wayne Coppins (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2015), 92. 46. Schröter, Jesus, 93. 47. Horsley and Thatcher, John, 112. 48.  See John A.  Dennis, Jesus’ Death and the Gathering of True Israel, WUNT II/217 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). Scholars debate whether the gathering envisioned in this verse refers to Jews in the Diaspora or, more broadly, to Gentiles as well. Even if the latter is in view, it would not preclude this passage’s reflection of the reconstitution of Israel, since the blessing of “all nations” was part of the original plan for Israel in the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12:3).

Jesus the Galilean

59

3. Conclusion Jesus’ origins in Galilee are thus one important part of a larger narrative agenda in the Gospel of John. For the Evangelist, it is hardly “astonishing that . . . the exalted Lord [is] one and the same with . . . the earthly Lord.”49 Rather, it is the natural outworking of the conviction that Jesus is both “from Nazareth” and “from above.” Jesus’ conflicting origin stories in the Gospel of John are therefore not a case of either/or but both/and, whereby the narrator uses Jesus’ Galilean identity in order to explain misunderstanding among his contemporaries but, more importantly, the larger ramifications of what it meant for Israel that the λόγος became flesh (Jn 1:14).

49. Käsemann, “Problem,” 32.

Chapter 5 J E SU S T H E R A B B I A N D T E AC H E R I N J O H N ’ S G O SP E L :   T H E G I F T O F D I V I N E I N ST RU C T IO N Craig R. Koester

Early Christian tradition recalls that Jesus was widely understood to be a Jewish teacher. The Synoptic Gospels picture him gathering a group of disciples and teaching people in synagogues, the temple, and other places, and he is often called a teacher by those who meet him.1 That way of understanding Jesus can seem peripheral for the Fourth Gospel, which introduces him as the Word of God made flesh and concludes with Thomas declaring that Jesus is Lord and God (Jn 1:14; 20:28). Given John’s emphasis on Jesus’ origin from above and oneness with God, one might conclude that those who address the Johannine Jesus as a teacher or rabbi are showing their inability to comprehend who he really is.2 Yet teaching is integral to the Fourth Gospel’s portrayal of Jesus.3 He tells his disciples, “You call me Teacher and Lord, and do so rightly, for that is what I am” (13:14). John pictures him teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum and the Jerusalem temple (6:59; 7:14; 8:28). When detractors challenge the legitimacy of Jesus’ teaching role, the Gospel portrays him offering a sharp rebuttal and claiming 1. James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Christianity in the Making, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 696–704; Dale C. Allison Jr., Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker Academic, 2010), 24; Rainer Riesner, “Jesus as Preacher and Teacher,” in Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition, ed. Henry Wansbrough, JSNTSup 64 (Sheffield:  Sheffield Academic, 1991), 185–210; idem, Jesus als Lehrer:  Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der Evangelien-Überlieferung, WUNT II/7 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981); Craig A.  Evans, “Prophet, Sage, Healer, Messiah, and Martyr:  Types and Identities of Jesus,” in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, ed. Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter, 4 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 2:1217–43, esp. 1223–28. 2. D. Moody Smith, The Theology of the Gospel of John (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 91; Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, SP 4 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1998), 60. 3.  Andreas Köstenberger, “Jesus the Rabbi in the Fourth Gospel,” in Studies in John and Gender: A Decade of Scholarship (New York: Lang, 2001), 65–98; Bruce Chilton, “The Gospel according to John’s Rabbi Jesus,” BBR 25 (2015): 39–54.

62

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

that he has the qualifications of a teacher (7:14-24). When questioned by the Jewish authorities after his arrest, Jesus replies, “I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret” (18:20). In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus’ identity is not limited to that of a teacher, yet it includes the role of a teacher. The interpretive framework is the incarnation, which holds multiple perspectives in tension. John portrays Jesus as the Word of God, who becomes flesh in a particular human being, Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Jewish teacher, as well as prophet and Messiah. Each aspect is understood to be true, and no one of them alone is entirely adequate. People are not to deny Jesus’ genuine humanity in order to affirm his divine origin; both are to be taken together. In the same way, the widely held tradition that Jesus was a teacher belongs to his particularity.4 Theologically, the Gospel argues that God’s teaching is conveyed through Jesus’ teaching, so that people are taught by God when they are taught by Jesus. This is part of the Johannine perspective and shows why the validity of Jesus’ teaching role must be affirmed. By portraying Jesus in this way, the Gospel shows that he does have the traits of a legitimate teacher, even as it connects the teaching role to other aspects of Jesus’ identity, and shows how the teaching role itself is transformed.

1. Addressing Jesus as teacher and rabbi The Gospel’s portrayal of Jesus as teacher begins in the opening scenes, where two disciples of John the Baptist address Jesus as “rabbi,” which a parenthetical comment explains means “teacher” (διδάσκαλος, 1:38). The Gospel concludes in a similar way when Mary Magdalene calls the risen Jesus by the related term “rabbouni,” also defined as “teacher” (20:16). Given the use of these terms for the sages who later produced the Mishnah and Talmud, one might assume that the Gospel is simply giving conventional translations of the Hebrew or Aramaic words for readers who do not know those languages. Yet the Gospel’s definition of the terms makes the teaching role more apparent than might otherwise be the case. The terms “rabbi” and “rabbouni” were primarily expressions of respect, similar to “sir,” and only in the late first and early second centuries CE did the use of these titles for teachers become more common. The root “rab” (‫ )רב‬refers to a master in contrast to a slave.5 With the added suffix, “rabbi” (‫ )רבי‬means “my master,” which is a respectful form of address. The related term “rabboun” (‫ )רבון‬also means “master” or “lord” in both Hebrew and Aramaic.6 Rabbinic sources do not refer to

4.  On the approach taken here, see Craig R. Koester, The Word of Life: A Theology of John’s Gospel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 82–107. 5. E.g., “Be not like slaves that minister to the master (‫ )רב‬for the sake of receiving bounty, but be like slaves that minister to the master not for the sake of receiving bounty” (m. ’Abot 1:3). 6. Tg. Neof. Exod. 21:4; Tg. Ps. 12:5.

Jesus the Rabbi and Teacher in John’s Gospel

63

sages like Hillel and Shammai, who were contemporaries of Jesus, as rabbis. The term “rabban” (‫ )רבן‬seems to have been used in a limited way for leaders of the Sanhedrin in the mid- to late first century, but it was only after 70 CE that “rabbi” came to be used for Torah scholars in some Jewish circles in Palestine.7 At the same time, Jewish inscriptions from the second, third, and fourth centuries use “rabbi” as a term of respect, but do not clearly link it to teaching. The word is not used by Philo, Josephus, or other Jewish authors who wrote in Greek, and there is little inscriptional evidence for the term in the Diaspora.8 Mark’s Gospel includes some scenes in which Jesus is addressed as a teacher and other scenes in which people call him rabbi and rabbouni, but Mark does not actually define a rabbi as a teacher.9 When Matthew and Luke revise Mark, they give significant attention to Jesus’ teaching role and depict people speaking to him as a teacher.10 But at the points Mark used “rabbi” or “rabbouni” they replace the words with “lord” (κύριος, Mt. 17:4; 20:33; Lk. 18:41) and “master” (ἐπιστάτης, Lk. 9:33), not “teacher.” Matthew’s narrative even warns against using the title “rabbi,” because it was coveted by status seekers (Mt. 23:6–7). Accordingly, the term “rabbi” in Matthew has negative connotations. Notably, the only person who addresses Jesus as a rabbi in Matthew is Judas, and he does when betraying Jesus (26:25, 49). Such a scene again cautions against using “rabbi” as a title, since readers would presumably not want to follow Judas’s example. By way of contrast the opening scenes of the Fourth Gospel, Jesus is called a rabbi in a positive way by those who follow him (1:38, 49). The term continues to connote respect so defining it as “teacher” makes that aspect much clearer than would be the case with the term “rabbi” alone.11 Moreover, the way the Gospel provides translations of both “rabbi” and “Messiah” in these initial scenes (1:38,

7. Hayim Lapin, “Rabbi,” ABD 5 (1992), 600–2; J. Andrew Overman, Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 44–48; Catherine Hezser, The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine, TSAJ 66 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 55–77. 8.  Hayim Lapin, “Epigraphical Rabbis: A Reconsideration,” JQR 101 (2011): 311–46. Of the more than five hundred Jewish inscriptions from Rome, none refers to a “rabbi.” See Shaye J. D. Cohen, “Epigraphical Rabbis,” JQR 72 (1981): 1–17, esp. 15. 9.  In Mark, Jesus is called “teacher” (διδάσκαλος) by the disciples (e.g., 4:38; 10:35) and others (e.g., 12:14, 19, 32). The term “rabbi” is used in Mark 9:5; 11:21; 14:45, while “rabbouni” appears in 10:51. 10.  Samuel Byrskog, Jesus the Only Teacher:  Didactic Authority and Transmission in Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism and the Matthean Community, ConBNT 24 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wicksell, 1994). 11.  Connotations of respect are apparent in the way people alternate between calling Jesus “rabbi” and “lord” (Jn 6:25, 34; 11:8, 12; 20:13-18) and “teacher” and “lord” (11:3, 21, 28, 32, 39; 13:13-14). See also Andreas Obermann, Die christologische Erfüllung der Schrift im Johannesevangelium: Eine Untersuchung zur johanneischen Hermeneutik anhand der Schriftzitate, WUNT II/83 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 43–46.

64

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

41)  calls attention to both aspects of Jesus’ identity, making sure that readers understand the meaning of each term, so that readers can see how both roles are developed in the narrative that follows.

2. Teacher and disciples Jesus’ first action as rabbi and teacher is to form a circle of disciples (μαθηταί) who are to learn (μανθάνω) from him (cf. 7:15). The pattern of a sage with a group of learners had emerged in philosophical circles, and it was also used by Jewish teachers and their students.12 According to the Synoptic gospels, Jesus called his disciples by issuing the command, “Follow me” (Mk 1:17-18 par.). In antiquity it was not common for teachers in philosophical schools or rabbinic circles to summon students in that way. The usual pattern was that students would seek out a teacher.13 There are traces of the way Jesus commands others to follow in the Fourth Gospel (Jn 1:43; 21:19, 22), and he can tell the disciples, “You did not choose me, but I chose you” (15:16). There are, however, elements in John’s account that more closely fit the relational pattern of a disciple to a teacher—at least initially. The people who meet Jesus in the opening scenes are already disciples of John the Baptist, who later is called a rabbi (1:37; 3:25-26).14 When John declares that Jesus is the Lamb of God, two of these disciples follow Jesus and call him rabbi (1:35-38). The Gospel does not suggest that addressing Jesus as a rabbi or teacher is incorrect; rather, it is a starting point. They are depicted as “seeking” and the relationship with Jesus will develop as other dimensions of Jesus’ identity emerge. The disciples’ relationship to Jesus as teacher involves personal loyalty, expressed by following him (1:37, 38, 40). In one sense following shows physical movement, but it also signifies a more enduring relationship.15 These disciples “remain” 12. K. H. Rengst orf, “μαθητής,” TDNT 4:415– 60, esp. 416– 41; R. Alan Culpepper, The Johannine School: An Evaluation of the Johannine-School Hypot hesis Based on an Investigation of the Nature of Ancient Schools, SBLDS 26 (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1975). Most philosophical schools avoided the term “disciple” (μαθητής), but in Jewish circles a learner was commonly called a student or disciple (‫)תלמיד‬. 13. Rengstorf, “μαθητής,” 4:444. A good example of the pattern in Judaism is a saying attributed to Joshua b. Perahyah (ca. 120 BCE), “Provide yourself with a teacher (‫ )רב‬and get for yourself a fellow- disciple (‫( ”)חבר‬m. ’Abot 1:6). There were examples of someone being told to “follow” a philosopher (Diogenes Laertius, Lives 2.48; 7.2– 3), but this is an exception. 14. John the Baptist is called a “teacher” in Lk. 3:12 and is said to have disciples (Mk 2:18; Lk. 11:2; Acts 19:1-7). 15.  Jesus commands disciples to follow (1:43; 21:9, 22). Those who follow will have the light of life (8:12) and engage in true service (12:26). Jesus’ sheep follow him (10:4, 5, 27). Marianne Meye Thompson, John: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2015), 50, 333.

Jesus the Rabbi and Teacher in John’s Gospel

65

with him (μένω, 1:38-39), and the Gospel identifies this abiding relationship as essential for discipleship (8:31-32; 15:4-10). The disciples’ bond with Jesus forms the context in which understanding emerges. It is by following that they learn that the teacher is also Messiah (1:41). Similarly, Nathanael responds to testimony about Jesus with questions, and he comes to Jesus with his questions unanswered. Yet in the encounter he learns that the one he calls rabbi is also Son of God and King of Israel (1:46-49). The Fourth Gospel recognizes that there are similarities between the circles of disciples attached to John the Baptist and to Jesus. People in each group refer to their leader as a rabbi (1:38, 49; 3:26), and Jesus’ disciples continue to address Jesus that way even after they have declared him to be the Messiah (4:31; 9:2; 11:8). Each group practices baptism with water (3:22-25; 4:1-2), and each takes up disputed questions (3:25; 9:2). It is precisely because the groups seem so similar that the Gospel must emphasize what makes Jesus distinctive, namely, that he is the Messiah, the Son of God who comes from above and gives eternal life (3:2736). Theologically, the paradox is that the Son from heaven also embodies the role of a Jewish teacher.16 The Gospel includes scenes in which Jesus says or does something that makes the disciples ask questions of him as their rabbi. When traveling through Samaria, the disciples go into a village to buy food, which was the kind of service one might expect students to perform. Upon returning, they are astonished to find Jesus talking with a woman beside a well, but they say nothing (4:27). When she leaves they say, “Rabbi, eat something” and Jesus responds with a baffling comment that he has food they do not know about (4:31-32). What follows fits a Johannine pattern in which the disciples misunderstand Jesus by relating his comment to ordinary food, so Jesus reframes the issue by saying that his food is to do the will of the one who sent him (4:33-34). His response draws on two proverbial sayings, which summarize conventional wisdom that he both invokes and reinterprets.17 One is, “Four months more, then comes the harvest,” which in most contexts would emphasize the need for waiting, since initial efforts like planting take time to mature before the harvest can be gathered in (4:35). Jesus, however, insists that the proverb does not fit the current situation, since the harvest is already ripe. He wants the disciples to see that at the level of divine purpose, people are already being gathered in or drawn to Jesus through the witness of the Samaritan woman (4:30, 39). The other proverb is, “One sows and another reaps” (4:37), which in most contexts would function as a comment about life’s unfairness:  one person makes the effort but another gets the benefit. Here again Jesus alters the conventional meaning to emphasize that the efforts of both sower and reaper lead to shared joy at the harvest (4:36). In the immediate context

16.  Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and John Riches (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 100, n. 5. 17. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, 2 vols. AB 29–29A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966–1970), 182–83.

66

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

the disciples can rejoice at the positive response generated by Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman and her testimony to her townspeople, and the implication is that such work will continue through the future work of Jesus’ followers (4:38). Another example is the disciples seeking instruction. When seeing a blind beggar they ask, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, so that he was born blind?” (9:2). They attempt to understand the situation in terms of perspectives attested in Scripture, Jewish tradition, and other ancient sources. On the one hand, many assumed that children could suffer because of the sins of their parents, which would explain congenital blindness (Exod. 20:5). On the other hand, it was understood that people could suffer because of their own sins (Ezek. 18:20). Applying that idea to congenital blindness raised the theoretical question as to whether someone could suffer for sins committed in the womb.18 Jesus rejects both options: “Neither this man nor his parents sinned” (9:3). He does not offer another explanation of the cause of the blindness or appeal to a passage of Scripture. Instead, his instruction shifts attention to what can be done about the blindness through the work done by himself and his disciples, and claiming to be the light of the world (9:4-5). Although a teacher could be said to give light through instruction, Jesus’ act of healing and its aftermath show that the light-giver is also a prophet, Messiah, and Son of Man, who is worthy of worship (9:16, 22, 35-38).19 Those aspects of Jesus’ identity go beyond his role as teacher but do not negate it. Jesus’ most significant comments about the roles teacher and disciples are made at the Last Supper. He begins by laying down his outer robe, girding himself with a towel, and washing the disciples’ feet (13:4-5). In antiquity people typically washed their own feet. A slave might be compelled to wash another person’s feet, but no free person could be expected to do so. Rare exceptions were someone voluntarily taking the role of a slave by washing another person’s feet in order to show complete devotion. That idea is made apparent in the literary context, which says that Jesus acted out of love, which would culminate in his laying down his life (13:1-3).20 According to social convention it was unthinkable that a teacher would wash the disciples’ feet, and Peter initially rejects it (13:6, 8). Jesus, however, retains the role of teacher in order to instruct the disciples about the implications of his action: You call me Teacher and Lord, and do so rightly, for that is what I am. So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s

18. On Jewish and Greco-Roman perspectives see Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 1:777–78. 19. Light imagery was used for those who illumined others by their teaching (Sir. 45:17; LAB 33:1, 3; 51:3, 6; 2 Bar. 46:1–3; 4 Ezra 12:42). Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai was remembered as “the lamp of Israel” and the “lamp of the world” (b. Ber. 28b; m. ’Abot R. Nat. 25). 20.  Craig R. Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel:  Meaning, Mystery, Community, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 127–34.

Jesus the Rabbi and Teacher in John’s Gospel

67

feet. For I have given you an example, so that as I have done for you, you also should do. Very truly I tell you, the slave is not greater than the master, and the messenger is not greater than the one who sent him. (13:13-16)

According to convention, no teacher or master would wash others’ feet. Jesus, however, alters the paradigm by directing the disciples to wash each other’s feet, following their teacher’s example. Jesus restates the point by telling them, “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another” (13:34). In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus teaches that the biblical commands to love God (Deut. 6:4-5) and neighbor (Lev. 19:18) are the greatest in the Law (Mk 12:28-34 par.) But in John, Jesus goes beyond the role of teacher by issuing a new commandment that makes his own love the source and norm for love among the disciples, and by interpreting love in terms of his crucifixion, resurrection, and gift of the Spirit. Jesus’ most radical expression of love is laying down his life (15:1213); his resurrection makes his love an ongoing reality in which his disciples’ abide (15:8-11, 17); and through the Spirit the abiding presence of the risen Jesus and his Father is revealed (14:15-23).21

3. Teaching in the synagogue The portrayal of Jesus as teacher is developed in the bread of life discourse, where Jesus is teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum (6:59). Synagogues could be described as places of instruction (διδασκαλεῖα), where leaders would teach the community proper modes of conduct.22 This typically involved reading from the Law and the Prophets on the Sabbath and other days when the community assembled, and then having someone expound the Scripture or offer a word of exhortation.23 The Synoptic Gospels depict synagogues as a place where Jesus teaches about the kingdom of God.24 On some occasions he heals a person on the Sabbath in a synagogue, using the action as a basis for instruction about the Sabbath law and

21. Koester, The Word of Life, 147–57. 22.  Philo, Moses 2.215–16; Special Laws 2.62–64. A  first-century CE inscription from Jerusalem says that Theodotus synagogue was built “for the reading of the Law and for teaching (διδαχή) of the commandments” (Jonathan Price, trans., “Synagogue Building Inscription of Theodotus in Greek, 1c BCE-1c CE” in Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae, vol. 1/1, Jerusalem, ed. Hannah M. Cotton, Leah Di Segni, Werner Eck, Benjamin Isaac, / Alla KushnirStein, Haggai Misgav, Jonathan Price, and Ada Yardeni [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010], 54). 23. Philo, Hypothetica 13; Embassy 156; On Dreams 2.127; Acts 13:14. See Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years, 2nd ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005), 145–58. 24. Mt. 4:23; 9:35; Mk 1:21, 39; 6:2; Lk. 4:15, 44.

68

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

his relationship to it.25 Luke also pictures Jesus reading from the book of Isaiah at a synagogue gathering, and then relating the passage to the situation of his listeners. His comments do not offer sustained commentary on the biblical passage but combine various biblical themes with aspects of his ministry, in order to indict those who will oppose him (Lk. 4:16-30). John’s portrayal of Jesus teaching in the synagogue differs in that it does not focus on the message about the kingdom of God but on life (ζωή), which is a major Johannine theme. Healings and disputes about the Sabbath appear elsewhere in John, but are not part of the synagogue scene. Here the controversy is provoked not by a healing but by the crowd misunderstanding the significance of Jesus miraculously feeding them bread and fish, which motivates them to look for Jesus in the synagogue on the following day, hoping for more to eat (Jn 6:1-15, 22-24). Jesus’ teaching adopts the form of biblical exposition when the crowd cites a passage from Scripture. They ask him for a sign and say, “As it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat’ ” (6:31). Their words seem to combine and paraphrase several lines from Scripture: Exod. 16:4 I am going to rain bread from heaven for you. Exod. 16:15 This is the bread that the Lord gave you to eat. Ps. 78:24 He rained on them manna to eat and gave them the grain (LXX bread) of heaven.

The main source of the paraphrase is probably Exod. 16:4 and 15. That passage refers to manna as bread from heaven, and it tells of the assembly or “synagogue” (συναγωγή) of Israel in the wilderness murmuring or complaining, which is also said of the synagogue at Capernaum.26 The paraphrase could also recall Ps. 78:24, where similar words occur, especially in Greek translation.27 Jesus’ comments take the form of a homily in three parts28: The first considers the expression, “he gave them” (Jn 6:32-34), the second interprets “bread from heaven” (6:35-48), and the third indicates what it means “to eat” (6:49-58). The extent to which this homiletical pattern was typical in first-century synagogues is not clear. Philo said that a synagogue leader would expound the Scripture “point by point” (Hypothetica 13), but it also seems likely that various forms were used.29 25. Mt. 12:9-14; Mk 1:23-27; 3:1–3; Lk. 4:31-37. 26.  Where Exodus uses διαγογγύζω for complaining (16:2, 7, 8) John uses the shorter form γογγύζω (6:41, 43, 61). 27.  On the biblical passages informing Jn 6:31 see the overview in Ruth Sheridan, Retelling Scripture:  “The Jews” and the Scriptural Citations in John 1:19–12:15, BIS 110 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 146–57. 28.  Peder Borgen, Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo, NovTSup 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1965). 29.  See Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 157–58; William Richard Stegner, “The Ancient Jewish Synagogue Homily,” in Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament:  Selected Forms and Genres, ed. David E. Aune, SBLSBS 21 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988), 51–69. Later

Jesus the Rabbi and Teacher in John’s Gospel

69

In the first part Jesus adopts interpretive devices used by Jewish teachers of the period, insisting that the text does not say one thing but another (οὐ . . . ἀλλά . . .; 6:32). One form of this pattern emphasized the way something was written in the text. For example, when God told Abraham to go “to the land that I will show you” (Gen. 12:1), Philo commented that it does not say, “which I  am showing you” but “which I  will show you,” since the time of fulfillment is not present but future (Migration 43). Similar examples appear in Paul (Gal. 3:16) and rabbinic works.30 Another form contrasts alternative ways of reading a biblical text, sometimes by proposing a different vocalization of the unpointed Hebrew biblical text.31 An example is Isa. 54:13—the text cited in Jn 6:45— which says, “And all your children shall be taught of the Lord and great shall be the peace of your children.” To emphasize that Torah scholars increase peace in t he world, the midrashic commentary proposes an alternative vocalization of the word ‫בניך‬: “Do not read ‘your children’ (bānayik) but ‘your builders’ (bōnayik),” since Torah scholars “build peace for their generation” (b. Ber. 64a).32 The people in the synagogue at Capernaum assume that the biblical expression, “he gave them bread from heaven,” refers to the manna Moses gave Israel in the past (Jn 6:31). Since Jesus provided bread at the time of Passover, they conclude that he must be the prophet like Moses, whose coming was promised in Deut. 18:15-18 (Jn 6:4, 14). Accordingly, they might expect him to keep giving bread as manna was provided day after day in Moses’s time. Jesus teaches by using the contrastive patterns to challenge their perspective. One aspect involves clarifying the subject of the verb, “he gave.” Jesus insists that the giver is “not Moses . . . but my Father” (6:32). His point essentially clarifies what is apparent in the manna stories themselves. Scripture consistently identifies God, not Moses, as the giver of the manna or bread from heaven. A more creative contrast involves the verb tense. In Hebrew the unpointed verb ‫ נתן‬could be read as a qal nāthan (“he gave”) or as a participle nōthēn (“he gives”). Although John’s Gospel is in Greek, the pattern is apparent: “It was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven” (Jn 6:33). That shift in verb tense redirects attention from the past to the present,

sources include complex forms with a proem an expository section, and a parenetic conclusion. See Rivkin Ulmer, “Pesiqta Rabbati:  A Text-Linguistic and Form-Critical Analysis of the Rabbinic Homily,” JJS (2013): 64–97. 30. The rabbinic expression is, “It is not written here . . . but . . .” (. . . ‫ אלא‬. . . ‫)אין כתיב כאן‬. See Borgen, Bread from Heaven, 64. 31. On this formula (. . . ‫ אלא‬. . . ‫ )אל תקרי‬and its uses see Carmel McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament, OBO 36 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 139– 66; on alternative vocalization see p. 141. Cf. Emmanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 55. 32. The pattern occurs in Philo, Worse 47–48. See Borgen, Bread from Heaven, 63.

70

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

making the text immediately applicable to the audience in the synagogue. For the most part, the pattern could have been used by other Jewish teachers of the period. In the second section of the discourse Jesus interprets the middle part of the biblical text, “bread from heaven.” Here, however, he does what no ordinary teacher would do by saying, “I am the bread of life” (6:35, 48). Other Jewish teachers would identify bread from heaven with God’s word and wisdom. Moses had taught that God fed Israel with manna so they might come to “understand that one does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord” (Deut. 8:3). Philo said that manna signified the divine Word from which wisdom flows.33 Bread imagery could also be extended to the law of Moses in which God’s word and wisdom were found, since God commanded Israel to gather the manna in order to see whether they would walk in his law or torah (Exod. 16:4). The words “bread of life” are reminiscent of the expression “law of life.”34 In John’s Gospel the imagery is refocused, so that the law is not bread but a witness to Jesus, who is the bread from heaven. People may seek life from Scripture (Jn 5:39), but as the embodiment of God’s Word, Jesus provides it by meeting the human hunger for God and promising resurrection (6:35-40). Listeners complain at Jesus’ claim to have come down from heaven, because they know his parents (6:41-43). Jesus counters their claim to have understanding by introducing a passage from the prophets:  “And they will all be taught by God” (6:45a). The passage is apparently Isa. 54:13 LXX, which says, “And all your sons will be taught by God.” The form used in John omits the reference to “your sons” and says that being “taught” (διδακτοί) by God is something available to all (πάντες). That does not mean that all who encounter God’s teaching have actually “learned from the Father,” because what reveals that learning (μαθών) has taken place is that the person comes to Jesus in faith (6:45b). The unbelief at Capernaum shows that the people may have been taught, but they have not learned.35 Finally, in part three (6:49-58) Jesus explains what it means “to eat.” The passage contrasts the way Israel’s ancestors ate manna and died with receiving Jesus as the bread that brings eternal life (6:49, 58). In a basic sense, eating means believing. Jesus teaches that whoever believes has eternal life (6:35, 40, 47) and saying that the one who “eats” has eternal life makes the same point. Jesus speaks of the future, when he will give his flesh for the life of the world, which anticipates crucifixion (6:51). The offensive quality of the allusion to crucifixion is intensified when Jesus speaks of faith as eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Readers familiar with the Christian practice of using bread and wine to celebrate the Lord’s Supper would hear echoes of its language in this passage. Yet, in a context where Jesus is teaching in a synagogue, the imagery is repugnant, since Jewish law prohibited the

33. Philo, Flight 137; Heir 191; Names 259–60. 34. Sir. 17:11; 45:5; 4 Ezra 14:30; cf. Pss. Sol. 14:2. 35.  For a survey of research on the quotation of Isa. 54:13 and its significance in John 6 see Sheridan, Retelling Scripture, 159–73; cf. Obermann, Die christologische Erfüllung, 151–67.

Jesus the Rabbi and Teacher in John’s Gospel

71

consumption of blood (Lev. 17:10-14). The imagery is as offensive as the idea that faith is centered in someone who is crucified and that life is provided through his death.36 Jesus teaches in the synagogue using Jewish homiletical patterns, yet he invokes and redefines the manna tradition to bear himself in a way no traditional Jewish teacher would do. His role as a teacher is essential to his identity, even though it does not fully encompass his identity. The Scripture promised that people would be “taught by God,” and God’s instruction is now carried out through the teaching of Jesus (6:45, 59). As a teacher, Jesus illumines the meaning of Scripture, and the Scripture in turn illumines the meaning of Jesus.

4. Teaching in the Temple (Jn 7:14-24) Teaching in the temple is part of Jesus’ public ministry in all four gospels. According to the Synoptics, he taught there at the end of his career. They tell of public interest in his teaching, as well as opposition from the Jewish authorities, which was fueled by the temple cleansing and culminates in his arrest and crucifixion. When teaching, Jesus takes up questions about his own authority and the Messiah’s relationship to David, as well as taxation, resurrection, and other topics.37 John differs by depicting Jesus teaching in the temple in the middle of his ministry, during the Festival of Booths (7:14; 8:20), and many of the issues differ, although here too there is public controversy and plans to arrest Jesus and put him to death.38 According to John, people are divided over whether Jesus is a good man, who speaks and acts in a manner acceptable to God, or whether he is a charlatan, who deceives people (7:12). The passage recalls that Jesus previously healed a man on the Sabbath, which his opponents considered to be a violation of Jewish law. Jesus defended himself by claiming that healing was giving life, which is what God did, even on the Sabbath (5:17, 19-21). Jesus’ opponents heard this as a blasphemous attempt to make himself equal to God, which was condemned by Mosaic law (5:18). Jesus’ however, reversed the charge by indicting his opponents for refusing to believe the one whom God had sent, and he invoked the writings (γράμματα) of Moses to support his claim (5:45-47).39 Against that backdrop the scenes in the temple address Jesus’ identity as a teacher (7:14-24), as prophet and Messiah (7:25-52), and his unity with God 36. On this aspect of the imagery see Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel, 102–4. 37. Mk 11:27–12:44; cf. Mt. 21:23–23:39; Lk. 20:1–21:4. 38. Jn 7:1, 19, 25, 30, 45; 8:20. 39. On 7:14-24 as the sequel to 5:45-47 see Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St John, trans. Kevin Smyth, Cecil Hastings, Francis McDonagh, David Smith, Richard Foley, and G. A. Kon, 3  vols. (New  York:  Herder/Seabury/Crossroad, 1968, 1980, 1982), 2:130-31. His detailed analysis shows the connection between the passages, though it is not necessary to rearrange the Gospel text as he proposes.

72

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

(8:12-59). Each facet of his identity is affirmed and no facet excludes the others. According to the Fourth Gospel, God is the source of legitimate teaching and God’s teaching is conveyed through Jesus’ teaching (7:16-17; 8:20, 28). Therefore, this passage argues for the integrity of Jesus’ identity as a teacher. Debate begins when some Jewish leaders ask, “How does this man understand what is written when he has never studied?” (7:15). Here the leaders are depicted as hostile to Jesus (7:1, 13), and with their question they challenge Jesus in two ways. First, they are dismissive of his ability to understand Scripture. The expression “what is written” (γράμματα) recalls that during Jesus’ previous visit to Jerusalem he invoked “what is written” in the law of Moses against his opponents (5:47), but they now insist that he does not understand Scripture well enough to teach it. Second, they assume that a legitimate teacher must have must have studied (μεμαθηκώς) under another knowledgeable teacher, and they are not aware that Jesus has done so. The narrative does not reject the criteria but shows that Jesus meets the criteria in an unexpected way, thereby underscoring the validity of his role as a teacher. Jesus takes up the issues in reverse order. He first insists that he has received instruction from a recognized teacher, namely, God (7:16-18). Then he demonstrates his understanding of Scripture by working through issues of Mosaic law and Jewish practice in order to show that his act of healing on the Sabbath is congruent with the will of God (7:19-24). The idea that someone who teaches should previously have studied under another teacher reflects a high regard for tradition. It was understood that authoritative interpretation of the Mosaic law was not a matter of individual opinion. On certain legal questions there were traditions of interpretation that were handed down over time, lending a degree of consistency to practice. There were also customs that were not directly mandated by Scripture but were handed down by word of mouth, and many of these were also considered normative.40 This was the perspective of the Pharisees and those associated with them.41 Similarly, Philo valued the “unwritten laws, the decisions approved by men of old,” which were passed down from generation to generation and were to be faithfully observed.42 Since tradition helped ensure valid interpretation of Mosaic law, the corollary was that those who taught should learn the tradition from accepted teachers and pass it on with integrity. That pattern would be developed in later rabbinic sources, which traced the way authoritative tradition was handed down from one recognized teacher to the next over many generations.43 But in the first century 40. E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies (London: SCM Press and Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990), 125–30. 41.  Josephus, Ant. 13.297, 408; cf. 18:12; Mk 7:1-5; Gal. 1:14. Sanders, Jewish Law, 108–9. 42. Philo, Special Laws 4.149-50; cf. Embassy 115. 43.  m. ’Abot 1:1–18. Rabbi Eliezer said, “I received a tradition from Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai, who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, as a Halakah given to Moses from Sinai” (m. Yad. 3:8; cf. m. ‘Ed. 8:7).

Jesus the Rabbi and Teacher in John’s Gospel

73

CE there was not yet a standard means for granting someone formal standing as a rabbi.44 For the interpretation of John 7 it is enough that Jesus’ opponents insist that a recognized teacher must have studied with a recognized teacher. Jesus accepts his opponents’ criterion for legitimate teaching, but he challenges the way they apply it. He argues that he has studied with a master teacher, namely God; and he is not voicing his own opinion but is communicating God’s teaching with integrity (7:16). The problem is not that Jesus lacks teaching credentials—he has them—the problem is that the opponents do not discern that God is the source of Jesus’ teaching. Accordingly, Jesus introduces two additional criteria for discernment. One is the disposition of his hearers. If their will is to do God’s will, then they are in a position to discern whether Jesus’ teaching is from God (7:17). The idea is analogous to saying that those who want to see the light must be willing to open their eyes. The other criterion pertains to Jesus himself. He has them ask about the goal of the teaching in order to discern the source of the teaching (7:18). In antiquity those trying to look behind an action to determine who did it—usually in cases of wrongdoing—would ask, “Cui bono?,” that is, “For whose benefit?”45 If Jesus benefitted from teaching by winning glory for himself, then he would presumably be the source of the message, and that would undercut his credibility. But if the teaching is for the glory of God—and not for Jesus’ own benefit—then it shows that the message comes from God and therefore has integrity. Having responded to the charge that he had never studied, he now takes up the other issue by showing that he does understand what is written in the law of Moses (7:15, 19). According to the opponents, Jesus flagrantly violated the law, which discredited his claim to be a teacher. He healed on the Sabbath, which violated the command to refrain from work, then he claimed to be doing what God did, which seemed blasphemous (5:16-18). So Jesus now turns the charge of disregard for the law against his accusers. First, he points to the contradiction between what they know and what they do. They may agree that Moses gave them the law, yet Jesus argues that they do not keep the law. His evidence is that they are trying to kill him (7:19). In the narrative context, the opponents think Jesus is a blasphemer, who should be put to death (5:18; Lev. 24:16), and their intent to kill Jesus is public knowledge (Jn 7:1, 25). Jesus counters by alluding to the law’s prohibition against killing, thereby challenging the opponents’ credibility (Exod. 20:13; Lev. 24:17; Deut. 5:17). The listeners reject the charge out of hand, despite public knowledge of the intent to kill Jesus, but the point has been made for readers of the Gospel (Jn 7:20). Then Jesus turns to the opponents’ inconsistent treatment of the Sabbath laws. He points out that in Jewish tradition some laws take precedence over others. The specific case he cites involves the relationship of the laws pertaining to the

44. Cohen, “Epigraphical Rabbis,” 12–13; Hezser, The Social Structure, 490–94. 45. Cicero, Rosc. Amer. 84; Mil. 32.3; Heinrich Lausberg, Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary Study (Leiden: Brill, 1998), §§158–59.

74

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

Sabbath and to circumcision. On the one hand, people are to refrain from work on the Sabbath (Exod. 20:8-11), but on the other hand they are to circumcise a boy on the eighth day after birth, which was sometimes on the Sabbath (Gen. 17:914; Lev. 12:3). In Jewish tradition circumcision took precedence.46 Therefore, the opponents’ own practice shows that performing circumcision on the Sabbath is not a violation of the law but a way of keeping the law (Jn 7:22-23a). From that observation, Jesus develops his case that healing on the Sabbath is deeply consistent with the law and is not a violation of it. He argues from the lesser to the greater and from the part to the whole. These techniques were used in GrecoRoman rhetoric and were widely accepted in Jewish tradition.47 If the opponents agree that on the Sabbath people keep the law by performing circumcision, which is a form of surgery done on one part of the body, then they cannot object when Jesus heals a man’s whole body on the Sabbath (7:23). His action is congruent with the will of God, which centers on giving life (5:21). This passage defends the legitimacy of Jesus’ identity as a teacher by showing that he meets the accepted criteria: he received his teaching from a master teacher and understands what is written in the law. In scenes that follow, the narrative also defends Jesus’ status as Messiah and his claim to have come from above, yet his activity as a teacher continues. The temple scenes show that through Jesus’ teaching, God is teaching (8:20, 28).

5. Conclusion Early Christian tradition preserves the memory of Jesus as teacher. The incarnational perspective of the Fourth Gospel does not diminish that role but includes it as essential in its portrayal of Jesus. The Gospel affirms that Jesus was human, was Jewish, and was called rabbi and teacher by his disciples and other people of his time. Like others, Jesus taught in the synagogue and temple using recognized forms of biblical interpretation. At the same time, his message was unlike that of other teachers in that it encompassed his identity as the Son of God, who has come from above to give life through his words, actions, crucifixion, and resurrection. While identifying himself as a teacher he did what other teachers

46.  m. Shabb. 18:3; 19:2; “Great is circumcision, which overrides even the rigor of the Sabbath” (m. Ned. 3:11). 47. Arguing from lesser to greater or qal va- homer (‫ )קל וחומר‬and from the general to the particular or kallal va- parat (‫ )כלל ופרט‬and vice versa are the first and fifth of Hillel’s seven middot or hermeneutical rules (Abot R. Nat. 37). See Hermann L. Strack and Günther Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, trans. Marcus Bockmuehl, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 18–20. For rabbinic examples in relation to Jn 7:23 see C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 320. For the practice in Greco- Roman rhetoric see Quintilian, Inst. 5.10.87– 94; Lausberg, Handbook of Literary Rhetoric, §397.

Jesus the Rabbi and Teacher in John’s Gospel

75

would do by giving his disciples an example to follow, yet his example involved washing feet, which was unlike anything a conventional teacher would do, and it anticipated the love he would later convey by laying down his life (13:13-15). Through his resurrection he would empower his disciples to follow his instruction by abiding in his love and acting in love toward one another. According to John, God is the source of true teaching and the Scriptures promised that all would be taught by God (Isa. 54:13; Jn 6:45). This occurs through Jesus, who teaches what he received from God (7:16-17; 8:28), and also through the Spirit that reminds the disciples of what Jesus had said and will teach (διδάξει) them its significance in new ways after his resurrection (14:26). Theologically, the portrayal of Jesus as a teacher is integral to the Fourth Gospel because teaching is integral to the activity of the God who sent Jesus and to the work of the Spirit, whose teaching would continue to shape the community of those who follow Jesus.

Chapter 6 J E SU S T H E H E A L E R I N T H E F O U RT H G O SP E L :   B R I N G I N G L I F E F R OM   G O D Graham H. Twelftree

C. H. Dodd said that, “The work of Jesus as healer, which bulks so large in the Synoptic narrative, and has a place also in the traditional summary of his Ministry in the kerygma of Acts x.38, is but feebly represented in the Fourth Gospel.”1 Indeed, gone are the exorcism stories that loom so large in the Synoptic narrative.2 Also missing are stories of healings of the lame or people with withered limbs.3 Nor are there any cleansings of lepers. No fevers are cured, no hemorrhages are stopped, no deaf are made to hear or mute people made to speak, and no cures of dropsy are mentioned. There is also no stilling of a storm or withering of a fig tree. Moreover, the stories are also arranged differently and the vocabulary used of them is distinctive. In light of these observations, this chapter seeks to discover what image of Jesus as healer the Fourth Gospel intended to offer, and what role that image plays in his purposes. Our approach will involve, first, showing that the selection and then the arrangement of miracle stories are clues to the writer’s intentions. Then, how Jesus as healer is to be understood in light of the distinctive vocabulary associated with the miracle stories will be considered. In the last part of this chapter the material the Evangelist offers relating more directly to Jesus as healer will be examined in order to understand in greater detail the Johannine portrait and its purpose. It will be seen that the image of Jesus as healer is far from feeble, that the work of Jesus as healer is depicted as stupendous and of unparalleled power, and that this portrait is integral to the understanding of Jesus as with God—as God incarnate—acting as his agent to bring life from God. 1.  C. H.  Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1963), 174. 2.  See Graham H.  Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus:  Exorcism Among Early Christians (Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker Academic, 2007), 183–205, noting that the cross is the great exorcism in the Fourth Gospel (Jn 12:31). 3. Along with “blind” (τυφλός) and “paralyzed” (ξηρός), “lame” (χωλός) is used of some of “the many sick” (πλῆθος τῶν ἀσθενούντων) seeking healing at the pool of Bethzatha (Jn 5:3).

78

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

In what follows, I  will assume that the Fourth Gospel developed through a number of stages or revisions, beginning with a collection of miracle stories around which discourse material coalesced.4 The author responsible for these two broad stages added the prologue, but someone else soon after added the appendix.5 It will also be assumed that the Fourth Evangelist was interacting creatively with the Synoptic Gospels intending to supplement and correct what readers toward the end of the first century will have known from these other Jesus traditions.6 For convenience the unknown author will be referred to as John or the Fourth Evangelist. No assumption will be made as to whether the Gospel was written for a particular community or a wider readership.7

1. The selection and arrangement of miracle stories If we could understand why some kinds of miracle stories—particularly those related to healing—are excluded from the Fourth Gospel, we may better understand those remaining to contribute to the portrait of Jesus as healer. It could be that, as a corrective, over against the portraits of the Synoptics, the Fourth Evangelist intended to downplay the image of Jesus as healer.8 But this cannot be the intention. While there may be a greatly reduced number of healing stories in the Fourth Gospel, taking the raising of Lazarus as a healing story (Jn 11:1-57),9

4.  Cf. Barnabas Lindars, “Traditions behind the Fourth Gospel,” in L’Évangile de Jean. Sources, rédaction, théologie, ed. Marinus de Jonge, BETL 44 (Gembloux: Duculot, 1977), 107–24. 5. Cf. John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 32–44, 137. 6. Cf. Frans Neirynck, “John and the Synoptics,” in L’Évangile de Jean: Sources, rédaction, théologie, ed. Marinus de Jonge, BETL 44 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1987), 73–106; Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel According to Saint John, BNTC (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson; London and New York: Continuum, 2005), 38. 7.  Richard Bauckham, “The Audience of the Gospel of John,” in The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple:  Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 113–23. 8. The verb ἰάομαι (“heal”) is found only at 4:47; 5:13 and 12:40 (quoting Isa 6:10). The verb θεραπεύω (“heal”) occurs only at Jn 5:10. Although the noun ἀσθένεια (“weakness” or “sickness”) is found only in 5:5 and 11:4, the verb ἀσθενέω (“weak” or “sick”) occurs nine times (4:46; 5:3, 7, 13; 6:2; 11:1, 2, 3, 6), and in the other Gospels occurs only at Mt. 10:8; 25:36, 39; Mk 6:56; and Lk. 4:40; 9:2. 9.  There are clear indicators that the Evangelist understood this story as a healing. Lazarus is described as having an “illness” (ἀσθένεια, Jn 11:4), and a number of times he is said to be “ill” (ἀσθενέω, 11:1, 2, 3, 6). Then, referring preliminarily to his activity, Jesus mentioning both daylight as the time for his work, and “the light of this world” (11:9), recalls the same combination of ideas in the healing of the blind man (9:4-5; cf. Lincoln,

Jesus the Healer in the Fourth Gospel

79

four10 of the seven miracle stories in the body of this Gospel portray Jesus as healer.11 The intention of the Fourth Evangelist in excluding exorcism and other kinds of healings from his portrait of Jesus as healer comes into focus when we note the kinds of stories that he has selected. First, all the miracle stories taken up into the Gospel, including the healings, were all of a kind: spectacular. Water becomes wine; a neardead boy is cured seventeen miles away; a long-time paralytic walks; thousands are fed with little food; Jesus walks on the sea; a man blind from birth sees; and a man dead four days comes to life. Second, the miracle stories used by the Fourth Evangelist would have been read as the result of divine action. For example, the self-evidently stupendous report of Jesus walking on the sea (Jn 6:16-21), probably incorporated largely unaltered,12 would have called to mind the activity of gods and heroes who walked on seas and across rivers.13 In these observations are most probably the major reasons for the exclusion of exorcism stories. Exorcisms were not spectacular, but commonplace and ambiguous in origin.14 They could not be expected to reflect on the origin or identity of Jesus, nor on the divine dimension of his work. In this there is also probably an explanation why other kinds of healings are not found in the Fourth Gospel.15 The Fourth Evangelist’s arrangement of the stories also points to what Alan Culpepper called “the enormity of Jesus in John.”16 From the poetic prologue it is clear that the Jesus who will be portrayed as healer is first and foremost the incarnation of the preexistent logos (Jn 1:14) whom readers will learn has a role throughout time.17 Moreover, heading the collection of spectacular stories, not

John, 316). Also, in the Jews asking, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?” (11:37), the story is again tied to those of healing. 10. Jn 4:46-54; 5:1-9; 9:1-7. 11. Jn 2:1-11; 4:46-54; 5:1-9; 6:1-15, 16-21; 9:1-7; 11:1-57. A further story (21:4-14) is in the appended material. See note 6 earlier. 12.  See the discussions by Robert T.  Fortna, The Gospel of Signs:  A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel, SNTSMS 11 (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1970), 64; idem, The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 92. 13. E.g., Homer, Il. 13:27–30; Dio Chrysostom, Or 3. 30-31; cf., e.g., Job 9:8. 14. Cf. Mt. 12:24/Lk. 11:15; Twelftree, Name, 192–94. 15. That there is no story of the withering of a fig tree may be because it is less directly connected to meeting human need, which is characteristic of all the Johannine miracle stories. Including a story of Jesus walking on water probably obviated the need to include the less spectacular stilling of a storm. 16.  R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel:  A Study in Literary Design, Foundations and Facets: New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 106. 17. Culpepper, Anatomy, 106.

80

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

with a healing as in the Synoptics (Mt. 8:1-4; Mk 1:21-28; Lk. 4:31-37), but with Jesus spontaneously converting 150 gallons of water into “fine wine” (κακὸν оˆἰνον, 2:10), the healing stories among them are elevated to the status and function of nature miracles. It is, then, not that the Johannine Jesus performed healings and nature miracles. Rather, acting as God, Jesus performs stupendous miracles, most of which were healings. Further, even though there are only seven of them in the body of the book, with the narrative material deeply connected to them and developing their themes, the miracle stories dominate the text and become the principle and indispensable vehicle of Jesus’ ministry and means of revelation of God in human experience.18 Thus, even before we look more closely at the portrait of Jesus as healer, we can see that the broad-brush strokes of the selection and arrangement of stories have outlined a figure who, along with meeting the most profound human needs in a series of what we might call nature miracles, is acting as God, reveals God, and is God (cf. Jn 1:1-18). This perspective is reinforced by the Evangelist’s vocabulary.

2. The vocabulary of healing It is noticeable that the noun δυνάμεις (“powers”), frequently associated with the Synoptic miracles and generally meaning the healings, is omitted altogether by the Fourth Evangelist.19 Instead, the verb δύναμαι (“capable” or “able”) is frequently used.20 In this the emphasis is shifted from the miraculous deed to the power of Jesus.21 The most distinctive and characteristic term the Fourth Gospel uses for the miracles, which is highly significant in shedding direct light on its portrait of Jesus as healer, is the term σημεῖον (“sign”).22 John’s use of the word is most easily understood in light of the LXX.23 In these Scriptures a “sign” was almost always 18.  Cf. C.  H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1953), 207. 19.  See Mt. 7:22; 11:20, 21, 23; 13:54, 58; 14:2; Mk 6:2, 14; Lk. 10:13; 19:37. For the singular δύναμις as “miracle” or its cause in the Synoptic Gospels, see Mk 5:30; 6:5; 9:39; Lk. 5:17; 6:19; 8:46; 9:1; Walter Grundmann, “δύναμαι, δύναμις” TDNT, 2.284–317, esp. 302–4, 310–13. 20.  In the Gospels δύναμαι occurs in Matthew 27 times; Mark 33; Luke 26; and John 36 times. 21. Cf. Grundmann, “δύναμαι/δύναμις,” 303. Also, e.g., see Jn 3:2: “no one has the ability (δύναται) to do these signs . . . apart from God being with him.” 22.  All but two (Jn 2:18 and 6:30) of the uses of σημεῖον are probably redactional. Cf. Udo Schnelle, Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John (Minneapolis:  Fortress Press, 1992), 148. 23.  So also, e.g., R.  Formesyn, “Le sèmeion johannique et le sèmeion hellénistique,” ETL 38 (1962): 861–94, esp. 870–77; Molly Whittaker, “ ‘Signs and Wonders’: The Pagan Background,” SE 5 (1968): 155–58.

Jesus the Healer in the Fourth Gospel

81

used of God showing himself to be the Almighty through the salvific events associated with Moses.24 The events are signs in that they are more than what they at first appear:25 God himself is their author, whose character as Savior is revealed in the events. They also authenticate the identity of God’s representative, and justify and encourage trust in him.26 As a “sign,” therefore, in the Fourth Gospel a healing becomes more than a miracle,27 pointing beyond itself to the true identity or glory of Jesus and his filial relationship, or even identity, with the Father28—and also to the various expressions of the salvific gift he brings. That the miracles are more than marvels, functioning as signs of Johannine Christology, is unavoidably captured in the associated discourses which pick up and develop what is signified in the miracle. Although most of the uses of “sign” refer to miracles generally,29 readers are given the impression that healing looms large among them. For, while on a few occasions “sign” is used specifically of so-called nature miracles,30 a greater number refer specifically to healings.31 In other words, the Fourth Evangelist’s use of “sign” suggests that it is Jesus as healer who is expected to provide most of the content of the readers’ notion of the miracles. At the end of the body of the Gospel, in a summary, readers are told that “Jesus did many other signs” (Jn 20:30). This gives the impression not only that there were many more of them, but also that they can be taken to characterize Jesus’ ministry.32 In short, the Fourth Evangelist is able to use the term “sign” to give the impression not only that there were more than the representative seven, but also that healings were prominent among them. The second term the Fourth Gospel uses for the miracles, also helping understand Jesus as healer, is ἔργον (“work”). Of the twenty-seven occurrences

24.  E.g., Deut. 26:8; Jer. 32:20-21; Cf. Philo, Mos. 1:210; Josephus, Ant. 2. 274–80; Graham H. Twelftree, “Signs, Wonders, Miracles,” DPL, 875. 25. Cf. Culpepper, Anatomy, 182. 26. E.g., Exod. 3:12; 4:1-9; 1 Sam. 10:1-9. 27.  Contrast Dodd, Interpretation, 140. By contrast, the Synoptic miracles carried out what they signified—the coming of the kingdom of God. See esp. Mt. 11:2-6/Lk. 7:18-23; Mt. 12:28/Lk. 11:20. 28. See Jn 3:2; 7:31; 9:16; 20:30-31. 29. Jn 2:23; 3:2; 7:31; 10:41; 11:47; 12:37: 20:30. 30. Jn 2:11; 6:14, 26. 31. Notably, there is Jn 6:2: “A large crowd kept following him, because they saw the signs that he was doing for the sick” (cf. 3:2). Also, see 4:48, 54; 9:16; 12:18. Lyle Story drew my attention to John’s use of σημαίνω (“signify,” 12:33; 18:32; cf. 21:19) in explaining the death of Jesus. 32.  See the discussion by Gilbert Van Belle, “The Meaning of σημεῖα in Jn 20, 30–31,” ETL 74 (1998): 300–25, esp. 321–25.

82

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

of ἔργον, seventeen are used by Jesus to refer to doing his Father’s work.33 Indeed, Jesus never says they are his own works. When he refers to his work, he always does so in the context of reference to his relationship with the Father who gives Jesus the work (cf. Jn 5:36).34 Sometimes “work” refers to the ministry of Jesus in general.35 Sometimes Jesus’ words are presented as “works.”36 It is not possible, however, to follow Rudolf Bultmann in his program to demote the revelatory significance of the miracles of Jesus by identifying his work and words.37 For, sometimes Jesus’ works are specifically his miracles.38 In turn, almost all of these references are related to Jesus as healer.39 Although there is, therefore, an overlap in meaning with the term “sign,” in that both terms are used to refer to miracles as God’s activity, in the term “work” the whole activity of Jesus becomes infused with the notion of miracle. In turn, assuming their reading will be informed by the LXX for the use of ἔργον,40 they see that in the ministry of Jesus, including his healings, God is creatively at work as Savior (Jn 14:10).41

3. The stories of healing Besides hints in the narrative,42 we have noted that there are four stories in which Jesus is explicitly portrayed as healer. Our interest is in what they contribute to the readers’ understanding of Jesus as healer.43

33. Jn 4:34; 5:20, 36 (x2); 9:3, 4; 10:25, 32 (x2), 33, 37, 38; 14:10, 11, 12; 15:24; 17:4. Cf. 7:3 where the brothers of Jesus say he should go to Judea so his disciples may see the “works” he does. 34. Cf. Karl H. Rengstorf, “σημεῖον, κτλ,” TDNT 7:200–61, esp. 248. 35. Jn 4:34; 10: 37, 38; 14:11; 15:24; 17:4; cf. 9:3; 10:25. 36. Jn 8:28; 14:10; 15:22, 24. 37.  Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 2  vols. (London:  SCM Press, 1951, 1955), 2.59–61. 38.  Jn 5:20; 7:3, 21; 9:4; 10:32 (x2), 33; 14:11-12. The Fourth Evangelist’s distinction between works and words can be seen at 10:32-38; 14:8-12. 39.  Jn 5:20 (cf. 21); 7:21. In 9:4 ἔργον implies a reference to the healing about to take place (cf. 9:6-7); in 10:32 (x2) and 33, though also referring generally to Jesus’ work, through the reference to Jesus making himself God (cf. 5:18), ἔργον includes a reference to Jesus’ healing. 40. Cf. Georg Bertram, “ἔργον, κτλ,” TDNT 2:635–52. 41. E.g., see Gen. 2:2; Exod. 34:1; Pss. 66:5; 77:12. 42. See Jn 2:23; cf. 4:45, 48. 43. A more detailed and nuanced discussion than what follows would take more careful account of a potential difference in perspective between source and redaction in relation to these stories. E.g., see Robert T. Fortna, “Source and Redaction in the Fourth Gospel’s Portrayal of Jesus’ Signs,” JBL 89 (1970): 151–66.

Jesus the Healer in the Fourth Gospel

83

a. The healing of the official’s son (Jn 4:46-54) Prefacing this story in which Jesus is formally introduced as healer with a note reminding readers that this is the same Jesus who changed water into wine (4:46), and that this was his second sign (4:54), heightens anticipation and draws attention to the enormous power of Jesus as healer (cf. 4:46-47). Jesus’ response to the father’s request is: “Unless you see (ἔδητε, plural) signs and wonders you will not believe (πιστεύσητε, plural)” (Jn 4:48). The Evangelist has most probably inserted this statement into the story.44 For, not only does it interrupt the progression of the story, the statement is in the plural. This insertion expresses at least two aspects of the Fourth Evangelist’s views of Jesus as healer. First, the use of the term “signs and wonders,” which Karl Rengstorf called a “patent biblicism,”45 provides an important window into John’s understanding of Jesus as healer. In John’s Scripture the phrase “signs and wonders” points to God’s saving power known in the present.46 The phrase also describes phenomena that authenticate God’s representative.47 In other words, the phrase “signs and wonders” would have communicated to John’s readers that, in the miracles, Jesus is identified as exercising and expressing God’s saving power. Second, the insertion assumes that awareness of Jesus as healer can be the basis of faith for the readers.48 Notably, in the plural, Jesus as healer is not only addressing the official (πρὸς αὐτόν) but also, in the context of the narrative, those—including the readers49—who knew about his activity in Jerusalem (Jn 4:45, cf. 47) and are, therefore, able to believe. Yet the slight rebuff in the saying is raising questions about faith that is dependent on miracles.50 The official and his family are said to believe (Jn 4:53), though the object of that faith is not specified, leaving the readers to assume it is, appropriately, “the words that Jesus spoke” (4:50).51 As it is Jesus’ “word” (τῷ λόγῳ) that the official is said to believe before returning home to find his son healed, John was advocating the view that, while initial or general confidence in Jesus as healer was based on “signs and wonders,” 44. So also, e.g., Rudolf Schnackenburg, “Zur Traditionsgeschichte von Joh 4:46–54,” BZ 8 (1964): 58–88, 59–62; Fortna, Signs, 41; Fortna, Fourth, 5. 45. Rengstorf, “σημεῖον,” 241. 46. Deut. 4:34; 6:22; 7:19; 11:3; 26:8; 29:3; 34:11; see also 28:46. 47. E.g., Exod. 4:1-17. Cf. Philo, Moses 1.95; Spec. Laws 2.218; see also, Moses 1.210. 48. On the centrality of the signs as a basis for faith, see Jn 2:11, 23; and Craig R. Koester, “Hearing, Seeing, and Believing in the Gospel of John,” Bib 70 (1989): 327–48. 49. See Nicole Chibici-Revneanu, “Königlicher Glaube: Der βασιλικός in Joh 4,46–54 als Paradigma eines nachösterlichen Jüngers,” BN 136 (2008): 85–104, 97. 50.  E.g., Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1972) 203; Francis J. Moloney, Belief in the Word: Reading the Fourth Gospel: John 1—4 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 185. 51.  The faith in Jesus expressed by the father, a Gentile (Jn 4:46), as well as Samaritans (4:39-42) and “many,” presumably Jews, in Jerusalem (2:23; cf. 3:1; 12:11), is in contrast to the antagonism and rejection depicted of most of the Jews and the Jewish authorities (e.g., 5:16, 18; 6:52; 7:1–8:59; 10:19-39; 11:8, 45-53; 18:12; 19:7, 21, 38).

84

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

it was faith in Jesus’ word that would result in particular healings, presumably also among the readers. The declaration that the boy will live (Jn 4:50, 51, 53) is an expression of a rich concept in this Gospel,52 and, as we will see, an important motif in three of the four healing stories. “Life” is always what God gives (e.g., 4:10; 6:58), including what Jesus has on being raised from the dead (14:19). Using a cognate “give life” (ζῳοπιέω) in the ensuing discourse the Son’s giving life is paralleled with the Father giving life and raising the dead (5:21). There is, then, in Jesus acting as healer not only both an echo and foretaste of the resurrection, but also the presentation of the unity of Jesus with God. b. The healing of the paralytic (Jn 5:1-9) Reinforcing the impression that healing was Jesus’ characteristic ministry activity, as the arrangement of the narrative stands,53 John54 uses another healing story to open the second and more public phase of Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem (5:1).55 Any potential symbolism in the thirty-eight-year illness (cf. Deut. 2:14) is of no interest to John. Instead, he uses the severity of the illness to reflect on the miraculous power of Jesus as healer, beginning with his “knowing” the man “had been there a long time” (Jn 5:6). The ensuing, simple command of Jesus’ healing the man instantly (5:8) is, then, rendered all the more remarkable. In that Jesus’ question, “Do you want to be made well?” (Jn 5:6), does not elicit any expression of faith,56 readers would likely conclude that Jesus is capable of healing without faith (cf. Mt. 8:14-15). Further, the most natural reading of the dialog is that, although the conversation underlines his helpless plight, the man is making an implicit request for Jesus to stay and help him into the water.57 In this, 52. Ashton, Understanding, 399–405. 53. On the problem of the arrangement of material at this point, e.g., see Lincoln, John, 50–58; and Ashton, Understanding, 44–48, who notes (45 n. 12) that, long ago, Tatian “puts John 6 in chs 18–20 of the Diatessaron, before John 4–5 (in chs 21–2).” 54. In light of the characteristic Johannine phrase μέτὰ ταῦτα (“after this”; see the next note), and the terms ἑορτή (“feast”) and “the Jews” in its various forms, 5:1 is generally taken to be from John’s hand. E.g., see Fortna, Signs, 49 (n. 1, citing F. Spitta, H. H. Wendt and W. Wilkens); and J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospels, 3rd ed. NTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 72. 55. Beginning with μέτα ταῦτα (“after this”), a particularly Johannine turn of phrase (see Jn 3:22; 5:1, 14; 6:1; 7:1; 13:7; 21:1) suggests a new episode in the narrative. 56.  For other examples of the Johannine feature of an interlocutor misunderstanding Jesus, e.g., see Jn 2:20; 3:4; 4:10-15; 6:7, 52; 7:35; 8:22, 57; 11:23-24; 12:29; 13:28; 14:5, 8, 23; 16:17. 57.  Cf. Witkamp, “The Use of Traditions in John 5.1–18,” 24. On the possible polemic against pagan healing deities, see Marcello Del Verme, “La città di Gerusalemme come polo soteriologico: Religioni de salvezza a Bethzathá/Bethesdá (Gv 5,1–9),” Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni 75 (2009): 145–98. Although the polemic may have been obvious to

Jesus the Healer in the Fourth Gospel

85

for John, the conversation is an expression of the man’s ignorance of Jesus’ identity, and, therefore, for the reader, a statement about the humanity of Jesus as healer. In the previous story the official was said to believe “the word that Jesus spoke to him” (Jn 4:50). In this story, if faith is a feature, it is in the person of Jesus. For John says: “The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who made him well” (5:15). Jesus’ directive is, “Stand up, take up your mat and walk” (Jn 5:8). John probably intends readers to take the command at more than face value. For, of the thirteen times John uses ἐγείρω (“raise”),58 all but five of them have to do with Jesus being raised to life.59 Indeed, in the next use of the word, in the extended dialog that continues this story, Jesus says, “just as the Father raises (ἐγείρει) the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes” (5:21). In other words, as the dialog clarifies, the Passion does not, as Ernst Käsemann supposed, come late into view, as perhaps a postscript.60 Again, as healer, Jesus brings life; God’s resurrection power is already breaking into the narrative. And, again as healer bringing life, Jesus is presented in unity with God. The story ends rather abruptly, or is interrupted, with the mention of the Sabbath (Jn 5:9b).61 In that the Sabbath has not played any part in the story so far, and the idea is introduced in exactly the same way in the story of the healing of the blind man,62 it is most probably the Evangelist who has brought in the theme (cf. 9:14).63 Apart from time markers in the Passion narrative (19:31; 20:1, 19), all the references to the Sabbath are associated with Jesus as healer and the related controversies.64 Made clear in a later story, where Jesus’ conflict with the religious authorities reflects on this healing (7:1-52, cf. 21), John uses the Sabbath to show that it is giving precedence to the law that leads to a failure to understand the

those who first handed on the tradition, it is doubtful that readers unfamiliar with Jerusalem would pick up this motif of polemic. 58. Jn 2:19, 20, 22; 5:8, 21; 7:52; 11:29; 12:1, 9, 17; 13:4; 14:31; 21:14. 59. Jn 5:8, 21; 7:52; 11:29; 13:4; 14:31. 60. Ernst Käsemann, The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17 NTL (London: SCM Press, 1968), 7. 61. For a discussion of the extent of John’s tradition, see Witkamp, “The Use of Traditions in John 5.1–18,” 19 (and those cited in n. 4) and 26–38. If the story resumes, it is not agreed at what point it does so. See the discussion of the various suggestions by Fortna, Signs, 52– 53. In line with the form-critical structure of a miracle story, the most natural continuation and conclusion of the story is Jn 9:15: “The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well.” 62.  Jn 5:9c and 9:14:  ἠν δὲ σάββατον ἐν ἐκείνη τῇ ἡμέρα (“it was a Sabbath on that day”). On the parallels between the healing stories in John 5 and 9, see John J.  Pilch, Healing in the New Testament:  Insights from Medical and Mediterranean Anthropology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 126–27. 63. E.g., see Fortna, Signs, 52; Lindars, John, 215; Fortna, Fourth, 115–16. 64. Jn 5:9, 10, 16, 18; 7:22, 23 (cf. 5:1-9); 9:14, 16.

86

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

identity of Jesus. In this story Jesus says that it is on the premise that his Father did not rest, but continued working on the Sabbath,65 that he is working or healing on the Sabbath (5:17). Thus, the story provides John the means to conclude that Jesus as healer is equal to God (5:18) and therefore acting as God. That the resulting persecution (διώκω) by the Jews (Jn 5:16) is elsewhere only mentioned when Jesus says, “if they persecuted (ἐδίωξαν) me, they will persecute (διώξουσιν) you” (15:20), suggests that John has his readers clearly in mind, a reading perspective developed by Louis Martyn.66 That is, just as in Jesus’ physical absence the healed man was experiencing persecution because of claims related to Jesus arising out of his healing, so the readers were experiencing persecution arising out of claims related to Jesus as healer.67 c. The healing of the man born blind (Jn 9:1-7) The two statements, one about working while it is day (9:4)68 and the other about Jesus being the light of the world (9:5), are widely taken to be from the Evangelist’s hand.69 The unexpected plural in Jesus’ first statement—“We (ἡμᾶς)70 must work . . . while it is day” (9:4)—as Martyn has well argued, is “a witness to Jesus’ powerful presence in actual events experienced by the Johannine church.”71 However, the narrative development depending on healing suggests that the events experienced by the Johannine church are not only sociological divisions (the major concern of Martyn), but also healing. That is, the assumption of the saying is not that the

65. E.g., see Philo Alleg. Interp. 1.5–6; cf. Isa. 58:6-7. 66.  Martyn, History and Theology. Even if, as supposed by Bauckham, “The Audience of the Gospel of John,” 116–17, Martyn’s two-level reading strategy is not successful for the entire Gospel, there are, as argued here, at least isolated places in the text where the story of the community appears reflected. Cf. Ashton, Understanding, e.g., 110–13. 67.  See the summary discussion by Witkamp, “The Use of Traditions in John 5.1–18,” 34–35. This reading is corroborated by Jewish traditions. E.g., the Tosefta tells the story of R. Ishmael, known for his antipathy toward heretics (b. Ber. 56b; b. Shabb. 116a), refusing to allow Jacob of Kefar Sama to heal R. Eleazar b. Dama using the name of Jesus (t. Ηul. 2:22–23). See the discussion by Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton:  Princeton University Press, 2007), 52–62. 68.  Dodd, Historical Interpretation, 186, suggests Jn 9:4 may be dependent on a traditional proverb. 69.  See Fortna, Signs, 72, citing Wellhausen, Wendt, Bultmann, Wilkens, Hartke, and Schnackenburg. Also, e.g., see Dodd, Historical Tradition, 185–86; John Bligh, “The Man Born Blind,” HeyJ 7 (1966):  132–33; Ernst Haenchen, John, 2  vols., Heremeneia (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984), 2:41. 70.  See the discussion by Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1994), 194. 71. Martyn, History and Theology, 40.

Jesus the Healer in the Fourth Gospel

87

readers are in the night following the earthly ministry of Jesus,72 but that the work of Jesus as healer is continued in their healings (cf. 14:12). The remainder of the story, along with the associated dialog (Jn 9:9-41), sheds further light on Jesus as healer in this Gospel. First, the use of spittle is significant not as a technique but in establishing Jesus’ breach of the Sabbath through the work of making mud (9:6, 14).73 Again, this enables the narrative to show that Jesus’ identity is established not in relation to the law, but the healing he offers. Since the making of mud was used by other healers, the action may also be intended to reflect the ordinariness or humanity of Jesus, for the healed man’s first description of Jesus is, “The man called Jesus made mud . . .” (9:11). Thus, in line with the motif of the Word becoming flesh established early (1:14), in performing such feats Jesus remains human. Second, in so far as the blind man’s going to the pool of Siloam to wash off the mud is a faith act, faith precedes rather than follows experiencing Jesus as healer (cf. 4:50). Third, in that the outline of the story mirrors the life of Jesus, the story helps identify Jesus.74 That is, both Jesus and the man born blind are subjects of disputes over their identity, and cause a division in their families. When the healed man is interrogated he uses the same self-identification as Jesus (“I am”), and both men elicit and endure hostile responses. And, as if prefiguring the trial of Jesus, the man is not believed when he testifies before the authorities. Again, the Passion overshadows Jesus’ ministry, including as healer. Fourth, during the dialog the healed man’s disclosure of Jesus’ identity progresses from “man” (Jn 9:11), to “a prophet” (9:17) to “from God” (9:33).75 In that the healed man is therefore driven out (9:34-35), and that the narrator has said that “anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue” (9:22), and the Messiah is from God (7:25-29; 17:3), his declaration that Jesus was from God (9:33) is a declaration that Jesus is the Messiah.76 We can suppose, then, that Jesus as healer, experienced by the readers, was at once the ground of their confession (cf. 20:30-31)77 and also the focus of a division that caused them to be excluded from the synagogue.

72. Cf. R. H. Lightfoot, St John’s Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1956), 202. 73.  In the making of the mud there may also be an allusion to God’s creativity in Gen. 2:7 so that Jesus’ act is one of re-creativity. See Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John, 2 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 1:780. However, notwithstanding 9:32 (“Never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind”) the Fourth Evangelist expresses no (further) interest in this motif. 74. Cf. Craig R. Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 44. 75. Cf. Koester, Symbolism, 41. 76.  In the second part of the dialog, this time with Jesus (Jn 9:35-41), the healed man confesses Jesus to be the Son of Man (9:35) and Lord, and worships him (9:38). 77. See Hanna Roose, “Joh 20,30f.: Ein (un)passender Schluss? Joh 9 und 11 als primäre Verweisstellen der Schlussnotiz des Johannesevangeliums,” Bib 84 (2003): 326–43.

88

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

d. The raising of Lazarus (Jn 11:1-53)78 As the seventh and climactic miracle sign drawing the first part of the Gospel to a close, and aside from the Passion, being the longest continuous narrative, there is no doubt that this story of Jesus as healer is highly significant for the Fourth Evangelist.79 Once again Jesus’ identity is inextricably bound to his healing, here bringing life—eternal life (cf. 11:25–26)—at the cost of his own.80 At what is arguably the theological high point of the narrative (Jn 11:23-27),81 Jesus as healer is the “resurrection and the life” (11:25) and “the Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming into the world” (11:27). It is notable that the phrase “the Messiah, the Son of God” occurs elsewhere only in the purpose statement that ends the body of the Gospel (20:31).82 This makes it clear not only that it is as healer that Jesus’ identity is best seen,83 but also that it is as healer that he is the focus of belief for the readers. Jesus’ role as well as his identity is tied to the healing in that in the sign (cf. 11:47) God’s glory is seen (11:40), and he and the Son are glorified (11:4).84 Yet, despite this initial bold messianic confession by Martha, the story provides the most human portrait of Jesus as healer, only hinted at so far (see Jn 9:11; cf. earlier on 5:1–9). In the face of the grief of the mourners Jesus “became deeply moved in spirit and troubled in himself ” (11:33).85 And in the face of the death of

78. On the extent of the story of Lazarus, e.g., see Lincoln, John, 316–17. 79.  That the present form of the Lazarus story is the result of combining two distinct accounts of the story, see Delbert Burkett, “Two Accounts of Lazarus’ Resurrection in John 11,” NovT 36 (1994): 209–32. 80.  Brendan Byrne, Lazarus:  A Contemporary Reading of John 11:1–46, Zacchaeus Studies: New Testament (Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier/Liturgical, 1991), 84. 81.  Cf. Otfried Hofius, “Die Auferweckung des Lazarus:  Joh 11,1–44 als Zeugnis narrativer Christologie,” ZTK 102 (2005): 17–34. 82.  The term “Son of God” is also strongly associated with Jesus as healer:  Jn 5:25; 10:36; 11:4, 27; 19:7 (cf. 5:17-18; 10:32-33). Also, see 1:34, 49; 3:18; 20:31. On ἀνθρώπου (“of Man”) rather than θεοῦ (“of God”) being the preferred reading in 9:35, see Metzger, Commentary, 194. 83.  This healing story is the only certain place in the Gospel where a character refers to Jesus as “the Lord” (Jn 11:2). On the textual problems involved in Jn 4:1 and 6:23, e.g., see Haenchen, John, 1:218, 280–81. Only after the resurrection (Jn 20:2, 13, 18, 20, 25, 28), including in the appendix (21:4–14), does a character refer to Jesus as “Lord” in the transcendent sense (21:7, 12). 84.  Though John draws no attention to the common name Ἐλεάζαρος (e.g., Josephus uses it ninety-six times), sometimes, as in this story, contracted to Λάζαρος, readers may have noted that it meant “God helps.” BDAG, Λάζαρος, 581. 85.  On the difficulty translators have had with ἐνεβριμήσατο τῷ πνεύματα καὶ ἐτράξεν ἑαυτόν, e.g., see C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St John. 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 398–400.

Jesus the Healer in the Fourth Gospel

89

Lazarus, whom he loved (11:36, cf. 11:3), “Jesus wept” (11:35). On arriving at the tomb, “again he was deeply moved.”86 With the details of the mourning women, the stone across the tomb, and the grave clothes and the face cloth (cf. Jn 20:7), and the emergence of Lazarus from the tomb, the story is, as Barnabas Lindars noted, “a sort of dress rehearsal for the Resurrection.”87 Thus, again for the Fourth Gospel, experience of Jesus as healer is experience of his resurrection power.88 The moment of healing at the tomb (Jn 11:38)—the narrative’s high point89— is Jesus crying “with a loud voice, ‘Lazarus, come out!’ ” (11:43). The narrative immediately continues: “The dead man came out” (11:44). In this command and the response, Jesus as healer begins to act out his promised eschatological role of calling “all who are in their graves” (5:28; cf. 5:25-29).90 The story proposes a strong relationship between faith and Jesus’ healing (Jn 11:15, 48). The raising justifies existing belief in Jesus (11:45, cf. 11:27), which will enable the believers to live even though they die (11:25, 26). For those seeking the miracle, faith is to precede seeing it (11:40), but for others the miracle becomes the basis of faith (11:45, 48). In turn, the miracle of healing becomes the basis for ongoing testimony91 and success in recruiting believers (12:19). It is reasonable to conclude, then, that the ongoing experience of Jesus as healer would have been a significant part of the basis for evangelism by the readers.

4. Conclusion The text of John’s Gospel is so tightly woven with the single thread of the lifegiving identity of Jesus (Jn 1:4; 20:31) that examining any one motif—in our case healing—leads the reader to all the others. We have seen, first, that although it is not the Gospel’s main concern, the image of Jesus as healer is far from feeble.92

86.  Jn 11:38 (πάλιν ἐμβριμώμενος). That this motif is redactional, see Fortna, Fourth, 107. Lyle Story pointed out to me that, in view of ἐμβριμάομαι being otherwise used in the New Testament of a strong or stern warning (Mt. 9:30; Mk 1:43; 14:5; cf. “ἐμβριμάομ αι,” BDAG, 322), John’s use of the word may have conveyed to the readers the notion that Jesus was checking himself, either in relation to his emotions or, perhaps, in relation to regretting not acting earlier. Cf. Barnabas Lindars, “Rebuking the Spirit: A New Analysis of the Lazarus Story John 11,” NTS 38 (1992): 89–104. 87. Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1972), 382. 88. Cf. Paul in, e.g., Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 6:14; 15:12, 14, 17; 2 Cor. 4:14. 89. Cf. E.  Reinmuth, “Lazarus and his Sisters—What was John’s Point?” Review of Theological Literature 11 (1999): 7–20. 90. Cf. Lindars, John, 402. 91.  Jn 12:17:  “The crowd . . . continued to testify” (ἐμαρτύρει, imperfect active, cf 12:17-18). 92. Dodd, Historical Tradition, 174.

90

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

Healing is the subject of four of the seven miracle stories and their associated dialogs. The term “work” infuses Jesus’ entire ministry with the notion of miracle as he acts creatively as God the Savior, and the word “sign” creates the impression that performing miracles characterized Jesus’ ministry, and that his miracle working was dominated by healing. However, healing was not only restoring a bodily function. Given that for John’s readers sickness was not simply a physical impairment but a disvalued state that impaired relationships,93 Jesus’ healing was bringing value and repairing relationships. Moreover, second, we have seen that the portrait of Jesus as healer is of one with unparalleled power. Indeed, the programmatic story of changing water into wine and the stupendous character of all the miracle stories establish healing as an integral part of a ministry of powerful acts of the One who had been introduced in the prologue as with God—as God—from the beginning, acting as his agent to meet human need (Jn 1:1-18). Yet, while God in Jesus shows himself through the splendor of miracle,94 it is in healing that God is most clearly seen as truly incarnate.95 Third, it is clear that Jesus as healer brings life. To varying degrees, the Passion is echoed and adumbrated in every healing story.96 In the horizon of the readers, the presence of Jesus as healer is an expression of that resurrection power (cf. Jn 9:4; 11:24-26) bringing life and a basis for their faith and evangelism. From Martha’s statement of faith in Jesus as healer—“Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God” (11:27), mirrored in the purpose statement of the Gospel that is based on the signs (20:30-31)—readers are obliged to conclude not only that Jesus’ identity as a healer is seen quite clearly, but also that belief in him, particularly as healer, brings life from God.

93. Cf., e.g., Pilch, Healing, 12–13. 94. Käsemann, Testament, 21. 95. Cf. Jn 1:14; 11:33, 35, 38. 96. Jn 4:50, 51, 53; 5:21; 11:16, 44, 46-53.

Chapter 7 J E SU S T H E P R O P H E T:   C R O S SI N G T H E B O U N DA R I E S O F P R O P H E T I C B E L I E F S A N D E X P E C TAT IO N S I N T H E G O SP E L O F   J O H N Catrin H. Williams

As part of John’s portfolio of titles and labels for Jesus, the designation “prophet” (προφήτης) fares relatively well in terms of usage and prominence. Various groups and individuals are depicted as applying the title openly to Jesus (Jn 4:19; 6:14; 7:40; 9:17; cf. 7:52) and in one case Jesus appropriates the designation indirectly as a form of self-description (4:44). These six instances of the term προφήτης could be seen to point positively to the significance attached to Jesus’ prophetic credentials,1 even yielding some valuable clues about the positioning of Jesus’ portrait as prophet within the Johannine gallery. Much depends, of course, on the function of the various examples of prophetic acclamation within their specific literary settings,2 on their attribution to some witnesses but not others,3 and on the interrelationship of christological references to προφήτης, both individually and collectively, to the other portraits that make up John’s presentation of Jesus. Delineating the contours of John’s portrait of Jesus as prophet must also seek to determine the range of prophetic material that contributes to that portrait. Much attention has been given to John’s interest in the relationship between Jesus and Moses,4 although it cannot be assumed that all of the parallels should be defined as 1.  E.g., Maarten J.  J. Menken, “Scriptural Dispute between Jews and Christians in John: Literary Fiction or Historical Reality? John 9:13–17, 24–34 as a Test Case,” in AntiJudaism and the Fourth Gospel:  Papers of the Leuven Colloquium, 2000, ed. Reimund Bieringer, Didier Pollefeyt, and Frederique Vandecasteele-Vanneuville (Assen:  Van Gorcum, 2001), 445–60, esp. 453. 2.  As stressed by Marinus de Jonge, “Jesus as Prophet and King in the Fourth Gospel,” ETL 49 (1973): 160–77. 3.  See Christos Karakolis, “Is Jesus a Prophet according to the Witness of the Fourth Gospel? A  Narrative-Critical Perspective,” in Christ of the Sacred Stories, ed. Predrag Dragutinović, et al., WUNT II/453 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 119–39. 4. See especially T. Francis Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel, SBT 40 (London: SCM Press, 1963); Wayne A.  Meeks, The Prophet-King:  Moses Traditions and the Johannine

92

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

prophetic in character, since Moses is never assigned the title προφήτης in John,5 nor indeed in any other New Testament text.6 Other components underpinning John’s understanding of Jesus as prophet may lie deeper under the surface, particularly if he is attributed actions and characteristics traditionally associated with other well-known biblical prophets, such as Elijah and Elisha. The portrait takes on other prophetic hues if eschatological expectations of the prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:15–19) have contributed, as many have argued,7 to the shaping of certain aspects of Johannine Christology. This chapter aims to demarcate and describe the likely contours of John’s prophet Christology. It undertakes this task with a view to what would have been recognizable, on the one hand, to those immersed in Jewish traditions about past and awaited prophets, but also, on the other hand, to readers/hearers whose encounter with Jesus’ prophetic identity would largely be dictated by the testimony of the text itself. For this purpose the chapter initially examines all direct occurrences of προφήτης as applied to Jesus,8 separating for comparative purposes the determinate (6:14; 7:40 and, possibly, 7:52) from the indeterminate (4:19, 44; 9:17) cases of the term. It will be argued that John’s use of the phrase “the prophet” (ὁ προφήτης) reflects expectation of an individual prophetic figure, although the envisaged background and function of that figure within the new Johannine context will need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. This approach can, in turn, serve as a springboard for detecting other more veiled prophetic elements within the text, and for determining the scope and nature of John’s presentation of Jesus as

Christology, NovTSup 14 (Leiden: Brill, 1967); Marie-Emile Boismard, Moses or Jesus: An Essay in Johannine Christology, trans. B.  T. Viviano (Minneapolis:  Fortress Press, 1993); John Lierman, “The Mosaic Pattern of John’s Christology,” in Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John, ed. John Lierman, WUNT II/219 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 210–34. 5.  It is certainly noticeable that overt references to Moses often occur in the same settings as the uses of the designation “prophet” for Jesus, and that both terms—Μωϋσης and προφήτης—disappear more or less at the same point in the gospel narrative. 6.  The only exceptions are the quotations of Deut. 18:15, 18 in Acts 3:22 and 7:37. On Moses as “prophet” in Jewish sources, see, e.g., Hos. 12:13; Wis. 11:1; LAB 35:6; Philo, Mos. 2.187; Josephus, Ant. 4.329. 7. In addition to the studies listed in n. 4, see Paul N. Anderson, “The Having-Sent-Me Father: Aspects of Agency, Encounter, and Irony in the Johannine Father-Son Relationship,” Semeia 85 (1999): 33–57; J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, 3rd ed. NTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 101–23; Sukmin Cho, Jesus as Prophet in the Fourth Gospel, New Testament Monographs 15 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006); John Ashton, The Gospel of John and Christian Origins (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), 135–41. 8.  The only other individual figure described as προφήτης in John’s Gospel is Isaiah (1:23; 12:38).

Jesus the Prophet

93

prophet. The first task is to map out some key prophetic markers with reference to the initial testimony of John the Baptist (1:19-28).

1. “Are you the Prophet?”: Anticipation and categorization John the Baptist offers a threefold denial relating to his own status in response to questions posed by Jewish religious authorities (1:20-21, 25). John’s initial statement, “I am not the Messiah” (1:20), leads, after further probing (1:21: “Are you Elijah?”; “Are you the prophet?”), to progressively brief denials (οὐκ εἰμί . . . οὔ) before he makes a positive assertion about his role as the voice in the wilderness, calling for the straightening of “the way of the Lord” (1:23). This second introduction to John’s Gospel draws attention to three anticipated figures who are clearly distinguished from one another. The Messiah, as elsewhere in the narrative (7:40-41, 52), is not to be confused with the prophet (ὁ προφήτης),9 although it remains to be ascertained whether John maintains a hard and fast distinction between the two figures (cf. 4:19, 25; 6:14-15). Moreover, despite the undisputably prophetic credentials of Elijah, whose divinely promised return (Mal. 3:3, 23-24) is expected at the end time (Sir. 48:10-11; 4 Ezra 6:26),10 he, like ὁ χριστός, is placed in a different category from ὁ προφήτης (Jn 1:21). The denial that John the Baptist is the returned Elijah may stand at odds with Synoptic tradition (Mt. 11:13-14; 17:10-13; cf. Mk 9:11-13; Lk. 1:17), but it accords with John’s exclusive focus on the Baptist’s role as a witness contemporaneous to rather than preceding Jesus.11 It is perhaps more surprising that the Elijah label is not ascribed to Jesus later in the narrative, even though certain Elijah-like features can be detected in a number of Jesus’ signs.12 The wording of the third question posed by the delegation (Jn 1:21: ὁ προφήτης εἶ σύ), as well as the Baptist’s single-syllable response (οὔ), go some way toward pinning down the intended meaning of the prophet question. Since John the Baptist is ascribed some traits that align him with past prophets like Isaiah, such as having been “sent” by God (Jn 1:6; cf. Isa. 6:8) and bearing witness to what he has seen (Jn 1:33-34; cf. 12:41), his rejection of the designation “the prophet” for himself narrows the possible options. That ὁ προφήτης, like the other two categories (1:20-21), is to be understood in an eschatological sense points in the

9. As highlighted by de Jonge, “Jesus as Prophet,” 160; Richard Bauckham, “Messianism according to the Gospel of John,” in Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John, ed. John Lierman, WUNT II/219 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 34–68, esp. 36, 40. 10.  See J.  Louis Martyn, “We Have Found Elijah,” in The Gospel of John in Christian History: Essays for Interpreters (New York: Paulist Press, 1978), 9–54, esp. 16–19. 11.  Maarten J.  J. Menken, Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel:  Studies in Textual Form, CBET 15 (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996), 33. 12. See section 5a later.

94

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

direction of the prophet like Moses, whose raising up by God is promised in Deut. 18:15-19 (22)13: The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you shall heed such a prophet . . ..  “I [God] will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their own people; I  will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I  command. Anyone who does not heed the words that the prophet shall speak in my name, I myself will hold accountable.”

Even if this passage originally referred to a series of promised prophets, there is some evidence in Jewish tradition that Deut. 18:15-19 was later interpreted as denoting the expected eschatological prophet.14 Reference is made in 1QS IX, 11 to the coming of “the prophet and the messiahs of Aaron and Israel”; the first of these figures is in all likelihood the prophet like Moses, as supported by yet another Qumran text (4Q175 5-20), which attests the expectation of the same three figures through the citation, in sequence, of relevant passages from the Torah (Deut. 18:18-19; Num. 24:15-17; Deut. 33:8-11). Nonetheless, evidence for eschatological expectations of the prophet like Moses, certainly relating to Deut. 18:15-19, is quite limited in late Second Temple Jewish literature and later rabbinic traditions.15 A  few traditions outside the Qumran texts do exhibit definite expectation of the future coming of a prophet (1 Macc. 4:46; 14:41),16 possibly drawing on Deut. 18:18b (“I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet”), but these passages focus on a figure who will deliver oracles pertaining to cultic regulations and not necessarily a final, eschatological prophet.17 Furthermore, it cannot simply be assumed that eschatologically oriented references to the prophet,18 whether in Jewish sources or the New Testament, point

13. Cf., e.g., Craig R. Koester, The Word of Life: A Theology of John’s Gospel (Grand Rapids, MI:  Eerdmans, 2008), 90–91; Michael Theobald, Das Evangelium nach Johannes:  Kapitel 1–12, RNT (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 2009), 157–58; Jean Zumstein, L”Évangile selon Saint Jean (1–12), CNT IVa (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2014), 74. 14. See further Ferdinand Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity, trans. Harold Knight and George Ogg (London: Lutterworth, 1969), 352–65; Wolfgang Kraus, “Die Bedeutung von Dtn 18,15-18 für das Verständnis Jesu als Prophet,” ZNW 90 (1999): 153–76; Bauckham, “Messianism,” 40–53. 15.  Hahn, Titles, 357–58; Bauckham, “Messianism,” 38, 41–42. See also David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids, MI:  Eerdmans, 1983), 126; Richard Horsley and Tom Thatcher, John, Jesus, and the Renewal of Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 150. 16. Martyn, History, 105. 17. Aune, Prophecy, 105, 205: clerical prophets (cf. Philo, Spec. Leg. 1.64–65). 18. T. Benj. 9:2: “The Most High shall send forth his salvation through the unique prophet.”

Jesus the Prophet

95

specifically and exclusively to Deut. 18:15-19, unless they include explicit citations from (e.g., Acts 3:22; 7:37) or make clear allusions to that passage. These factors need to be taken into account when examining the various references to Jesus as [ὁ] προφήτης in the Gospel of John. It may well be the case that Jewish eschatological expectations of the prophet in the first century CE were more varied than what is attested, for example, in the Qumran texts, and that even the Mosaic features attributed to the eschatological prophet in Jewish expectation(s) are not limited to that which is set out in Deut. 18:15-19. The contours of the prophet remain imprecise at this early stage of the gospel narrative. What is disclosed (Jn 1:19-25) is that the prophet belongs firmly within a range of current Jewish expectations and that the most likely candidate as eschatological prophet in 1:21 is one possessing Mosaic features, given that this figure is clearly distinguished from the (Davidic) Messiah and particularly from Elijah. This opening scene also anticipates that the role of the prophet is to be fulfilled by Jesus. Strategies are put in place to depict the Baptist as already redirecting attention away from himself toward Jesus.19 The formula used in his first response, “I am not the Messiah” (1:20: ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ὁ χριστός), with a likely emphatic ἐγώ, already implies that there is another figure to whom the title rightly belongs.20 Additionally, as the Baptist engages in his Jesus-centered testimony (cf. 1:7-9, 15), it is evident that Jesus, though physically absent in 1:19-28, is increasingly coming into focus. When the delegation enquires about the purpose of John’s baptism (1:25)—given that he is not the Messiah, Elijah, or the prophet— he shifts immediately, after his initial response (“I baptize with water”), to a presently hidden figure (1:26-27). The expectation is that the unnamed “other” will be depicted as meeting these expectations; this is certainly the case with Jesus’ identification as the Messiah (1:41) though not as Elijah. And while some attempts have been made to detect an implied allusion to the prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:18-19) in the first part of Philip’s pronouncement, “We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote” (Jn 1:45),21 the first clear identification of Jesus as προφήτης is not ascribed to any character until the fourth chapter.

19.  See further Catrin H. Williams, “The Voice in the Wilderness and the Way of the Lord: A Scriptural Frame for John’s Witness to Jesus,” in The Opening of John’s Narrative (John 1:19-2:22):  Historical, Literary, and Theological Readings from the Colloquium Ioanneum 2015 in Ephesus, ed. R.  Alan Culpepper and Jörg Frey, WUNT 385 (Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 39–47, esp. 48–51. 20. Theobald, Johannes, 155. 21. Cf. Boismard, Moses, 27. He claims to find support in the “contextual emphasis” on Jesus’ supernatural knowledge (Jn 1:42, 45-48), but refers to 2 Sam. 12:1-7 rather than Deut. 18:18-19.

96

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

2. “I see that you are a/the Prophet”: (Initial) Recognition It is on the basis of Jesus’ accurate knowledge of her marital situation (4:1718) that the Samaritan woman is prompted to recognize his prophetic powers (4:19). Her words, “Sir, I see that you are a prophet” (κύριε, θεωρῶ ὅτι προφήτης εἶ σύ), certainly forge a connection between Jesus’ remarkable insight and his prophetic identity as one whose speech, actions and authority are derived from God.22 But is the woman’s statement (also) intended as an expression of her belief in the eschatological prophet like Moses? Two key interpretative issues must be considered in order to address this question. First, the woman’s use of προφήτης without the definite article may suggest “a prophet,” in contrast to its clearly titular usage in 1:21 and 25 (cf. 6:14; 7:40).23 However, a rule formulated by E.  C. Colwell for determining predicate nouns in New Testament Greek may suggest otherwise:  if the predicate noun follows the verb, the definite article is included; if the noun comes before the verb, the article is not required.24 If so, it is possible—at least grammatically—to interpret the Samaritan woman’s words as signifying, “You are the prophet.”25 The fact that some exceptions to this rule are attested in John’s Gospel, including the otherwise identical statement in 1:21 (ὁ προφήτης εἶ σύ; also 4:18; 6:51; 15:1; 18:13), suggests that both the determinate and indeterminate meanings are conceivable for 4:19, unless other forms of evidence can be adduced to support one interpretation over the other. Thus, secondly, it is not uncommon for the determinate force (“the prophet”) to be preferred for Jn 4:19 through appeal to Samaritan eschatological beliefs about the prophet like Moses.26 In other words, the woman’s perception of Jesus as (the) prophet (4:19) and her belief in the coming of the Messiah (4:25, 29)  are to be understood against known Samaritan expectations. There are some interesting analogues to the expectation of a figure revealing all things (4:25: ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν ἅπαντα) in Samaritan traditions about the Taheb (“the Returning One”), who is regarded in the Tibat Marqe as the eschatological prophet of Deut. 18:15-19. The

22.  E.g., Franz Schnider, Jesus der Prophet, OBO 2 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1973), 194–96. Cf. Theobald, Johannes, 319, with reference to Pseudo-Philo, On Jonah 6: Jonah’s disclosure of the wicked deeds of the Ninevites prompts them to acknowledge him as a prophet who can predict the future. 23.  Marion Moser, Schriftdiskurse im Johannesevangelium:  Eine narrativ-intertextuelle Analyse am Paradigma von Joh 4 und Joh 7, WUNT II/380 (Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 95. 24. E. C. Colwell, “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” JBL 52 (1933): 12–21. 25. This is favored by Menken, “Dispute,” 452, n. 23, based of several examples (e.g., Mk 15:3; Mt. 13:37-39; 23:8-10), including some in John (1:49; 9:5; 19:21). 26.  See, e.g., Raymond E.  Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xii), AB 29 (New York: Doubleday, 1966), 171; and Meeks, Prophet-King, 216–57.

Jesus the Prophet

97

difficulty is that much of the relevant material stems from as late as the eleventh to the fourteenth century CE.27 And although Taheb traditions may attest the later development of an expectation attributed much earlier to the prophet like Moses, tracing expectations of the prophet (Jn 4:19) and the one who reveals all things (4:25) to actual first-century Samaritan beliefs faces many obstacles. As a result, the likely force of the woman’s identification of Jesus as “prophet” should rather be articulated with reference to the flow of the Johannine narrative itself. Regarding the sequence of the dialogue, it is clear that she recognizes Jesus as a Jewish prophet: there is nothing up until now to contradict her earlier estimation of Jesus (4:9:  σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὤν) and this is perpetuated by the representative “us/ you” contrast between Samaritans and Jews (4:20, 21-22). In addition, the woman’s attribution of the term προφήτης to Jesus marks a notable point of transition leading to further recognition on her part. As well as forming a response (4:19: εἶ σύ) to Jesus’ invitation for her to ascertain his identity (4:10: τίς ἐστιν), it prepares the ground for the next stage, whereby she raises the issue of messianic expectations (4:25) and then ponders whether Jesus could be the Messiah on the basis of his prophetic knowledge of her life situation (4:29, 39). This becomes the content of her testimony to fellow Samaritans. In this respect the pattern established in John 4 (προφήτης > Μεσσίας) bears resemblance to the testimony of the healed blind man in John 9.28 He first recognizes Jesus as “prophet” because he miraculously opened his eyes (9:17: προφήτης ἐστίν, again without the definite article), before expressing belief in him as “the Son of Man” (9:38). As to what belief in Jesus as προφήτης entails in 9:17, it is necessary to pose similar questions to those about the Samaritan woman’s declaration. The man’s initial assessment of Jesus clearly stands at odds with that of his Jewish interlocutors; they state that he is not “from God” (9:16) because he does not keep the Sabbath, even though others reject this verdict on the basis of his signs (σημεῖα). This could suggest that at this juncture (9:15-17) the exchange centers on whether Jesus belongs to the (scriptural) category of a true or false prophet,29 with the latter described in Deut. 18:20-22 as pretending to speak in God’s name, and in Deut. 13:1-11 as leading people astray by promising a sign or wonder (13:2 LXX:  σημεῖον ἢ τέρας). Could it follow that the healed man is announcing his belief in Jesus as the expected prophet like Moses, who is predicted in the same Deuteronomic context?30 27.  Cf. Ze’ev Ben-Hayyim, Tibat Marqe:  A Collection of Samaritan Midrashim (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1988), v. 28. See de Jonge, “Jesus as Prophet,” 161. 29.  Cf. Meeks, Prophet-King, 294–95, who regards this motif as the central theme of John 9. 30.  Cf. Schnider, Jesus, 204–6; Menken, “Dispute,” 454–56. According to D.  Moody Smith (John, ANTC [Nashville: Abingdon, 1999], 194), the term “prophet” in Jn 9:17 evokes the prophet like Moses because of the comparison (albeit hostile) between Jesus and Moses in 9:28. Michael Labahn (Jesus als Lebensspender:  Untersuchungen zu einer Geschichte der johanneischen Tradition anhand ihrer Wundergeschichten, BZNW 98 [Berlin:  de

98

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

Deut. 18:15-19 makes no reference to signs in connection with the prophet like Moses, although this could be inferred if the passage is read in conjunction with the final words of Deuteronomy, where Moses is hailed as Israel’s greatest prophet because of his many signs and wonders (34:10-12).31 It cannot be denied, however, that a much stronger case can be made for Jn 6:14 as linking Jesus as the prophet to the Mosaic prophet on the basis of signs (as will be demonstrated below). The lack of a definite article in 9:17, in contrast to 6:14, may suggest “a prophet” rather than “the prophet,” but there is also no known tradition in the Hebrew Bible or later Jewish sources about the prophet like Moses performing a healing miracle. Such powers are associated with prophets more broadly defined, including Elisha’s washing/healing of Naaman (2 Kgs 5:1-28, especially 5:10:  πορευθεὶς λοῦσαι; cf. Jn 9:7:  ὕπαγε νίψαι),32 and the more popular traditions attested in the Vitae Prophetarum.33 All in all, the evidence (internal and external) suggests that the healed blind man does not necessarily identify Jesus as the prophet like Moses because he has cured his blindness.34 Rather, his recognition of Jesus’ prophetic credentials, as in the case of the Samaritan woman, represents “a first faltering step on the way to full spiritual sight.”35 It may be significant that the anarthrous form of προφήτης is attributed to those displaying an embryonic form of belief and that John allows some ambiguity as to what it means to acclaim Jesus as (a/the) prophet.

3. “A Prophet is without honor . . .”: Explanation At first sight the explanatory statement in Jn 4:44, “Jesus himself had testified that a prophet is without honor in his own country,” promises to yield some important insights into the Johannine portrait of Jesus as prophet. This is the only occurrence of προφήτης whereby Jesus, albeit through the narrator’s comment, is said to attribute the designation to himself; the saying also has clear Synoptic parallels in which προφήτης is invariably used in its indeterminate form, with

Gruyter, 1999], 351–52, reads 9:17 in the light of 9:22, that is, as a confession of Jesus as Prophetenmessias. 31. The connection between Moses and miraculous signs is well attested: e.g., Exod. 4:19; 7:1–7; Sir. 45:3; Wis. 10:15–16; Jub. 48:4; Exag. 226; Philo, Mos. 1.210; Acts 7:36. 32.  Karakolis, “Prophet,” 133–34. Zumstein, Jean, 322 n. 50, highlights the function of Elisha’s healing as affirming his prophetic credentials (2 Kgs 5:8 LXX:  καὶ γνώτω ὅτι ἔστιν προφήτης ἐν Ισραήλ). 33. Theobald, Johannes, 643. Cf. Aune, Prophecy, 124. 34.  One need not draw the conclusion that, because it is otherwise unattested, the connection between this healing sign and “the (Mosaic) prophet” could be “a Johannine construction” (Menken, “Scriptural Dispute,” 455; cf. Martyn, History, 110 n. 172). 35.  Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel According to St John, BNTC (London: Continuum, 2005), 283.

Jesus the Prophet

99

no implied allusion to the eschatological prophet (Mk 6:4; Mt. 13:57; Lk. 4:24). Scholarly attention is given primarily to identifying the home territory of Jesus, although it is increasingly agreed that the πατρίς in question must be Galilee.36 The explanation (γάρ) about a prophet lacking honor in his own country is not retrospective but anticipatory,37 pointing to the less than adequate reception that Jesus actually receives from the Galileans: they may welcome him, but it is a signsbased faith (Jn 4:45) which is then criticized by Jesus (4:48; cf. 2:23-25). His origins as a Galilean prophet (cf. 1:45-46; 7:41-44, 52) is therefore not at odds with the comment in 4:44; and yet, though presented as part of Jesus’ self-testimony (4:44: ἐμαρτύρησεν),38 no elaboration is offered here—as rarely observed in scholarship— as to what is signified by the reference to Jesus’ prophetic identity.

4. “This is truly the Prophet”: Acclamation It has so far been established that John attributes the indeterminate/anarthrous use of προφήτης to individuals as part of their journey of faith (4:19; 9:17) and, implicitly, to Jesus as part of his testimony (4:44). In contrast, both examples of its unequivocally definite application (“the prophet”) as the content of acclamation are ascribed not to individuals but to crowds (6:14; 7:40; see further later on 7:52). On the occasion of the multiplication of loaves, the Galileans who witnessed the sign declare: “This is truly the prophet who is to come into the world” (6:14: οὗτός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ὁ προφήτης ὁ ἐρχόμενος εἰς τὸν κόσμον). The use of the definite article with προφήτης suggests, as in 1:21 and 25, the expectation of the eschatological prophet. That the figure in question is the prophet like Moses39 is suggested not so much by possible evocations of Deut. 18:15-19, with which there are no specific verbal links in the immediate context in John 6,40 but because the crowd’s confession 36. See recent discussion in Tom Thatcher, “The Rejected Prophet and the Royal Official (John 4,43-45):  A Case Study in the Relationship between John and the Synoptics,” in Studies in the Gospel of John and its Christology. Festschrift Gilbert Van Belle, ed. Joseph Verheyden, et al. BETL 265 (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 125–26. Among those who favor Judea, even if theologically understood (cf. 1.11), are Meeks, Prophet-King, 39–40; Smith, John, 122. In the present volume see Chris Keith, “Jesus the Galilean in the Gospel of John: The Significance of Earthly Origins in the Fourth Gospel.” Jesus does, of course, travel to Galilee from Samaria rather than Judea. 37.  See Gilbert Van Belle, “The Faith of the Galileans: The Parenthesis in Jn 4,44,” ETL 74 (1998): 27–44, esp. 36–39. 38. Thatcher (“Rejected Prophet,” 129 n. 28) notes other examples where Jesus uses the verb μαρτυρέω to refer to his own identity and mission (Jn 5:31-32, 36-37; 8:14, 18; 10:25; 18:37). 39. E.g., Boismard, Moses, 4–10; Smith, John, 149; Cho, Prophet, 215. 40. While the crowd acclaims Jesus as the prophet who “comes” (ὁ ἐρχόμενος) into the world, Deut. 18:15 LXX refers to God “raising up” (ἀναστήσει) a prophet like Moses (cf. 18:18; 34:10: ἀνέστη). Given that Elijah’s return is, in contrast, described in terms of coming

100

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

is overtly described as their response to Jesus having performed the feeding “sign” (6:14: ὃ ἐποίησεν σημεῖον). Attention has already been paid earlier in this chapter to widespread belief in Moses as the performer of signs and wonders41; one may now add the intertextual play on the miraculous provision of manna (6:3, 12-13; cf. Exod. 16:11-36),42 and the crowd’s subsequent request for an authenticating sign like Moses (Jn 6:30-31; cf. Ps. 78:24; Exod. 16:4, 15). The people may be seeking to establish a close link between Jesus and Moses, but what is significant—for John’s understanding of possible Moses-Jesus analogies, including those based on their prophetic credentials—is that Jesus corrects the crowd’s interpretation: “Very truly, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven” (Jn 6:32). If God is the giver of bread in the past and the present, this leaves Moses to fulfil no more than the role of a mediator (cf. 1:17; 3:14; 5:45-47). But as “the true bread from heaven,” the one who gives life to the world (6:33), Jesus is presented as superior to the one who could provide no more than physical sustenance in the wilderness. Jn 6:15 also demonstrates, in a different way, how the Jesus-prophet correlation on the crowd’s part is met by contrast and correction. Jesus’ response to their acclamation of him as the prophet is to withdraw because he realizes that they wish to take him by force and make him king (ἵνα ποιήσωσιν βασιλέα). He reacts to an acclamation that is clearly shown to be misplaced, although the Johannine transition from ὁ προφήτης to βασιλεύς in 6:14-15 is not without its interpretative difficulties. Some scholars regard the shift as seamless by appealing to Jewish (and Samaritan) expectations of a prophet-king,43 even though much of the cited evidence is considerably later than the first century CE. Admittedly, some level of christological correlation between “prophet” and “king” cannot be denied, in that both titles/designations contribute “to the Johannine vision of Jesus.”44 Nevertheless, it is not the Johannine appropriation of Jesus as “prophet” and “king” that is being projected in 6:14-15 but that of the crowd, at least as they are said to be perceived

(Mal. 3:1: ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται), Martyn (“Elijah,” 27 n. 45) raises the possibility that in Jn 6:4 Elijahlike traits have been transferred to the Mosaic prophet. On links between the Johannine feeding narrative and depictions of Elijah, see section 5a later. 41. See section 2 earlier, especially n. 34. 42. Zumstein, Jean, 213. 43. Especially Meeks, Prophet-King, 90–93, 99; see further Peder Borgen, “Observations on God’s Agent and Agency in John 5–9: Tradition, Exposition, and Glimpses into History,” in John, Jesus, and History, Volume 3: Glimpses of Jesus through the Johannine Lens, ed. Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just, and Tom Thatcher (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 423–38, esp. 431, based on Philo’s depiction of Moses as a paradigmatic king who cares for his people (e.g., Mos. 1.148-59; Decal. 40–43). 44. As noted by Gilbert Van Belle, “The Signs of the Messiah in the Fourth Gospel: The Problem of a ‘Wonder-Working Messiah,’ ” in The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition:  Essays in Honor of Maarten J.  J. Menken, ed. Bart J.  Koet, Steve Moyise, and Joseph Verheyden, NovTSup 148 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 159–78, esp. 169.

Jesus the Prophet

101

by Jesus. The blurring of the two constructs does not, moreover, accord with the distinction between prophetic and messianic expectations articulated, according to John, by the Jewish religious authorities and the crowds (1:20-25; 7:40-41).45 It may not be far off the mark, therefore, to propose that Jesus, upon hearing the crowd confess him as ὁ προφήτης, is said to recognize that they also, in addition, wish to make him king.46 If so, John does not so much reject their acclamation of Jesus as the eschatological prophet (6:14),47 but opposes the deduction that is made on the basis of that acclamation (6:15). Also instructive for interpreting Jn 6:14-15 are Josephus’s reports about a series of first-century popular prophetic figures,48 who attracted a large following and offered assurance that they would bring about deliverance by (re)enacting events linked to the exodus and/or conquest. Theudas, for example, is described as claiming to be a προφήτης and leading the crowds to the Jordan river, which, by his command, would miraculously part to allow them to cross to the other side (Ant. 20.97-98; cf. Acts 5:36); he presents himself as God’s chosen agent—a new Moses—securing liberation from Roman oppression. Several prophetic figures are said to lead their followers into the desert, especially so “the Egyptian” who takes a crowd to the Mount of Olives and promises to cause the walls of Jerusalem to fall down (Ant. 20.168–70; cf. J. W. 2.261–63). Other popular prophets are also described as promising to carry out miraculous signs; a group of unnamed figures reportedly claimed to be able to perform τέρατα καὶ σημεῖα in anticipation of divine deliverance (Ant. 20.168) and, in a parallel report, that God would give “signs of deliverance” (σημεῖα ἐλευθερίας) in the desert (J. W. 2.259). The crowds in Jn 6:14-15 may similarly be viewed as reflecting popular expectations of divine intervention through a prophet modelling himself on Moses. Josephus, in a similar vein to John, does not confuse prophetic figures with messianic claimants to kingship.49 Those who claim to be prophets are certainly

45.  Martyn, History, 108–10, suggests that one can detect here an “easy modulation” from Jesus as Mosaic prophet (Jn 6:14) to Jesus as “Mosaic Prophet-Messiah” (6:15). Ashton, Christian Origins, 10 n. 4, rightly responds that the latter category is largely Martyn’s “own invention.” 46. See Smith, John, 149. 47. Pace Wolfgang J. Bittner, Jesu Zeichen im Johannesevangelium: Die Messias-Erkenntnis im Johannesevangelium vor ihrem jüdischen Hintergrund, WUNT II/26 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 72–74, 230, 266. 48.  Glasson, Moses, 31; also, more recently, Horsley and Thatcher, John, 150, 154; Marianne Meye Thompson, John: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2015), 141–42. For a detailed assessment of the significance of the popular prophetic movements as depicted by Josephus, see Bauckham, “Messianism,” 42–53. 49.  E.g., Judas the son of Hezekiah (Ant. 17.271-72); Menahem the son of Judas (J. W. 2.434–44).

102

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

depicted by Josephus as leaders of sizeable movements,50 while the reference to βασιλεύς in John 6:15 does not necessarily possess messianic connotations in its strictest sense. What is of particular import is that Josephus’s reports suggest a much greater variety in first-century Jewish eschatological expectations than is often acknowledged, even in speculations about the Mosaic prophet. This is not to deny that figures like Theudas may have regarded themselves as fulfilling the divine promise of Deut. 18:15-19, but their Mosaic-like features and activities are not drawn solely from that passage (even if interpreted together with Deut. 34:1012). Besides, if the expectation(s) in John 6:14-15 reflect more popular beliefs, it may go some way toward explaining the paucity of Jewish literary references to the eschatological prophet like Moses.51 John’s second case of Jesus being acclaimed by crowds as the prophet (7:40: οὗτός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ὁ προφήτης) occurs in a scene marked by division concerning Jesus’ identity (7:43), since others claim that he is the Messiah (7:41:  οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός). The parallel structure of the two statements heightens their presentation as two different types of eschatological expectation (cf. 1:21, 25). The issue of Jesus’ prophetic identity may, in fact, have been bubbling under the surface since the early stages of John 7, that is, as part of John’s attempt to defend Jesus against the accusation that he is a false prophet leading the people astray (7:12-13; cf. Deut. 13:2-6).52 Jesus responds by stating that his teaching is not his own (ἀπ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ) but belongs to the one who sent him (Jn 7:16-17), thus echoing God’s promise that his words will be placed in the mouth of his true prophet and that he “shall speak to them everything that I command” (Deut. 18:18). If the earlier discussion in John 7 is underpinned by (Deuteronomic) traditions about the false prophet and the true prophet (like Moses), the title ὁ προφήτης does not feature explicitly until the acclamation of the Jewish crowds (7:40). The immediate impetus for this prophetic identification is not debates about true/false prophets, nor the seeing of Jesus’ signs (6:14), but the hearing of Jesus’ words. What links this scene to the previous confession of Jesus as the prophet in John 6 is that his promise of life-giving water (7:37-38), like the gift of living bread (6:1-13), evokes the divine gifts mediated in the past through Moses: in this case, it recalls the water issuing from the rock in the wilderness (Exod. 17:1-7). Certain voices in

50.  Bauckham, “Messianism,” 50–51, notes that the intention of the Egyptian was to rule the people (τοῦ δήμου τυραννεῖν) after entering Jerusalem (J. W. 2.262); the same vocabulary is used by those who rebel against Moses to describe his leadership (Ant. 4.16, 22, 146, 149). 51. Theobald, Johannes, 158. 52.  See especially Meeks, Prophet-King, 55–61; A. E. Harvey, Jesus on Trial: A Study in the Fourth Gospel (London: SPCK, 1976), 84–87. In Jn 7:12 (and 7:47) the verb for “leading astray” is πλανάω, which is used of the false prophet in Deut. 13:6 LXX. For a robust attempt to argue that traditions about true and false prophets (also) provide the key to Jn 5:30-47, see Justin D. Atkins, “The Trial of the People and the Prophet: John 5:30–47 and the True and False Prophet Traditions,” CBQ 75 (2013): 279–96.

Jesus the Prophet

103

the crowd hail Jesus as the Mosaic eschatological prophet, but without recognizing that he has already presented himself as the one from whom life-giving water will flow (Jn 7:38; cf. 19:34).53 Later on, as the focus shifts from the crowd’s estimation of Jesus to that of the Jewish religious authorities, the latter respond to an intervention by Nicodemus by challenging Jesus’ prophetic status based on criteria set out in the Jewish Scriptures: “search and you will see that a/the prophet is not to arise from Galilee” (7:52). They reject Jesus as (the) prophet on the basis of his Galilean origins. There is, however, a text-critical issue regarding the prophetic figure in question; the definite article is only included in ो66, even though this is favored as the original reading by a surprisingly large number of commentators.54 The indeterminate form (“a prophet”) does not rule out the possibility that the eschatological (Mosaic) prophet is included in the scholarly instruction given by the Pharisees (“a prophet is not to arise from Galilee”).55 The advantage of the determinate form (ὁ προφήτης) is that it resolves the potential difficulty that some biblical prophets did in fact come from Galilee, such as Jonah the son of Amittai (2 Kgs 14:25) and possibly Nahum (1:1). Since the place of origin of the prophet (like Moses) is nowhere mentioned in the Jewish Scriptures, this could be taken as an indication that Galilean descent can be ruled out in his case as well (“the prophet is not to arise from Galilee”). It is, nevertheless, difficult—on text-critical and exegetical grounds—to draw firm conclusions as to whether the Pharisees are depicted in Jn 7:52 as rejecting the estimation of Jesus as the eschatological prophet par excellence or, more broadly, as one who displays the recognized credentials of a prophet.

5. Echoes and hues of prophet(s) in the Gospel of John The evidence surveyed so far points to cases in John’s Gospel where unambiguous references to Jesus as (ὁ) προφήτης serve as expressions of a more deeply embedded understanding, either in the immediate (4:19; 6:14; 9:17) or wider (7:40, 52) context, of the characteristics associated with a/the prophet. To determine the possible scope and contours of these more allusive prophetic features, as well as the Jewish traditions to which John may be appealing, the material in question will be examined according to two categories: allusions to miracles linked to Elijah and Elisha (and Moses) in Jesus’ signs, and possible traces of the Deuteronomic description of the prophet like Moses in Jesus’ words and in the narrator’s comments.

53. Menken, “Dispute,” 453. Cf. Koester, Word of Life, 91. 54. E.g., Brown, John, 1.352; Boismard, Moses, 7–8; Zumstein, Jean, 274–75. 55.  Bauckham, “Messianism,” 53. C.  K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St John:  An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd ed. (London: SPCK, 1978), 333, proposes that the reading with the definite article is a later attempt at assimilation between 7:52 and 7:40.

104

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

a. Jesus’ signs and the miracles of prophets As indicated earlier in this chapter,56 a good case can be made for detecting markers of the prophetic, principally the Mosaic-prophetic, identity of Jesus in John’s use of the term “sign” (σημεῖον) to denote his miraculous acts. Evocations of miracles attributed to, or mediated by, prophetic figures from Israel’s ancient past—whether remembered or anticipated—are not limited to Moses (Jn 6:115; cf. Exod. 16) or the prophet like Moses (Deut. 34:10-12), as became evident already in the discussion on Jn 9:17. Several of the Johannine signs, including the multiplication of loaves, contain features that bear striking likeness in particular to scriptural accounts of the miraculous deeds of Elijah and/or Elisha.57 Already in John’s account of the miracle at Cana, there are likely echoes of the abundant provision of meal and oil secured by Elijah in Zarephath (1 Kgs 17:816) and the plentiful supply of oil by Elisha (2 Kgs 4:1-7). It may even be possible to pin down the connection with Elijah to a verbal parallel, since Jesus’ words to his mother, “What concern is that to you and me?” (Jn 2:4:  τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί), are identical to those addressed by the widow in Zarephath to Elijah in the scene that follows (1 Kgs 17:18 LXX: τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί).58 Especially noteworthy in this respect is the fact that the widow’s words occur immediately before Elijah restores her son to life (1 Kgs 17:17-24), a miraculous deed which is also echoed in John’s account of the healing of the royal official’s son (Jn 4:46-54) to conclude the “Cana-to-Cana” cycle. Additional verbal connections can be identified, in that Jesus’ repeated words to the official before his faith-inducing sign, “Your son lives” (4:50, 53:  ὁ υἱός σου ζῇ), closely resemble those of Elijah to the widow (I Kgs 17:23 LXX:  ζῇ ὁ υἱός σου).59 Yet once again, as in the first Cana miracle, there are possible links, albeit more distant, with Elisha’s miraculous act of restoring a son to life following the request of the Shunammite woman (2 Kgs 4:18-37). Even if the primary scriptural-prophetic motif in John’s feeding narrative is drawn from the “signs and wonders” of Moses, links can also be detected with the description of Elisha’s miraculous provision of bread (2 Kgs 4:42-44). The similarities, once again, extend to details as well as broad themes: in both cases the bread is made of barley (Jn 6:9, 13: ἄρτους κριθίνους; cf. 2 Kgs 4:42 LXX: ἄρτους κριθίνους), whereas both Andrew (Jn 6:9) and Elisha’s attendant (2 Kgs 4:43) question whether the available quantity of bread is sufficient to feed such large crowds.60 There may be a further verbal link between both accounts in their use of the term παιδάριον,61 although in John it denotes the owner of the five loaves from which the sign is performed (6:9) and, in 2 Kings, is used to describe Elisha’s 56. See sections 2 and 4 earlier with regard to Jn 9:17 and 6:14 respectively. 57. See Martyn, “Elijah,” 21–28; Cho, Prophet, 98–111; Karakolis, “Prophet,” 130–35. 58. Although the same phrase is, admittedly, attested elsewhere (Judg. 11:12; 2 Kgs 3:13; 2 Chron. 35:21 LXX). 59. Cf. Lincoln, John, 187–88; Thompson, John, 114. 60. See especially Karakolis, “Prophet,” 132. 61. See Lincoln, John, 212.

Jesus the Prophet

105

servant (4:41 LXX). Both narratives also share an emphasis on the overabundance of food that is miraculously produced for the people’s benefit (Jn 6:12-13; 2 Kgs 4:43-44). These three Johannine signs principally attest the Elijah/Elisha-like characteristics attributed to Jesus, although the significance to be ascribed to these parallels is not easily determined. John clearly avoids making an obvious connection between Jesus and Elijah, despite the expectation in the Gospel’s opening narrative scene (Jn 1:21-25) that this identification would at some point be established. Allusions to the prophetic miracles of Elijah and Elisha may indicate a christological strand that was present and important in a pre-Johannine source, remnants of which have survived in the Gospel in its present form.62 The fact that Jesus is not explicitly identified as Elijah, while some of his signs are shaped with a view to miracles centered on earthly provision and physical healing as ascribed to Elijah (and Elisha), is part and parcel of the way in which John negotiates the portrait of Jesus as prophet. Affinities between the miracles of past prophets and the Johannine presentation of Jesus’ signs are often striking, but there is also a consistent emphasis on the limitations of such comparisons, in that Jesus’ miraculous deeds are invariably greater in terms of “quantity, quality, and immediacy.”63 Jesus’ miracles may place him in continuity with past prophets, but his identity—as one who offers and embodies God’s gift of life through his signs— is not exhausted by recognized prophetic categories. b. Jesus and “the Prophet like Moses” Despite the lack of clear allusions to the prophet like Moses of Deut. 18:15-19 in the immediate context of John’s references to Jesus as (ὁ) προφήτης, and indeed the general lack of direct quotations from this Deuteronomic passage in the Gospel narrative, an attempt can be made to determine whether other elements— more deeply hidden—suggest the influence of Deut. 18:15-19 on John’s portrait of Jesus as prophet. It should be noted from the outset that a key theme in Johannine Christology—its repeated emphasis on the “sentness” of Jesus as God’s agent and emissary (with πέμπω and ἀποστέλλω)—may be a prominent motif in connection with the commissioning of prophets (Exod. 3:12; Num. 16:28; Isa. 6:9; Jer. 1:7),64 62.  Theobald, Johannes, 40, suggests that the miracles of the three prophetic figures— Moses, Elijah, and Elisha—were present in John’s Semeia-Quelle; cf. also Martyn, “Elijah,” 29–54. 63.  Karakolis, “Prophet,” 131; he notes (131–33) that the miracles of Elijah and Elisha take longer to have an effect (I Kgs 17:1; 18:1; cf. Jn 2:7-8), produce much smaller quantities (2 Kgs 4:43-44; cf. Jn 2:6; 6:10, 13) and are enjoyed by smaller numbers of people (2 Kgs 4:44; cf. Jn 6:10). 64.  See Jan-Adolf Bühner, Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4.  Evangelium:  Die kulturund religionsgeschichtlichen Grundlagen der johanneischen Sendungschristologie sowie ihre traditionsgeschichtliche Entwicklung, WUNT II/2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1977), 103–12, 275–80; cf. Meeks, Prophet-King, 301–3.

106

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

but it is not derived directly from Deut. 18:15-22 where no verbs of “sending” are used to describe the promised true prophet. This is often overlooked by scholars.65 Furthermore, John’s “sending” verbs (πέμπω and ἀποστέλλω) are nowhere linked directly to Jesus as προφήτης (Jn 4:19, 44; 6:14; 7:40, 52; 9:17; cf. 1:21, 25). A stronger case for direct links with Deut. 18:15-19 can be made with regard to John’s presentation of Jesus as the one who speaks and acts as God’s authorized representative. In the same way as God promises to place his words in the mouth of the prophet like Moses and that he will speak (λαλήσει) what God has commanded him (18:18-19), Jesus does not speak his own words but those he has received from the Father (Jn 3:34; 7:16-17;66 8:28; 14:10, 24; 17:8, 14; cf. 5:30). The clearest evocations of Deuteronomy 18 are to be found in John’s epilogue summary of Jesus’ public ministry and his identity as God’s emissary (Jn 12:48-50), a passage which shares key themes and distinctive vocabulary with Deut. 18:18-19 LXX. While God will call to account those who do not listen to the word (τὸ ῥῆμα) that he has commanded (ἐντείλωμαι) the prophet like Moses to speak in his name (ἐὰν λαλήσῃ ὁ προφήτης ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου), Jesus’ word will judge those who do not accept the words (τὰ ῥήματα) that God has commanded him to speak (ἐντολὴν δέδωκεν . . . τί λαλήσω).67 The first half of the Gospel therefore ends with reflections that for readers/hearers immersed in the Jewish Scriptures would serve as an unmistakable indicator that Jesus fulfils the Deuteronomic criteria for the prophet like Moses. Given, moreover, that the ultimate test of the authenticity of the prophet like Moses is that the word he speaks in God’s name actually takes place (Deut. 18:22 LXX:  γένηται τὸ ῥῆμα), Jesus fulfils yet another criterion by demonstrating at various points in the Gospel that his predictions come true (e.g., Jn 2:19, 21-22; 3:14; 4:21; 11:4, 23; 13:19; 14:29). This forms part of Jesus’ wider profile as one who possesses special knowledge (cf. 1:47-48; 2:24-25; 5:6), which, as we have seen, is linked specifically to his prophetic status on at least one occasion (4:18-19).68 This ability cannot, however, be restricted to a category of identity that simply aligns him with other prophets, even the prophet like Moses. As is the case with John’s presentation of the signs, Jesus’ predictive power ultimately relates to his divine origin and identity (cf. 13:19:  ἵνα πιστεύσητε ὅταν γένηται ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι),69 as the one who embodies God’s self-revelation.

65.  E.g., Lierman, “Mosaic Pattern,” 211; Anderson, “The Having-Sent-Me Father,” 35: “the Jewish sending motif [is] rooted in Deut 18:15–22.” 66. As part of a wider debate on true and false prophecy, probably linked to Deut 13 and 18; see section 4 earlier (on Jn 7:40). 67. Thus Boismard, Moses, 10–14 notes the “imitative style” of Jn 12:48-50 with reference to Deut. 18:18-19. Cf. Harvey, Trial, 86–87; Cho, Prophet, 137–38. 68.  See in particular Adele Reinhartz, “Jesus as Prophet:  Predictive Prolepses in the Fourth Gospel,” JSNT 36 (1989): 3–16. 69. As recognized by Reinhartz, “Jesus as Prophet,” 10–12.

Jesus the Prophet

107

6. Conclusion Whether one focuses on the explicit attribution of the designation (ὁ) προφήτης to Jesus, or extends the enquiry to include more veiled references to Jesus’ prophetic status, the central facets of John’s portrait of Jesus as prophet are mostly the same. The presentation of Jesus’ prophetic credentials clearly belongs to “a stream of Jewish tradition that flowed into John’s christology,”70 but it is invariably used to demonstrate that the Johannine Jesus cannot be contained within that flow. John records, and probably retains, the (earlier) view that Jesus’ significance includes his identity as prophet, but like the other canonical Gospels (cf. Mt. 11:9; Lk. 7:26) consistently depicts Jesus as much more than a prophet, even the prophet like Moses. The recognition, acclamation, and explanation of Jesus as (ὁ) προφήτης largely remain undeveloped (4:44; 7:40, 52) and in one case corrected (6:14–15) within individual scenes, or they serve as a springboard to other, more characteristically Johannine, christological beliefs (4:19; 9:17). John certainly does not reject the identification of Jesus as a/the prophet, but it is often left hanging in the air and never represents the final word in Jesus’ self-description. John’s explicit references to Jesus as προφήτης create a rather sketchy image lacking in definition. This is not to deny that a variety of additional prophetic hues come to light when more allusive elements are recognized in the narrative. That Jesus fulfils expectations of the eschatological prophet is established through his identification as ὁ προφήτης, but this image is enhanced and sharpened with the aid of a rich deposit of prophetic traditions that become aligned in the Johannine text to the scriptural promise of a prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:15-19). This produces a more complex set of prophetic images, but it is not a stand-alone portrait. It needs to be viewed simultaneously with more profound Johannine images of Jesus as the unique Son who speaks and acts God’s words, not through his prophetic commissioning but because, for John, he is the living embodiment of God’s Word.

70. Ashton, Christian Origins, 135.

Chapter 8 J E SU S T H E M E S SIA H :   C O N SE RVAT I SM A N D R A D IC A L I SM I N J O HA N N I N E C H R I ST O L O G Y Matthew V. Novenson

The peculiar problems surrounding messiah Christology in the Gospel of John are well known. On the one hand, John preserves more and more varied indigenous Judean, Galilean, and even Samaritan messiah traditions than any other Gospel. On the other hand, however, the author’s (or redactor’s, or redactors’) own Christology has seemed to many to be a world away from these messiah traditions, so that Rudolf Bultmann, for instance, could say, not without justification, “In John one feels that one has been transported into the world of C[orpus] Herm[eticum] 13 and the Λόγος τέλειος [Logos Teleios, ‘Perfect Discourse’].”1 If John wants to make the point that Jesus is μονογενὴς θεός, “the one and only god” (1:18), then Jesus’ being the Jewish messiah might seem rather beside the point. My task in this chapter is to canvas the evidence and to try to understand this perplexing state of affairs. I will examine each of the key messiah Christology passages in the Fourth Gospel in order, from prologue to epilogue, arguing that, although John does make some quite brazen christological moves, he also demonstrates a conspicuous interest in preserving and curating many archaic messiah traditions. There is, in other words, a striking aspect of conservatism to John’s theological radicalism.

1. Dramatis personae (John 1) In contrast to the concluding, summary purpose statement of Jn 20:31 (“These things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the messiah son of God”), the

1.  Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 132. On this issue, see further Paul N. Anderson, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel Its Unity and Disunity in the Light of John 6, WUNT II/78 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 1–47; Troels EngbergPedersen, John and Philosophy:  A New Reading of the Fourth Gospel (New  York:  Oxford University Press, 2017).

110

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

prologue to the Gospel does almost entirely without the language of messiahship.2 Jesus is the eternal divine logos who made the world (1:1-3) and, latterly, entered into the world (1:9, 11, 14) in order to reveal the deity to human beings (1:12-13, 18). This is a fascinating cosmology,3 but it does not correspond neatly to any of the diverse strands of Jewish messiah tradition which we know from the sources and which John himself introduces in short order.4 John first identifies Jesus as χριστός, “messiah,” in 1:17, where he also introduces a crucial contrasting parallel with Moses: “The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus χριστός.”5 On the heels of this prologue we get a discussion of the identity of the χριστός, though in connection with John the Baptizer, not Jesus.6 Priests and Levites from Jerusalem come out to Bethany to inquire of John who he is (1:19). He responds at first not with an affirmation but with a denial: ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ὁ χριστός, “I am not the messiah” (1:20, and repeated in 3:28). But this is not a proper answer, so the priests and Levites press him, suggesting two other possibilities: Are you Elijah? And are you the prophet? To both of which leading questions John answers no. Rather, he says, he is “the voice of the one crying in the wilderness” of DeuteroIsaiah (Isa. 40:3). So, three titles of eschatological office are proffered: the messiah, the prophet, and Elijah.7 Elijah is not mentioned again in the Gospel after 1:25.8 (Perhaps Elijah is only mentioned here so that the author can have John deny the role, in contradistinction to the Synoptics, where John is Elijah [Mk 9:1113; Mt. 11:14; 17:10-12; Lk. 1:17].) The other two titles, however, ὁ χριστός and

2.  See Morna D. Hooker, “The Johannine Prologue and the Messianic Secret,” NTS 21 (1974): 40–58. 3.  See Harold W.  Attridge, “Philo and John:  Two Riffs on One Logos,” SPhiloA 17 (2005): 103–17. 4. Ancient Jewish messianism is fundamentally a political discourse; hence cosmological speculation is not an essential element of it and in fact intersects with it only occasionally and variously in the sources. 5. Later in the Gospel, Jesus’ Judean opponents paint him as a rival to Moses (Jn 9:28-29; cf. 8:5), but our author enlists Moses as a prophetic witness to Jesus (1:17, 45; 3:14; 5:45-46; 6:32; 7:19, 22-23). 6.  On which see Walter Wink, John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition, SNTSMS 7 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 87–106. 7. “Messiah” is the most multivalent of the three; see at length below. “The prophet” here probably presupposes an eschatological interpretation of Deut. 18:18, on which see further later. The myth of Elijah redux has roots in the tale of Elijah’s apotheosis in 2 Kgs 2:11 and becomes a prophetic topos in Mal 4:5 = MT Mal 3:23 = OG Mal 3:22. 8.  Of course, Jesus himself bears more than a passing resemblance to Elijah:  both charismatic, wonder-working prophets from the north (Nazareth and Tishbe, respectively). But in the Fourth Gospel, again differently from the Synoptics, this resemblance is never actually suggested (cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28; Mt. 16:14; Lk. 4:25-26; 9:8, 19).

Jesus the Messiah

111

ὁ προφήτης, will recur throughout the Gospel in connection with the identity of Jesus. The balance of John 1 comprises a series of scenes of people’s first encounters with Jesus. When the Baptizer lays eyes on Jesus, he acclaims him as ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, “lamb of God” (1:29, 36), and υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, “son of God” (1:34). John’s disciple Andrew, hearing this, promptly tells his brother Simon, εὑρήκαμεν τὸν μεσσίαν, “We have found the messiah,” wh ich, the narrator adds, is translated χριστός, “anointed one” (1:41). This is an interesting narrative development because the Baptizer had not said “messiah.” He says “lamb of God” and “son of God,” and Andrew takes this to mean “messiah.” To gloss “son of God” with “messiah” makes a certain sense (cf. Jn 11:27; 20:31),9 but the lamb of God– messiah connection is unusual.10 What is more, Andrew’s report to Simon in 1:41 is the earliest attestation of the Greek word μεσσίας, a transliteration of the Hebrew or Aramaic ‫משיח‬.11 In Greek-language Jewish sources, almost without exception, we find χριστός for ‫משיח‬, this equivalency having been adopted early and consistently by the LXX and OG translators. (Aquila, however, apparently used ἠλειμμένος— from ἀλείφω— for ‫ משיח‬in his second- century translation of the scriptures, thereby reclaiming all of the “Christ” oracles from the Christians.)12 The Greek μεσσίας never gained general currency among Jews or Christians, although it does appear again in John 4, on which more in a moment. In John 1, the initial encounters with Jesus continue. As in the scene by the Jordan where Andrew announced his eureka moment to Simon, now in a scene set in Galilee Philip reports a eureka moment to Nathanael:  ὃν ἔγραψεν Μωϋσῆς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ καὶ οἱ προφῆται εὑρήκαμεν, “We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote” (1:45). It is not clear from Philip’s announcement which oracles of Moses and the prophets are meant. In view of the prophet Christology attested in the Fourth Gospel (1:21, 25; 6:14; 7:40), it is possible that this saying refers to the latter-day prophet like Moses of Deuteronomy 18: “I [God]

9.  The precedent of Psalm 2, in which God calls the anointed king “my son,” is allimportant here. See Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008); Matthew V. Novenson, “Whose Son Is the Messiah?” in Son of God: Divine Sonship in Jewish and Christian Antiquity, ed. Garrick V. Allen, Kai Akagi, Paul Sloan, and Madhavi Nevader (University Park: Penn State University Press, 2018). 10.  John does not use the word “lamb” again after this scene, although he famously departs from the Synoptic tradition in making Jesus’ death contemporaneous with the slaughter of the lambs for Passover (Jn 19:14, 31). The apostle Paul, writing decades earlier, had expressly figured the messiah as a Passover lamb: τὸ πάσχα ἡμῶν ἐτύθη χριστός, “The messiah, our Passover [lamb], is sacrificed” (1 Cor. 5:7). 11.  See BDAG s.v. μεσσίας; TDNT s.v. χριστός; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The One Who Is to Come (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 1–2. 12.  See the lexical data in Joseph Reider and Nigel Turner, An Index to Aquila (Leiden: Brill, 1966).

112

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

will raise up for them a prophet like you [Moses] from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth” (Deut. 18:18), although there is little or nothing in the biblical prophets that elaborates, or was thought in antiquity to elaborate, on such a mythical figure.13 Alternatively, in view of the messiah Christology that is also well attested in the Gospel (1:41; 4:25, 29; 7:26, 31, 41; 9:22; 10:24; 11:27; 12:34; 17:3; 20:31), the logion of Philip could be taken as a shorthand reference to a familiar cluster of oracles thought by many ancient interpreters to refer to a king messiah (e.g., Gen. 49:10; Num. 24:17; Isa. 11:1-5).14 Or perhaps our author does not mean to specify at all. In favor of a king messiah connection, however, is the response of Nathanael, who, when Philip straightaway takes him to meet Jesus, addresses Jesus thusly:  ῥαββί, σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, “Teacher, you are the son of God, you are the king of Israel” (1:49).15 Nathanael makes this identification in spite of the fact that he knows Jesus to be a Galilean from Nazareth (1:45-46), an issue that will rear its head again later in the Gospel.16 John 1, then, presents us with a dizzying eschatological dramatis personae: logos, messiah, Elijah, prophet, lamb of God, son of God, king of Israel, and him of whom Moses and the prophets wrote. A  few of these titles are denied to the Baptizer, while many of them are provisionally here attached to Jesus. I say “provisionally” because, as the Gospel unfolds, our author variously drops, qualifies, combines, or foregrounds certain of these titles by way of painting his portrait of Jesus.

2. The Messiah in Samaria (John 4) Another cluster of messiah traditions comes in John 4, which finds Jesus making his way from Judea to Galilee by way of Samaria, where he stops at Jacob’s well

13. But on the function of this passage in the Pentateuch see Jeffrey Stackert, A Prophet Like Moses: Prophecy, Law, and Israelite Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014). 14. On which issue in general, see John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI:  Eerdmans, 2010); Matthew V. Novenson, The Grammar of Messianism: An Ancient Jewish Political Idiom and Its Users (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017). 15. But cf. John 6 and 19, where Jesus is figured as a king and not as a messiah, suggesting that John at least knows of a possible distinction between these terms. On this issue, see further later. 16.  On this litany of titles in John 1, see C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1953), 228:  “In none of the Synoptic Gospels, and indeed in no other New Testament writer, do these Messianic titles receive such prominence as here [in John  1] . . . It is as though the evangelist had intended to emphasize the fact that his own distinctive teaching rested directly on the messianic beliefs of the primitive Church, and with this aim had begun his work by calling the roll of the traditional messianic titles of the Lord.”

Jesus the Messiah

113

in Sychar. There he asks a local woman for water and so initiates a long and complicated dialogue.17 At one point in this dialogue, the woman marks Jesus as a prophet—“Sir, I see that you are a prophet” (Jn 4:19)—and so engages him on the interesting theological question whether the God of Abraham is properly to be worshiped on Mount Gerizim or on Mount Zion. Jesus complicates the terms of the question (“An hour is coming” when you will worship in neither place, 4:21), whereupon the woman diplomatically appeals to a future time at which this and all other questions will be resolved: οἶδα ὅτι μεσσίας ἔρχεται ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός, “I know that the messiah, who is called anointed, is coming.” And “When he comes, he will tell us everything” (4:25). Here one should note, first, the portrayal of the messiah who is to come as a revealer (“He will tell us all things”) and, second, Jesus’ response: “I who speak to you am he” (4:26). It is striking, in view of John’s subsequent emphasis on the importance of confessing or believing “that Jesus is the messiah” (Jn 9:22; 11:27; 20:31), that here he has Jesus say, in so many words, “I am the messiah.” It is remarkable that the Greek word μεσσίας should be attested just here, on the lips of a Samaritan character, since a messiah as such is not part of Samaritan mythology. This is a natura l c onsequence of the Samaritans’ reverence for the Pentateuch alone— not the Former or Latter Prophets or the Psalms— as a holy text.18 There is of course a well-developed Samaritan myth—for which our evidence is relatively late, but which may be quite ancient—of an eschatological Heilsbringer, namely, the Taheb, ‫ תהבה‬or ‫תאבה‬, a participial form of Aramaic ‫( תוב‬Hebrew ‫)שוב‬, “turn” or “return,” thus “he who returns” or “he who restores.”19 Wayne Meeks notes, “The sources which mention the Taheb generally agree in making him the prophet like Moses promised in Deuteronomy 18, and on the basis of Num 24.5–7 and 17 he was also expected to reign as king.”20 Ancient Samaritan piety, therefore, made a place for this latter-day Mosaic prophet, as in this prayer from the fourthcentury Memar Marqah: “May the Taheb come in peace and expose the darkness that has become powerful in the world. May the Taheb come in peace and destroy

17.  On this episode, in addition to the commentaries, see David Daube, “Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: The Meaning of ΣΥΓΧΡΑΟΜΑΙ,” JBL 69 (1950): 137–47. 18. See J. Zsengeller, “Canon and the Samaritans,” in Canonization and Decanonization, ed. A. van der Kooij and K. van der Toorn, SHR 82 (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 161–72; Robert T.  Anderson and Terry Giles, The Samaritan Pentateuch:  An Introduction to Its Origin, History, and Significance for Biblical Studies, RSB (Atlanta: SBL, 2012). 19.  On which see Adalbert Merx, Der Messias oder Ta’eb der Samaritaner, BZAW 17 (Giessen:  Töpelmann, 1909); John Bowman, “Early Samaritan Eschatology,” JJS 6 (1955):  63–72; Wayne A.  Meeks, The Prophet-King:  Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology, NovTSup 14 (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 250–54; Ferdinand Dexinger, Der Taheb: Ein “messianischer” Heilsbringer der Samaritaner (Salzburg:  Müller, 1986); idem, “Samaritan Eschatology,” in The Samaritans, ed. Alan David Crown (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989), 266–92. 20. Meeks, Prophet-King, 252.

114

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

the opponents who provoke God. May the Taheb come in peace and offer a correct sacrifice before the house of God [Bethel]” (Memar Marqah 1.9).21 The Taheb, then, is an ἐρχόμενος, “coming one,” but he is not a μεσσίας. Hence John’s choice to have the Samaritan woman use the latter technical term in Jn 4:25 is puzzling. So puzzling, in fact, that the Swedish exegete Hugo Odeberg proposed a conjectural emendation to the text of Jn 4:25: read Ταεβ for μεσσίας, thus “the Taheb, who is called [by you Jews] ‘the anointed one,’ is coming.”22 This is admittedly ingenious, but a simpler and, to my mind, more compelling explanation is that John has either confused or deliberately conflated his Judean and Samaritan eschatologies.

3. A Prophet King (John 6) Jesus moves on to Galilee. There, following the episode of feeding of the 5,000 in John 6, where Jesus—like Moses before him—produces bread from heaven in the wilderness, the narrator reports how the people, when they saw the sign that Jesus did, were saying amongst themselves, οὗτός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ὁ προφήτης ὁ ἐρχόμενος εἰς τὸν κόσμον, “Truly this is the prophet who is coming into the world” (6:14). Some intent of mob action is implied in this, because the next verse reads: “Jesus, knowing that they were about to come and take hold of him that they might make him king (ἵνα ποιήσωσιν βασιλέα), went away again to the mountain alone” (6:15). Many interpreters have connected the popular acclamation of Jesus as βασιλεύς with the motif of Davidic messianism, which motif is of course widely attested in early Christian sources. There are problems with such a move, however, as Wayne Meeks influentially argued.23 The people in John 6 identify Jesus not as messiah—a title which, as we have seen, John knows and uses elsewhere—but as “the prophet who is coming into the world,” and it is on these grounds that they conspire to make Jesus king. The title “king” is coordinated here not with “messiah” but with “prophet.” This might seem strange, but it is quite explicable in terms of Jewish traditions about Moses as both prophet and king, of which a parade example is Philo’s Life of Moses: “I conceive that all these [offices] have fitly been united in him [Moses], inasmuch as in accordance with the providential will of God he was both a king and a lawgiver and a high priest and a prophet, and because in

21.  Trans. Meeks, Prophet-King, 249. The critical text, with translation and notes, is provided by John MacDonald, Memar Marqah: The Teachings of Marqah, 2 vols., BZAW 84 (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1963). 22. See Hugo Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel: Interpreted in Its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World (Uppsala:  Almqvist & Wiksell, 1929), 187. He cites the precedent of Theodor Zahn, Das Evangelium des Johannes (Leipzig: Deichert, 1908), 251. 23. See Meeks, Prophet-King, 32–99.

Jesus the Messiah

115

each office he displayed the most eminent wisdom and virtue” (Mos. 2.3).24 The crucial point is that John can conceive of the kingship of Jesus in other than messianic terms. To paraphrase Meeks, it is not the case that king equals messiah equals son of David. Here in John 6, Jesus evades coronation, although in his dialogue with Pilate in John 19 he will accept the title of king (see further later). In neither chapter, however, is kingship correlated with messiahship, even though John also insists that Jesus is the messiah. Our author claims a number of these venerable titles for Jesus, but not in the same ways or for the same reasons that other early Christian writers—to say nothing of modern interpreters—do.

4. Whence the Messiah? (John 7) This, perhaps, helps to clarify several problems that arise in the next chapter, John 7, where the Judeans assembled for the Feast of Sukkot discuss whether Jesus can be the χριστός. Upon hearing him teaching in the Jerusalem temple, the people say, “Do the rulers really know that this is the messiah? But we know where this man comes from. The messiah, when he comes, no one will know where he is from” (7:26-27). The people pose a theoretical objection to the identification of Jesus as messiah on the grounds of one strand of messiah haggadah: the messiah will arise from parts unknown. Such an idea is indeed attested, albeit sparsely, here and there in Jewish messiah legend.25 In 4 Ezra 13, for instance, God explains to Ezra about the messiah, “Just as no one can explore or know what is in the depths of the sea, so no one on earth can see my son or those who are with him except in the time of his day” (4 Ezra 13:52). As for Jesus, however, the people know where he is from. They do not say where in this passage, but John so often and so consistently assigns Jesus’ origins to Nazareth in Galilee (1:45-46; 7:41, 52; 18:5, 7; 19:19) that it must be the unstated premise here. Jesus replies, however, by mystifying the question of his origins: “You know me? And you know where I am from? I have not come of my own accord, but he who sent me is true . . . I know him, for I came from him” (7:28-29). Jesus comes proximately from Nazareth, yes, but ultimately from parts very unknown indeed, from heaven (3:13, 31; 6:38, 51), from the bosom of the Father (1:18). Thus, from our author’s point of view, Jesus actually does meet the criterion that the Judeans here cite against him. 24.  See further Meeks, Prophet-King, 100–75; and also Louis H.  Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses in the Context of Ancient Judaism, CJA 15 (South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007). 25.  E.g., 1 En. 48:6; 4 Ezra 13:52; Justin, Dial. 8; 110. On this motif, see Sigmund Mowinckel, He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism, trans. G.  W. Anderson (Nashville:  Abingdon, 1956; repr. Grand Rapids, MI:  Eerdmans, 2005), 304–8.

116

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

In a subsequent scene in John 7, Jesus again addresses the gathered crowd. Hearing him, some say, οὗτός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ὁ προφήτης, “This really is the prophet” (7:40), referring to the prophet like Moses mentioned in Jn 1:21, 25; 6:14. Others in the crowd, however, identify Jesus with a different eschatological character: οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός, “This is the messiah” (7:41). (John does, therefore, distinguish between the prophet and the messiah.)26 But then, just as in the passage just discussed about the messiah coming from parts unknown, there arises a debate about the provenance of the messiah and of Jesus. “Some said, ‘Is the messiah to come from Galilee? Has not the scripture said that the messiah is descended from David and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?’ ” (7:41-43). These anonymous skeptics question Jesus’ fitness for the office of messiah on the grounds that he is known to come from Galilee, whereas, according to the tradition they report, scripture says that the messiah would be a Davidide and would come from Bethlehem (cf. Mic. 5:2). This report is striking, because the Fourth Gospel does not mention either David or Bethlehem anywhere else. Some interpreters have suggested that this is dramatic irony on John’s part, that he knows—and expects his audience to know— that Jesus is a Davidide from Bethlehem and so has the crowd unwittingly testify to the truth.27 This is possible, although elsewhere John is rather more heavy-handed with his use of dramatic irony (e.g., Jn 11:49-52; 18:14), so this instance would be remarkable for its subtlety. I think it is too much to say, as Christoph Burger and others have done, that John knows and roundly rejects the tradition that Jesus is descended from David.28 It may be, depending on one’s view on John’s knowledge of the Synoptics, that all John knows about Jesus’ family background is that he comes from Galilee, which by itself would not suggest a Davidic pedigree.29 Since John’s

26. See Richard Bauckham, “Messianism according to the Gospel of John,” in Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John, ed. John Lierman, WUNT II/219 (Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 67:  “John’s account of Jewish expectations of eschatological figures is not systematic . . . Nevertheless he makes careful distinctions among such expectations, distinctions that are hardly necessary for his own christological purposes.” Bauckham is right about John’s precision, but I would say that these distinctions are relevant for John’s own christological purposes. 27.  E.g., F.  F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI:  Eerdmans, 1983), 183– 84; Raymond E.  Brown, The Gospel according to John. 2  vols. AB 29-29A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966–1970), 330. 28.  Christoph Burger, Jesus als Davidssohn: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, FRLANT 98 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 158. Cf. John P. Meier, “From Elijah-like Prophet to Royal Davidic Messiah,” in Jesus: A Colloquium in the Holy Land, ed. James D.  G. Dunn and Doris Donnelly (London:  Continuum, 2001), 54:  “The ‘from the seed of David’ tradition . . . is witnessed in a backhanded way even in John, though whether it is accepted, ignored, or rejected by John remains uncertain.” 29.  On the question of John’s knowledge (or ignorance) of the Synoptic Gospels, see D. Moody Smith, John among the Gospels: The Relationship in Twentieth-Century Research, 2nd ed. (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2001).

Jesus the Messiah

117

Christology is happily unconcerned with Jesus’ family tree anyway, this is no loss for him.

5. Acknowledging Jesus as Messiah (John 9–12) The story of the healing of the man born blind in John 9 figures prominently in the discussion of messiah Christology in John, especially since J. Louis Martyn’s seminal 1968 study History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel.30 Jesus’ healing of the man results in a controversy with the Pharisees (9:13-17), which morphs into a controversy with the Jews (9:18-34). At the center of both phases of the controversy is the question of the identity of Jesus (9:17, 29), and in particular the social stakes of confessing the messiahship of Jesus. When the Jews subpoena the parents of the blind man, they decline to testify one way or the other about the man who healed their son on account of fear, because, the narrator explains, “The Jews had already agreed that if anyone should confess him [Jesus] as messiah, he or she would be put out of the synagogue [ἐάν τις αὐτὸν ὁμολογήσῃ χριστόν, ἀποσυνάγωγος γένηται]” (9:22). The term ἀποσυνάγωγος is a neologism here (and see 12:42; 16:2), one which Martyn finds implausible in the context of Jesus’ career circa 30 CE  but quite plausible in the context of the Johannine sect at the turn of the second century. He points, for instance, to the farewell discourse, where Jesus uses the same term in an ex eventu prophecy of the social situation of the disciples after his departure:  ἀποσυναγώγους ποιήσουσιν ὑμᾶς, “They will put you out of the synagogues” (16:2). Aspects of Martyn’s argument have come in for criticism,31 but his core point about a late first-century dispute between the Johannine sect and the synagogue over “confessing Jesus as messiah” continues to command wide though not universal assent. For my part, I consider it likely that this episode may indeed reflect a schism between the sect and the mainstream Jewish community in which the confession of Jesus as messiah is a disputed point.32

30.  J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (New  York:  Harper & Row, 1968). On the considerable influence of the book, see D.  Moody Smith, “The Contribution of J. Louis Martyn to the Understanding of the Gospel of John,” in J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, 3rd ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 1–26. 31. See, e.g., Adele Reinhartz, “The Johannine Community and Its Jewish Neighbors: A Reappraisal,” in Literary and Social Readings of the Fourth Gospel, What Is John?, ed. Fernando Segovia, vol. 2 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 111–38; eadem, “Reading History in the Fourth Gospel,” in What We Have Heard from the Beginning: The Past, Present, and Future of Johannine Studies, ed. Tom Thatcher (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007), 190–94. 32.  Thus rightly Martyn, History and Theology (3d ed.), 92: “Both for John and for his conversation partners in the synagogue, the technical issue of Jesus’ messiahship is of

118

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

There are several short scenes of messianic recognition that occur seriatim in the middle part of the Gospel. In chapter 10, at yet another festival in Jerusalem, this time Hanukkah, the Jews gather around Jesus and ask, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the messiah [εἰ σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός] tell us plainly” (10:24). But although he did tell it plainly to the Samaritan woman (“I who speak to you am he,” 4:26), here Jesus sidesteps: “I told you, and you do not believe . . . My works bear witness on my behalf ” (10:25), and so on. This exchange ends with the near stoning of Jesus on a charge of blasphemy—you “make yourself God” (ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν [10:33])—by saying that “I and the father are one” (ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν [10:30]), which would seem to be some way from the Jews’ original question about Jesus’ messiahship. Here, although the word “logos” is not used, we are close once again to the conceptual world of the prologue (Jn 1:1-18), where Jesus is both messiah and god. In the scene in chapter  11, where Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead, Jesus assures Lazarus’s sister Martha that Lazarus will rise again, not on the last day but now, because, he explains, “I am the resurrection and the life” (11:25). “Do you believe this?” Jesus presses her, and Martha responds, “Yes, lord. I believe that you are the messiah son of God who is coming into the world (σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἐρχόμενος)” (11:27), which was not the way Jesus had just identified himself but is, from our author’s perspective, a true confession (cf. 20:31). To this point in the Gospel, Jesus has been identified sometimes as messiah and sometimes as son of god, but here the two titles appear in apposition to one another. The author might mean simply to equate them, but I think it more likely that “son of God” stands in restrictive apposition to “messiah,” saying what kind of messiah the author means: not messiah ben David, messiah ben Aaron, or messiah ben Joseph, but messiah son of God (cf. Mk 14:61; Mt. 26:63).33 In chapter 12, in the last of his festal visits to Jerusalem, Jesus speaks publicly but cryptically about his impending death, initially in the third person: “The hour has come for the son of man to be glorified” (12:23); and subsequently in the first person: “Now is the judgment of this world . . . And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself ” (12:31-32). Here again, a crowd of Jerusalemite bystanders respond to Jesus’ words by raising a haggadic question: “We have heard from the law that the messiah remains forever. How then can you say that the son of man must be lifted up? Who is this son of man?” (12:35) The crowd cleverly identifies the messiah with the son of man, which is not an obvious move but which the Synoptics Gospels, and, for that matter, the Similitudes of Enoch do too.34 paramount importance.” See further Joel Marcus, “Birkat Ha-Minim Revisited,” NTS 55 (2009): 523–51. 33.  This onomastic phenomenon is a commonplace in ancient Jewish and Christian messiah texts. See Joel Marcus, “Mark 14:61: ‘Are You the Messiah-Son-of-God?’ ” NovT 31 (1989): 125–41; Novenson, “Whose Son Is the Messiah?” 34. On this conflation of mythical figures, see the essays collected in Gabriele Boccaccini, ed., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man:  Revisiting the Book of Parables (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007).

Jesus the Messiah

119

Their claim that the Torah says the messiah remains forever is notoriously obscure. One impressive solution is that of Willem van Unnik, who suggested an allusion to Ps. 89:36-37: “I will not lie to David; his seed shall remain forever.”35 But this is not the Torah, strictly speaking, although perhaps here by “Torah” John just means scripture broadly conceived. Alternatively, Richard Bauckham has suggested an allusion to the deathbed speech of Jacob in Gen. 49:10: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs.”36 But here we lack the phrase “remains forever.” Either way, we might have here an indirect appeal to the notion of a messiah ben David, which is also attested by the crowd in John 7, as noted earlier. If our author here preserves a messiah ben David tradition, he evidently has no interest in pressing it. When John speaks of messiahship and sonship in the same breath, he speaks of the messiah son of God.

6. The king is dead, long live the king (John 18–20) The story of the trial and execution of Jesus in John 18–19 fits awkwardly in our survey. The language of kingship is at the fore in John’s account, but messiahship, which is the theme that John has developed extensively in his Gospel to this point, goes altogether unmentioned.37 In all three Synoptic accounts, Jesus is first interrogated by the Jewish high priest and council, who demand to know whether he is the messiah (ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ εὐλογητοῦ in Mk 14:61, ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ in Mt. 26:63, ὁ χριστὸς in Lk. 22:67 and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ in Lk. 22:70). Then, in all three accounts, Jesus is sent up to the Roman provincial governor, who demands to know whether he is the king of the Jews (ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων in Mk 15:2; Mt. 27:11; Lk. 23:3). There is, in these Synoptic accounts, a kind of parallel between the Jewish charge and the Roman one (“messiah” and “king,” respectively). John agrees with the Synoptics on the charge in the Roman trial (John 18:33), but he lacks any parallel to the messiah question from the Jewish council. John only says, “The chief priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching” (18:19). The encounter with the chief priests is over almost as soon as it begins, and Jesus is promptly sent up to Pilate for what turns into an extended dialogue on kingship.38 Pilate asks, as he does in the Synoptic accounts, whether Jesus is king of the Jews (18:33) but, in John, Jesus replies by challenging the terms of the

35.  W. C. van Unnik, “The Quotation from the Old Testament in John 12:34,” NovT 3 (1959): 174–79. 36. Bauckham, “Messianism according to the Gospel of John,” 64–67. 37. On the passion narrative in John, see Martinus C. de Boer, Johannine Perspectives on the Death of Jesus (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996). 38.  On which see Martin Hengel, “The Kingdom of Christ in John,” in Studies in Early Christology (London: T & T Clark, 2004), 333–58.

120

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

question: “My kingship is not from this world, for if my kingship were from this world, my servants would have struggled lest I be handed over to the Jews” (18:36). When in the course of the dialogue Jesus does effectively admit to being king of the Jews (“You say that I  am a king”), he gives a curious account of his kingly function: “For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, that I should testify to the truth” (18:37). There is perhaps an echo here of the Samaritan woman’s comment on the function of the χριστός: “When the messiah comes, he will tell us everything” (4:25). But in John 4 it was a messiah, while here in John 18 it is a king. But a king whose job is to testify to truth is, as Meeks notes, something very much like, well, a prophet.39 In chapters  20–21, John devotes considerable space to post-resurrection scenes of Jesus with his disciples, but the category messiah does not figure in these scenes. It is striking that when Thomas finally sees and recognizes the risen Jesus, he confesses, ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου, “My lord and my god” (20:28). Jesus acknowledges this confession and blesses those who will believe (πιστεύω) likewise without having seen, as Thomas did. On the heels of this scene comes the well-known summary purpose statement in the voice of an author or redactor: “Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the messiah son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (20:30-31). The exhortation to believe (πιστεύω) is a link back to the dialogue with Thomas just before, but here the title is different: Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. Which, as Martyn rightly emphasized, is virtually identical with the true but socially dangerous confession of John 9, that Jesus is the messiah.

7. Conclusion So what are we to make of this? There is a raft of secondary literature on the subject, much of it excellent, which we cannot engage properly in the space of this short chapter.40 But in brief: In contrast to an older strand of research which

39. Meeks, Prophet-King, 63–67. 40. See in particular Rudolf Schnackenburg, “Die Messiasfrage im Johannesevangelium,” in Neutestamentliche Aufsätze: Festschrift für Josef Schmid zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. J. Blinzler, Otto Kuss, and Franz Mussner (Regensburg:  Friedrich Pustet, 1963), 240–64; Meeks, Prophet-King; Wayne A. Meeks, “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,” JBL 91 (1972): 44–72; Marinus de Jonge, “Jewish Expectations about the ‘Messiah’ according to the Fourth Gospel,” NTS 19 (1973): 246–70; Hooker, “The Johannine Prologue and the Messianic Secret”; Dietmar Neufeld, “ ‘And When That One Comes’: Aspects of Johannine Messianism,” in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Craig A. Evans and Peter W.  Flint (Grand Rapids, MI:  Eerdmans, 1997), 120–40; Bauckham, “Messianism according to the Gospel of John”; Judith M. Lieu, “Messiah and Resistance in the Gospel and Epistles of John,” in Redemption and Resistance:  The Messianic Hopes of Jews and

Jesus the Messiah

121

took the messiah traditions in John chiefly as evidence either for (e.g., William Sanday)41 or against (e.g., C. H. Dodd)42 the veracity of the Gospel’s mise-enscène of early first-century Palestine, much recent research has wisely set aside debates over verisimilitude in favor of more subtle questions of traditionhistory. It remains contested, and to my mind it is a genuinely open question, whether the different christological motifs we have noted can confidently be assigned to discrete literary layers (thus, e.g., Fortna, von Wahlde)43 or are simply so many diverse traditions assimilated by an evidently capable author (thus, e.g., Meeks, McGrath).44 But even if John is a composite of two or more discrete sources, and all the more so if it is not, it is significant that our author or redactor makes actual use of these messiah traditions in articulating his own constructive Christology. He did not need to do so; other early Christian writers, including some with similarly elaborate cosmologies to John’s, did not do so. We could say, as many have said, that John entirely redefines “messiah” to fit his Christology,45 but that is not quite right. “Messiah” is not an empty cipher for John; it comes with a lot of quite specific traditions attached to it. John molds it, to be sure, exploiting some of those traditions (e.g., fulfillment of scripture, divine sonship, mysterious origins) and not others (e.g., Davidic

Christians in Antiquity, ed. Markus Bockmuehl and James Carleton Paget (London: T & T Clark, 2007), 97–108. 41.  See William Sanday, The Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel (London: Macmillan, 1872), 124: “How difficult, how impossible it would have been for a writer wholly ad extra to throw himself into the midst of these hopes and feelings, and to reproduce them, not as if they were something new that he had learned, but as part of an atmosphere that he himself once breathed. There is no stronger proof of the genuineness and of the authenticity of the fourth Gospel than the way in which it reflects the current Messianic idea.” 42.  See C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963). Cf. more recently Maurice Casey, Is John’s Gospel True? (London: Routledge, 1996), 59: “The fourth Gospel’s use of the term ‘Christ’ is completely unhistorical. It originated from the confessional use of this term in the early church.” 43. Robert T. Fortna, The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988; repr. London:  T & T Clark, 2004); Urban C.  von Wahlde, Gnosticism, Docetism, and the Judaisms of the First Century:  The Search for the Wider Context of the Johannine Literature and Why It Matters, LNTS 517 (London: T & T Clark, 2015). 44.  Meeks, Prophet-King; James F. McGrath, John’s Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology, SNTSMS 111 (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 2001). 45.  E.g., George MacRae, “Messiah and Gospel,” in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, ed. Jacob Neusner, William Scott Green, and Ernest S. Frerichs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 178: “The Fourth Gospel [is characterized by] . . . an uneasiness about the designation of Christ as Messiah unless the term is understood on purely Christian, in this case Johannine, terms.”

122

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

sonship). But he seems to me resolute about making his claims about Jesus in the mode of messiah discourse.46 It may be helpful to close with an analogy. At the beginning, I noted Bultmann’s comment that the Christology of John finds its closest analogy in the Hermetica. As it happens, Teleios Logos (also called Asclepius in its Latin recension), the Hermetic tractate to which Bultmann refers, is partly attested in a Coptic version in Nag Hammadi Codex VI.47 Very close by, in Nag Hammadi Codex II, we find the Gospel of Philip, a probably third-century Greek composition extant only in this fourth-century Coptic manuscript.48 The Gospel of Philip is a Valentinian anthology whose own constructive Christology, so far as one can speak of such a thing, is philosophically quite far removed from the first-century messianic Jesus sect.49 And yet, for all this distance, Gospel of Philip also includes passages like this one: The apostles who were before us had these names for him: “Jesus, the Nazorean, Messiah,” that is, “Jesus, the Nazorean, the Christ.” The last name is “Christ,” the first is “Jesus,” that in the middle is “the Nazarene.” “Messiah” has two meanings, both “the Christ” and “the measured.” “Jesus” in Hebrew is “the redemption.” “Nazara” is “the Truth.” “The Nazarene” then, is “the Truth.” “Christ” [. . .] has been measured. “The Nazarene” and “Jesus” are they who have been measured. (Gos. Phil. 62)50

Whatever else may be going on in this passage (and there is quite a lot going on), there is at least a very interesting third-century, Eastern Valentinian messiah Christology attested here.51 Our author finds the significance of Jesus in the

46.  Thus, rightly, Christopher Rowland, “Christ in the New Testament,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. John Day (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998; repr. London: T & T Clark, 2013), 481: “What is striking about the Gospel of John is how much belief that Jesus is Christ still matters in this sophisticated christological narrative . . . There is evidence that the messiahship of Jesus was a live issue in the Gospel of John.” 47.  See the editio princeps by Peter A.  Dirkse and Douglas M.  Parrott, “NHC VI, 8: Asclepius 21–29,” in Nag Hammadi Codices V, 2–5 and VI, ed. Douglas M. Parrott, CGL (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 395–452. 48. See the editio princeps by Bentley Layton, “The Gospel of Philip,” in Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2–7, ed. Bentley Layton, CGL (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 142–215. 49.  See Martha Lee Turner, The Gospel of Philip:  The Sources and Coherence of an Early Christian Collection, NHMS 38 (Leiden:  Brill, 1996); Hugo Lundhaug, Images of Rebirth: Cognitive Poetics and Transformational Soteriology in the Gospel of Philip and the Exegesis on the Soul, NHMS 73 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 153–400. 50.  Trans. Wesley W.  Isenberg in The Nag Hammadi Library in English, ed. James M. Robinson, 3rd ed. (San Francisco: Harper, 1990). 51. As was rightly perceived already by W. C. van Unnik, “Three Notes on the Gospel of Philip,” NTS 10 (1964): 465–69.

Jesus the Messiah

123

etymologies of the names given him by his earliest followers: “Jesus,” “Nazarene,” and “messiah-Christ.” Unlike some other early Christian texts which know the messiah Christology of Paul, the Synoptics, and so on and choose to let it fall by the wayside, the Gospel of Philip preserves, reinterprets, one might even say fetishizes the messiah Christology of the apostolic generation. Philip has his own, very different christological concerns, but he insists on addressing those concerns in terms inherited from “the apostles who were before us.” By this point, I hope that my proposed analogy to the Fourth Gospel is clear. Like the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of John has bigger fish to fry, when it comes to Christology, than whether Jesus fits this or that strand of Jewish messiah haggadah. But again, like Philip, John cannot fathom simply letting go that most important apostolic confession that Jesus is the χριστός. We find an unlikely trove of messiah traditions in the Gospel of John because the author (or redactor), for all his theological bravura, also has a strong conservative streak, an impulse to preserve and to lay claim to the venerable old category of messiah, no matter how creatively he has to reinterpret it.

Chapter 9 J E SU S T H E S O N O F M A N :   A P O C A LY P T IC I N T E R P R E TAT IO N S A N D J O HA N N I N E C H R I ST O L O G Y Benjamin E. Reynolds

“The Son of Man” serves as an important designation in the Gospel of John’s mosaic of the remembered Jesus.1 Throughout John 1, Jesus is called λόγος (1:12, 14), Christ (1:17, 41), Lamb of God (1:29, 35), rabbi (1:38, 49), Messiah (1:41; cf. 1:45), King of Israel (1:49), and Son of God (1:49). But at the climax of the chapter, Jesus himself speaks the phrase ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (“the Son of Man”), indicating what the disciples are yet to see. The phrase ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου also appears twice at the end of Jesus’ public ministry (12:23, 34), and Jesus speaks the final Son of Man saying to his disciples during his farewell discourse (13:31). Given that Jesus uses the designation of himself and that the Gospel of John frames Jesus’ public ministry with it, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου is an invaluable contribution to Johannine Christology. The focus of this chapter is on the Son of Man in the Gospel of John as an “apocalyptic Son of Man.” I will argue that the Johannine Son of Man has much in common, both in description and action, with the interpretations of the “one like a son of man” from Daniel 7 that are found in the Jewish apocalypses, namely, the Parables of Enoch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch. I will consider how the portrayal of Jesus as the apocalyptic Son of Man in the Fourth Gospel highlights distinct aspects of Johannine Christology, and I will offer some reflections on the relevance of an apocalyptic Son of Man for John’s Gospel and the historical Jesus. However, before discussing the details of the Johannine Son of Man sayings and the apocalyptic characteristics, there are two preliminary issues to be addressed. First, I  will explain what I  mean by the adjective “apocalyptic,” and second, I  will discuss what scholars of early Judaism have argued are similarities in the apocalyptic interpretations of the Danielic son of man in early Judaism.

1.  George W.  E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1:  A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 84: “John’s use of ‘Son of Man’ is integral to his multifaceted portrait of Jesus.”

126

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

1. Preliminaries: “Apocalyptic” and brief methodological comments a. The Gospel of John and “apocalyptic” The general assumption in New Testament studies is that the Gospel of John is not apocalyptic.2 This assessment is based primarily on the popular understanding that equates “apocalyptic” with future eschatology. On this understanding, the more realized John’s eschatology is—such as Rudolf Bultmann has argued—the less “apocalyptic” the Gospel can be considered.3 Yet “apocalyptic” cannot and should not be equated with eschatology or end-of-the-world catastrophes. Jewish apocalypses are primarily concerned with the revelation of hidden things. Not uncommonly, these heavenly mysteries contain an eschatological outlook and descriptions of the end-of-the-world, but numerous Jewish apocalypses reveal heavenly mysteries that have little to do with eschatology.4 Examples include the Astronomical Book (1 En. 72–82) and even the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 1–36). The focus of the apocalypses is ultimately on the disclosure of heavenly things that were previously hidden.5 Thus, it is with this revelatory understanding of apocalypticism that I understand the term “apocalyptic.” I will be using the word as an adjective to refer to imagery, ideas, and concepts associated with the Jewish apocalypses. As John Collins states, “To use the word in any other way is to invite terminological confusion.”6 I use the phrase “apocalyptic Son of Man” to articulate my view that the Gospel of John’s Son of Man shares numerous functions and characteristics with the interpretations of the Danielic “one like a son of man” in the Parables of Enoch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch.7

2.  Frederick J.  Murphy, Apocalypticism in the Bible and Its World:  A Comprehensive Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 275. 3.  Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971). 4.  Michael E.  Stone, “Lists of Revealed Things in the Apocalyptic Literature,” in Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright, ed. Frank Moore Cross, Werner E. Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976), 414–52; Christopher Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK, 1982; repr. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002). Cf. Lorenzo DiTommaso, “Apocalypses and Apocalypticism in Antiquity. (Part I),” CurrBR 5 (2007): 235–86; “Apocalypses and Apocalypticism in Antiquity. (Part II),” CurrBR 5 (2007): 367–432. 5.  Benjamin E.  Reynolds and Loren T.  Stuckenbruck, eds., The Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the Shaping of New Testament Thought (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2017). 6. John J. Collins, “Genre, Ideology and Social Movements in Jewish Apocalypticism,” in Seers, Sibyls, and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 27. 7.  There are quite a number of “intimations of apocalyptic” in the Gospel of John as John Ashton has argued. See John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); idem, The Gospel of John and Christian Origins

Jesus the Son of Man

127

b. Apocalyptic interpretations of the Danielic Son of Man Scholars now generally agree that a widespread “son of man concept” did not exist in Second Temple Judaism; however, the Parables of Enoch (1 En. 37–71), 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch interpret “the one like a son of man” in Daniel 7 with certain common features. John Collins and others have noted similar characteristics in these apocalyptic interpretations of the Danielic son of man.8 Collins lists five similar features of this figure in the Parables of Enoch and 4 Ezra: (1) the son of man is an individual figure, (2) the figure is the Messiah, (3) the figure is preexistent, (4) the figure is involved in the destruction or judgment of the wicked, and (5) the figure is described as the Servant of the Lord.9 To these five “common assumptions about the interpretation of Daniel 7 in first-century Judaism”10 may be added the following characteristics: the figure is similar to God, recognized on earth at the time of his revelation, gathers the righteous, and plays some part in the salvation of the righteous. These similarities do not indicate that the son of man figures in the Parables, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch are portrayed in the same way, but the overlapping similarities between them are striking. Each of these texts has its own unique depiction of this figure, most notably that the Parables names the son of man as Enoch (71:14), but they all describe the Danielic son of man as the Messiah, from heaven, as preexistent, as responsible for judgment and salvation, as the Isaianic servant of the Lord, as similar to God, and the gatherer of the righteous. It is this similar apocalyptic interpretation and depiction of the Danielic son of man, which I contend is recognizable in the Gospel of John’s portrayal of Jesus.

2. The Gospel of John’s apocalyptic Son of Man In arguments for an apocalyptic Son of Man in John, Jn 3:13 and 5:27 are the easiest to align with the apocalyptic portrayals of the Danielic son of man.11 The (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014); see also, Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland, John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013). 8.  John J. Collins, “The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism,” NTS 38 (1992): 448– 66; revised in The Scepter and the Star:  Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI:  Eerdmans, 2010), 191–214. See also Lester L.  Grabbe, “ ‘Son of Man’:  Its Origin and Meaning in Second Temple Judaism,” in Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels:  Reminiscences, Allusions, and Intertextuality, ed. Loren T.  Stuckenbruck and Gabriele Boccaccini, EJL (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 169–97; Daniel Boyarin, “How Enoch Can Teach Us about Jesus,” Early Christianity 2 (2011): 51–76; also The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ (New York: New Press, 2012), 71–101. 9. Collins, Scepter and the Star, 210–12. 10. Ibid., 212. 11. See Ashton, Understanding, 240–76; Robert Maddox, “The Function of the Son of Man in the Gospel of John,” in Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L. L. Morris on This 60th Birthday, ed. Robert J. Banks (Grand Rapids,

128

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

Johannine Son of Man’s ascent and descent from heaven and his authority to judge are notable similarities with the son of man figures in the Parables of Enoch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch. While these are excellent examples, the rest of the Johannine Son of Man sayings are just as important. Thus, the following section will discuss each Johannine Son of Man saying in turn, noting the apocalyptic characteristics within the context of each saying. This examination will note the literary context of the sayings while also considering the background meaning of the designation. a. Jn 1:51 and the opening of heaven The first Son of Man saying in John comes as part of the climactic conclusion of the Johannine introduction of Jesus as he calls his first disciples (1:51). The saying presents “the Son of Man” as the last title of Jesus in a series of designations beginning with the logos, and also including light (1:3, 9), life (1:3, 4), only begotten of the Father (1:14, 18), Jesus Messiah (1:17), the Lamb of God (1:29, 36), Messiah (1:41), the one whom Moses and the prophets wrote (1:45), rabbi (1:38, 49), Son of God (1:49), and King of Israel (1:49), not to mention John the Baptist’s denial of being the Messiah, Elijah, and the prophet (1:20-21). The first Son of Man saying is also the first “Amen, amen” saying in John’s Gospel and it includes an allusion to Gen. 28:12 concerning Jacob’s vision of the ladder extending to heaven. In 1:51, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου replaces the word for ladder in Gen. 28:12, indicating the Son of Man’s role connecting heaven and earth, God and humanity. Although the Son of Man will later be described as one who ascends and descends, here it is the angels who take part in this motion. Since 1:51 concludes the introduction to Jesus, it also forms a connection with Jesus’ words and signs. Jesus tells Nathanael that what he will see is heaven opening and then the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man. The opening of heaven is a common motif indicating the beginning of apocalyptic revelation (2 Bar. 22:1; Apoc. Abr. 19:1-3; Rev. 4:1; 19:1). When heaven opens, the dividing wall between natural and supernatural is broken and the otherworldly is revealed to the this-worldly. The Son of Man makes up part of this revelatory vision announced through the opening of heaven. In the context of this saying, we also see that the Son of Man is the Messiah. Jesus has been declared by his new disciples to be Messiah (1:42), the one written about by Moses and the prophets (1:45), and the King of Israel (1:49).12 Following these declarations, Jesus responds by implying that along with being the Messiah he is also the Son of Man. Within the Jewish apocalypses, the Messiah and the Son of Man are understood to be the same individual (1 En. 48:10; 52:4; 62:2 with

MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 186–204; John Painter, “The Enigmatic Johannine Son of Man,” in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. F. Van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, Gilbert Van Belle, and J. Verheyden, 3 vols., BETL 100 (Louvain: Peeters, 1992), 3:1869–87. 12. See Craig R. Koester, “Messianic Exegesis and the Call of Nathanael (John 1:45–51),” JSNT 39 (1990): 23–34.

Jesus the Son of Man

129

Isa. 1:2, 4; 4 Ezra 11–13; 2 Bar. 29:3; 30:1; 39–40; 53:1; 70:9; 72–74). In addition, the Johannine Son of Man is recognized by others, although in the apocalyptic interpretations this takes place at a glorified future revealing of the figure. Here in John, we already have an indication that the Johannine Son of Man is revealed now in the present since the disciples are already able to see him and apparently begin to do so in his signs (2:1-11). b. Jn 3:13, 14 and the ascent-descent and lifting up of the Son of Man The second Son of Man saying in the Gospel (3:13) provides some of the strongest evidence for the apocalyptic background of the Johannine Son of Man, especially as there is widespread agreement that ascent and descent language appears to function as a polemic against heavenly ascent speculation.13 The Gospel seems to assume that readers are familiar with stories about ascents to heaven by Moses, Abraham, Enoch, Isaiah, and others, in which these figures see and experience heavenly mysteries. Unlike the figures in these ascent narratives typical of early Jewish apocalypses, the Johannine Son of Man is from heaven, has descended from heaven, and is therefore able to reveal heavenly things. He has not had to ascend to heaven like an apocalyptic seer in order to receive esoteric mysteries and then return to earth so that the heavenly things might be revealed.14 While descent from heaven does not explicitly indicate the preexistence of the Son of Man, his preexistence is at least implied, which indicates an overlap with the preexistence of the logos in John 1.15 A close link clearly exists between 3:13 and the Son of Man saying in the next verse (3:14): “Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, in this way must the Son of Man be lifted up.” The apocalyptic characteristics noticeable in this saying and in the following verses are the Son of Man’s exaltation and his role in salvation and judgment. Those who believe in the Son of Man will receive eternal life and those who do not believe are judged (3:15-18). Thus, part of the Johannine Son of Man’s role as revealer of heavenly things made possible by his descent from heaven involves salvation and judgment. He will be exalted and again recognized, yet this time in the way that the bronze serpent was looked upon as a symbol of healing for the Israelites bitten by the serpents in the wilderness (Num. 21:8-9).

13.  James H.  Charlesworth, “Did the Fourth Evangelist Know the Enoch Tradition?” in Testimony and Interpretation: Early Christology in Its Judeo-Hellenistic Milieu. Studies in Honour of Peter Pokorný, ed. J. Mrazek and J. Roskovec (London: T & T Clark, 2004), 223– 39; J. Harold Ellens, The Son of Man in the Gospel of John, New Testament Monographs 28 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2010). 14.  Contra John Ashton, “The Johannine Son of Man:  A New Proposal,” NTS 57 (2011): 508–29. 15.  Cf. Francis J. Moloney, “The Parables of Enoch and the Johannine Son of Man,” in Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift, ed. Darrell L. Bock and James H. Charlesworth, Jewish and Christian Texts 11 (London; New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 281–82.

130

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

The purpose of his lifting up is so that those who believe might have eternal life; those who fail to look upon him or believe in him will be judged.16 c. The Johannine Son of Man as apocalyptic judge in 5:27 The Son of Man saying in 5:27 is almost universally recognized as having the closest affinity with Daniel’s “one like a son of man” and the various apocalyptic interpretations of this figure.17 The verbal overlap between Jn 5:27 and Dan. 7:1314 is the closest direct connection to Daniel in the Gospel. In John, the Son is said to have the authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.18 Consider the similar saying in 1 En. 69:27, “And he sat on the throne of his glory, and the whole judgment was given to the Son of Man.”19 The eschatological aspect becomes more apparent in that the act of judgment takes place in the double resurrection of the wicked and the righteous in 5:28-29, a theme noticeable in 1 En. 46-48; 4 Ezra 7:32–36; 2 Bar. 50:2-51:3. The Son of Man’s ability to judge is also further indication of the figure’s similarity with God. God is the one who works on the Sabbath (5:16-18) and he is the one who gives life and judges, but Jesus the Son of God and Son of Man has the authority to act like the Father (5:19-29). d. Life-giving and ascending Son of Man in Jn 6:27, 53, 62 Within John 6 there are three Son of Man sayings: 6:27, 53, and 62. These sayings are part of the larger context of the Bread of Life discourse.20 Although these sayings may not indicate overt characteristics of the apocalyptic interpretations of the Danielic son of man, I do believe that we find some examples in the context of John 6. In 6:27, Jesus responds to those seeking a sign by saying, “Do not work for the food that perishes but for the food that remains to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you.” The Son of Man’s giving of the food that remains to eternal

16. Bruce Chilton, “The Gospel according to John’s Rabbi Jesus,” BBR 25 (2015): 39–54. He sees in these verses the beginning of a generic “one like me” son of man and an angelic “son of man” being fused together. 17. J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, 3rd ed., NTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 133; Francis J. Moloney, The Johannine Son of Man, 2nd ed., BSRel 14 (Rome: Libreria Ateneo Salesiana, 1978), 81; Markus Sasse, Der Menschensohn im Evangelium nach Johannes, TANZ 35 (Tübingen: Francke, 2000), 175. 18.  On the question of the definiteness of υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου, see further detail in Benjamin E. Reynolds, The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John, WUNT II/249 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 132–37. 19.  George W.  E. Nickelsburg and James K.  VanderKam, 1 Enoch:  The Hermeneia Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012). All translations of 1 Enoch are from this translation. 20. On John 6, see Paul N. Anderson, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel Its Unity and Disunity in the Light of John 6, WUNT II/78 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1996).

Jesus the Son of Man

131

life implies that he has a role in the salvation of the righteous. This giving of the food that is himself is also addressed in the saying in 6:53. Depending on how the Son of Man’s sealing by the Father is understood (6:27), the sealing may be similar to the giving of authority to the Enochic son of man (1 En. 62:2; cf. Dan. 7:14). The association with the Son of Man and the bread of life which descends from heaven indicates the heavenly origin of the Son of Man. As the giver of life, the Son of Man shares similarities with God the Father, who also gives life (Jn 5:21, 24; 6:57; 17:2). The saying in 6:62 often is discussed in relation to a heavenly or apocalyptic background. The grammar of the saying is difficult because the sentence lacks an apodosis: “What if you see the Son of Man ascending where he was before?” It is unclear whether there will be a positive response. What is worth noting is the reference to the Son of Man ascending to where he was before (cf. 2 Bar. 30:1; 1 En. 48:3, 6; 4 Ezra 13:26). A return to heaven indicates the heavenly origin and implied preexistence of the Son of Man which has been noted previously in the Son of Man’s descent from heaven in Jn 3:13 and throughout John 6 with regard to the bread of life coming down from heaven.21 e. Jn 8:28 and the Son of Man’s origin and similarity with God Jn 8:28 is the second of the sayings about Jesus being lifted up, yet we again see contextual indicators that the Johannine Son of Man is being presented similarly to other apocalyptic interpretations. In the preceding discussion with “the Jews,” Jesus speaks of his going where they cannot go (8:21; cf. 7:33-34). Jesus responds to their confusion by saying that he is from above and they are from below. They are from this world, and he is not from this world. Such statements fit very well not only with the Johannine Jesus who was in the bosom of the Father, but also with an apocalyptic Son of Man who is recognized to be from heaven. Jesus says in 8:28, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am and I do nothing on my own . . . . ” The statement indicates the Son of Man’s close affinity with God, since the absolute “I AM” is generally understood to refer in this instance to the divine name.22 Within the context there are also references to Jesus’ act of judging (8:26; cf. 8:15, 16). All of these are common descriptions of the Son of Man in the Jewish apocalypses. f. Jn 9:35 and the worship of and belief in the Son of Man The saying in 9:35 is one of the most distinctive Son of Man sayings in all four Gospels:  “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” In the context of this saying, a

21. Painter, “Enigmatic Son of Man,” 1883. 22.  C. H.  Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1953), 95–96; Catrin H.  Williams, I Am He:  The Interpretation of ‘Anî Hû’ in Jewish and Early Christian Literature, WUNT II/113 (Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 266–75.

132

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

number of apocalyptic characteristics are noticeable. First, the Son of Man is worshipped by the man born blind (9:38). Worship is also part of the depiction of the son of man figures in Daniel and the Parables of Enoch (Dan. 7:14; 1 En. 62:6). The Johannine Son of Man is recognized by the man born blind through sight and belief. The Son of Man is again found in the context of judgment, and Jesus’ statement “for judgment I have come into this world” implies his previous existence outside of the world (9:39). The Johannine Son of Man’s heavenly origin is also indicated by the man born blind’s description of Jesus as being “from God” (9:33). Although this Son of Man saying is distinctive, multiple apocalyptic themes often associated with the Son of Man figures are found here as well. g. Jn 12:23, 34 and the glorification of the Messiah, Son of Man In Jn 12:23 when the Greeks come to see Jesus, he says, “Now, the hour has come in order that the Son of Man might be glorified.” Glory is a common aspect of the apocalyptic Son of Man figures. Within the Parables of Enoch, the Enochic Son of Man is glorified (1 En. 48:5; 51:3; cf. 2 Bar. 30:1) and he is seated on the throne of glory by the Lord of Spirits (1 En. 62:2–5; 69:27-29; cf. Mt. 25:31). Thus, the glorification of the Son of Man in John is another instance of an apocalyptic characteristic. It may be argued that in John 12 we again find a judgment role for the Johannine Son of Man implied in the statement in 12:31: “Now is the judgment of this world, now the ruler of this world is cast out.” The lifting up of the Son of Man and his glorification are the moment of the judgment.23 Considering previous references to judgment in connection with the Son of Man in 5:27; 9:39; and 3:13-18 and the association of judgment with the apocalyptic son of man figures, this statement is unsurprising. The drawing of all people to himself when he is lifted up (12:32) suggests a correlative role in salvation. Further, by mentioning the crowd’s association of the Son of Man with the Messiah, the narrative implies what has been implied earlier, particularly in 1:47-51, that the figure who is the Messiah is also the Son of Man. In the various interpretations of the Danielic son of man in the Jewish apocalypses, the Son of Man is the Messiah (and vice versa). h. Jn 13:31-32 and the glorification of the Son of Man The final Son of Man saying returns to the theme of the Son of Man’s glorification that first appeared in 12:23. Again, the son of man figures within the Jewish apocalypses are commonly associated with glory. Here in John, the Son of Man receives glorification that God receives, highlighting the similarity between the Son of Man and God. The glorification of the Son of Man has been described as

23. Judith L. Kovacs, “ ‘Now Shall the Ruler of This World Be Driven Out’: Jesus’ Death as Cosmic Battle in John 12:20–36,” JBL 114 (1995): 227–47.

Jesus the Son of Man

133

inseparable from the glorification of God24 and indicates their close relationship and association. i. Summary This brief discussion of the Johannine Son of Man sayings has drawn attention to the numerous features and functions that the Johannine Son of Man shares with the interpretations of the Danielic son of man in the Jewish apocalypses. The Johannine Son of Man is a heavenly figure, is preexistent, is the Messiah, is similar to God, is glorified, is worshipped, is recognized for his true identity, serves as judge, takes part in salvation, and gathers the elect.25 The extent to which these similar descriptions and features can be found in the Jewish apocalyptic interpretations and in the Gospel of John suggests that the Son of Man in the Gospel of John may be referred to as an apocalyptic Son of Man. The Johannine Son of Man, albeit with a distinctive Johannine portrayal, is portrayed similarly to the son of man figures in the Jewish apocalypses of 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch.

3. The significance of the apocalyptic Son of Man for John’s Christology What then is the significance of the apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John for Johannine Christology? I argue that there are six ways that an apocalyptic Son of Man contributes to Johannine Christology. First, the apocalyptic background of the Johannine Son of Man indicates the figure’s heavenly origin and preexistence in heaven. These features of the Johannine Jesus are recognizable in the Gospel without the use of the phrase “the Son of Man,” particularly in the logos (1:1-2, 18), the sending of the Son (3:16, 34), and in the glory that the Son had with the Father before the world began (17:1-5). However, it is the Son of Man who descends and ascends, who comes down from heaven. The apocalyptic background expands the portrait of the Jesus as a heavenly figure. Second, 3:12-13 highlight the Johannine Son of Man’s ability to reveal the heavenly mysteries because he is a heavenly figure, “whose true home is in heaven.”26 He is an apocalyptic revealer who has not had to ascend to heaven and receive the mysteries before bringing them back to earth. Instead, Jesus as the Son of Man descended from heaven to make them known. The content of the heavenly mysteries that the Johannine Son of Man reveals is the Father, and this revelation is made possible by the revelation of himself because believers see the Father by seeing Jesus (14:9-11).

24.  H. Dieckmann, “ ‘Der Sohn des Menschen’ im Johannesevangelium,” Scholastik 2 (1927): 229–47. 25. For a succinct summary see Reynolds, Apocalyptic Son of Man, 215–16. 26. Martyn, History and Theology, 131–32; Ashton, Understanding, 240.

134

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

Third, the Gospel explicitly states that the Son is able to judge because he is the Son of Man (5:27). Judgment elsewhere in John is connected to the Son of Man (9:35-39; cf. 3:14-18). This judgment role makes complete sense when viewed in comparison with Jewish apocalyptic interpretations of the Danielic son of man (1 En. 49:4; 62:2-3; 69:27; 4 Ezra 13:10, 37–38; 2 Bar. 40:1-2; 72:2), which also present this figure as judge. Fourth, the Gospel’s association of the Messiah with the Son of Man is also typical of the Jewish apocalyptic interpretations. The apocalyptic background indicates the Johannine and Christian traditions were not alone in viewing the same individual as both Messiah and Son of Man. The association of Messiah and the Son of Man creates difficulty for the view that John’s Son of Man Christology is a corrective to an “incorrect” view of Jesus as Messiah.27 Rather, the intertwining of the titles in 1:47-51 and 12:32-34 suggests that in a manner similar to the Jewish apocalypses the Gospel of John connects the roles of Messiah and the Son of Man, since the same individual is both.28 Fifth, the apocalyptic Son of Man background indicates the close association between Jesus and God. The title does so in a different way from the filial relationship indicated by “Son” or “Son of God.” “The Son of Man” designation adds to the Johannine portrayal of the Jesus as one who is described like and acts like God. Similar to the Father, the Son of Man is “I AM,” judges, gives life, receives glory, and is worshipped. Sixth, the title brings into the Johannine portrait the Son of Man’s connection to the righteous and his role in gathering them. Statements referring to Jesus’ drawing all people to himself (12:32) make greater sense when viewed against the backdrop of the Jewish apocalyptic interpretations of the Danielic “one like a son of man.” One example of this function is noticeable in the dwelling of the righteous with the Enochic Son of Man following the judgment of the wicked (1 En. 62:14).29

4. Johannine distinctiveness Although the apocalyptic background plays a significant role in helping understand the Johannine Son of Man, there are aspects of this figure distinctive to John. These include, first, the timing of the Son of Man’s glory and judgment. Both take place on earth in the present, even though the glorification and judgment also seem to have a future conclusion (5:27-29; 13:31-32).30 Second, the greater emphasis 27. Cf. Martyn, History and Theology, 128–30; Sasse, Menschensohn, 77, 247. 28. Between 1:49-51 and 12:34, “Messiah/Christ” is found in passages where there are no Son of Man sayings (John 4, 7, and 10). 29. Ellens, Son of Man in the Gospel of John, 118, also 239, lists three key features of the Johannine Son of Man: “The three dominant designations of the Son of Man in the Fourth Gospel are the heavenly figure, the revealer of God, and the savior” (emphasis in original). 30.  Jörg Frey, Die eschatologische Verkündigung in den johanneischen Texten, in Die johanneische Eschatologie, vol. 3. WUNT 117 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 381–91.

Jesus the Son of Man

135

on Jesus’ role in salvation compared with his role in judgment is particularly Johannine, and third, the Gospel of John presents the Son of Man’s glorification as beginning with the crucifixion. Even the Synoptic Gospels, which speak of the Son of Man’s suffering, portray the Son of Man’s glorification as taking place at Jesus’ future return to earth, that is, the parousia. For John, the glorification of the Son of Man begins “now” (12:23; 13:31). Thus, the Johannine Son of Man is distinctly Johannine, or in other words, the Son of Man in John is “Johannized.” While Francis Moloney seems to agree that apocalyptic characteristics of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου are recognizable in the Gospel of John,31 he contends that I  underestimate the extent of the Johannization.32 However, I do not think that the interpretation of the Son of Man in the Gospel of John is so fully Johannized that the apocalyptic background loses relevance for understanding the figure in John. The Johannine Son of Man remains a heavenly, preexistent figure who reveals heavenly things and is the Messiah. He judges, takes part in salvation, gathers the righteous, and is similar to God. The present time reference for some of these events does not mean that the apocalyptic background is nonexistent, especially since “apocalyptic” refers primarily to revelation and not to eschatology.33 Moloney suggests that our differences may be determined by the “weight given to the diachronic and synchronic.”34 As I see it, the primary difference between Moloney’s view and mine is not so much synchronic versus diachronic but rather whether the Son of Man’s “lifting up” and glorification refer primarily to the crucifixion or whether they also include Jesus’ resurrection and return to the Father. For Moloney, the Johannine Son of Man is located in the human Jesus rather than a heavenly figure because only a human being can be crucified.35 He has been at pains to argue that he has been misunderstood and that he does not argue that “the Son of Man” refers to Jesus’ humanity: Contrary to widespread interpretation of my earlier work on the Johannine Son of Man . . . , I do not claim that the expression in the Fourth Gospel “refers to his humanity.” I argued that John uses the expression “the Son of Man” to speak of the revelation of the divine (i.e., God) in the events of the life of Jesus, especially

31.  Moloney, “Parables of Enoch,” 290; also, Ellens, Son of Man in the Gospel of John, 4 n. 13. 32. Moloney, “Parables of Enoch,” 287. 33.  Matthias Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism in Late First Century Israel Reading Second Baruch in Context, TSAJ 142 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 292; Rowland, Open Heaven, 71. Moloney appears to equate “apocalyptic” and “eschatological,” stating: “However, in my opinion the Johannine rereading of apocalyptic (Enochic?) traditions thoroughly realizes them, rendering the Johannine Son of Man a ‘present’ figure” (Moloney, “Parables of Enoch,” 292 n. 86). 34. Moloney, “Parables of Enoch,” 292 n. 86. 35. Ibid., 287.

136

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

on the cross. “The Johannine Son of Man is the human Jesus, the incarnate Logos; he has come to reveal God with a unique and ultimate authority and in the acceptance or refusal of his revelation the world judges itself.”36

As I understand it, Moloney’s position ultimately derives from his understanding of the “lifting up” and “glorification” sayings. A heavenly figure cannot be crucified, but a human figure can be. Note his comment that the revelation of God “in the events of the life of Jesus” takes place “especially on the cross.”37 I, however, remain unconvinced that ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in 1:51; 3:13; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 9:35; 12:23; 13:31-32 has much, if anything, to do with the Son of Man as the revelation of God in the human figure of Jesus on the cross.38 Moloney’s understanding places greater emphasis on the lifting up and glorification sayings and requires that they refer primarily to the crucifixion (3:14; 8:28; 12:34 and 12:23; 13:31-32). In contrast, I would argue that the lifting up and glorification of the Son of Man, while beginning in the crucifixion, also include Jesus’ resurrection and return to the Father. This is not to view the lifting up as Jesus’ ascension,39 but with Raymond Brown and others, I understand the lifting up and glorification as the process of Jesus’ death, resurrection, and return to the Father.40 Jesus is the locus of the revelation of God. He reveals God by revealing himself. But the term “the Son of Man” does not merely locate that revelation of God in the human figure of Jesus on the cross. The phrase ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in the Gospel of John connotes a heavenly figure, as evident within the context of the Gospel, and even more so when considered in light of the apocalyptic background of “the Son of Man.” I am using both synchronic and diachronic approaches to reach my conclusions about the Johannine Son of Man. Moloney and I may place different weight on the synchronic and diachronic, but Moloney also has his own diachronic view, namely that the “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7 is the symbol of the holy ones of the Most High, following his doctoral supervisor Morna Hooker.41 In other words, 36. Ibid., 275, citing himself in Johannine Son of Man, 220. 37. Note Moloney, Johannine Son of Man, 219: “This is a human event, as only a human being can be nailed to a cross. . .” 38. For a non-crucifixion understanding of 6:53, see Reynolds, Apocalyptic Son of Man, 155–58. 39.  Cf. Bultmann, Gospel of John, 152 n.  4; Siegfried Schulz, Untersuchungen zur Menschensohn-Christologie im Johannesevangelium. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Methodengeschichte der Auslegung des 4. Evangeliums. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957), 107–8. 40. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John. 2 vols. AB 29–29A (Garden City, NY:  Doubleday, 1966–1970), 146; Josef Blank, Krisis:  Untersuchungen zur johanneischen Christologie und Eschatologie (Freiburg im Breisgau:  Lambertus, 1964), 84; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John trans. Kevin Smyth, Cecil Hastings, Francis McDonagh, David Smith, Richard Foley, and G. A. Kon, 3 vols. (New York: Herder/ Seabury/Crossroad, 1968, 1980, 1982), 1.396. 41. Francis J. Moloney, “The Johannine Son of Man Revisited,” in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar, ed. Gilbert

Jesus the Son of Man

137

Moloney’s view that the Danielic “one like a son of man” is a referent for suffering humanity may color his synchronic focus on the Johannine Son of Man. In reality, both of us are using synchronic and diachronic aspects to understand John’s Son of Man, but we differ on the interpretation Daniel 7 and on some interpretation of John. In my view, the Johannine inclusion of the crucifixion as part of the glorification and lifting up may derive from reflection on Daniel 7 and the servant songs of Isaiah, especially Isaiah 52–53. Since the Parables of Enoch and 4 Ezra also contain interpretive speculation on the Isaiah servant traditions and the Danielic son of man,42 and further that early Christian tradition associated Jesus’ suffering with Isaiah 52–53 (Acts 8:27-35; 1 Pet. 2:21-25),43 the Johannine Son of Man’s exaltation and glorification through suffering is not overly “Johannized” because there are thematic parallels with Second Temple Jewish interpretations of the Messiah and Son of Man that are evident in the portrayal of Jesus as Son of Man in John.

5. Reflections on the apocalyptic Son of Man and the historical Jesus Even though “the Son of Man” is found in all four Gospels, the Son of Man sayings in John are rarely considered in discussions of the historical Jesus. I would argue that the Johannine Son of Man sayings should be considered as part of the evidence in these historical assessments of the sayings of Jesus. The thematic coherence of the Johannine sayings with the depictions of the Son of Man in Second Temple Judaism and earliest Christianity is striking. That the Danielic son of man was interpreted with similar characteristics suggests the possibility of at least some general expectations or understandings of Daniel’s “one like a son of man” in the first century.44 The consistency in the depiction of Jesus as the Son of Man across the four Gospels compellingly suggests a coherent early Christian Son of Man tradition or a multiplicity of traditions drawing on a common historical set of sayings. Apart from Stephen’s use of “the Son of Man” in Acts 7:56, the angels’ repetition of Jesus’ words in Lk. 24:7, and the crowd’s use of Jesus’ words in Jn 12:34, only Jesus

Van Belle, J. G. Van der Watt, and P. J. Maritz, BETL 184 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005), 181–82; also, “Parables of Enoch,” 275; see Morna D.  Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark: A Study of the Background of the term “Son of Man” and Its Use in St. Mark’s Gospel (London: SPCK, 1967), 24–30. 42. Collins, Scepter and the Star, 211–12; also, Grabbe, “Son of Man.” 43.  See C.  F. D.  Moule, “Neglected Features in the Problem of ‘the Son of Man,’ ” in Neues Testament Und Kirche:  Für Rudolf Schnackenburg (Freiburg im Breisgau:  Herder, 1974), 413–28. 44.  Collins, Scepter and the Star; see also the compelling case made by Boyarin, “How Enoch Can Teach Us about Jesus.”

138

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

speaks the phrase. The phrase is always used as a reference to Jesus. It is absent from the rest of the New Testament apart the anarthrous uses in Heb. 2:6 and Rev. 1:13; 14:14, which are direct references to Ps. 8:5 and Dan. 7:13, respectively.45 These similarities between John and the Synoptic Gospels in their uses of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου to portray Jesus suggest greater scrutiny should be given to the Johannine Son of Man sayings with regard to the Son of Man debate. I have previously argued for the plausible authenticity of the Johannine Son of Man saying in Jn 9:35: “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”46 My argument is primarily dependent upon a positive use of the criterion of dissimilarity. We have no evidence of a confession of belief in the Son of Man in extant Jewish literature from the Second Temple period. There is likewise no such confessional statement in early Christianity. Even in John, the confessions of belief are in the Son and not in the Son of Man, as the scribal tradition of 9:35 well attests. As such, it seems plausible that this confessional question may have come from Jesus’ lips. Such findings raise questions about other sayings that have no clear parallel with the Synoptic Son of Man sayings, particularly if they also indicate possible thematic coherence. Jn 6:27 is one such possible saying: “Do not work for the food that perishes but for the food that remains to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you.” Thematic parallels with the Synoptic Son of Man traditions are noticeable in the connection of the Son of Man with salvation. The food language reflects coherence with the Son of Man figure’s link to the messianic banquet in some apocalyptic interpretations. 1 En. 62:14: “And the Lord of Spirits will abide over them, and with that Son of Man they will eat, and they will lie down and rise up forever and ever.” 2 Bar. 29:8: “At that time, those reservoir of manna will again descend from on high, and they will eat of it in those years, because these are the ones who have reached the consummation of time.”47

The Johannine distinctiveness exists in the Son of Man’s giving of the food. The similarity with the traditions yet the saying’s distinctiveness makes it worth our while to ask whether Jesus may have spoken this statement or something like it, or whether this is merely Johannine “theologizing.” Additional questions that could be pursued regarding the Johannine Son of Man and the historical Jesus include: What of the ascent and descent of the Son of 45.  For most of the above, see Maurice Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God: The Origins and Development of New Testament Christology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1991), 46–47. 46.  Benjamin E. Reynolds, “The Johannine Son of Man and the Historical Jesus: Shall Ever the Twain Meet? John 9:35 as a Test Case,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 9 (2011): 230–42. 47.  Translation from Michael E.  Stone and Matthias Henze, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: Translations, Introductions, and Notes (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014).

Jesus the Son of Man

139

Man in 3:13 and 6:62? Could the historical Jesus have said these statements? Could Jesus have been the one to associate his hour with the Son of Man’s glorification rather than the author or a redactor of John (12:23; 13:31)? Whether we are inclined to answer “yes” or “no,” we should be willing to ask these questions, rather than to assume that these Son of Man sayings are the work of the Evangelist or his community. Just because the Gospel of John has some unique sayings should not mean that they are inevitably inauthentic. The consistency of the portrayal of Jesus as Son of Man across the four Gospels and the characteristics of the Johannine Son of Man shared with early Jewish apocalypses suggests that John’s depiction of the Son of Man cannot be brushed aside from historical conversations too easily.

6. Conclusion The Johannine Son of Man is an apocalyptic Son of Man. This description of Jesus does not mean that the figure is eschatological. Rather, the Johannine Son of Man shares a number of features with the interpretations of Daniel’s “one like a son of man” in the Jewish apocalypses—the Parables of Enoch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch. Since these characteristics are perceptible in these Jewish apocalypses, the adjective “apocalyptic” may be appropriately applied to John’s Son of Man. Although Jn 3:13 and 5:27 are the sayings usually cited as examples of an apocalyptic understanding of the Son of Man in John, each of the Johannine Son of Man sayings reveals characteristics found in the Jewish apocalyptic interpretations of the Danielic son of man. The Johannine Son of Man is portrayed as preexistent, a heavenly figure, the Messiah, judge and bringer of salvation, revealer of heavenly things, gatherer of the righteous, recognized by the righteous, similar to God, and glorified. This understanding of the Johannine Son of Man expands our understanding of Johannine Christology by providing a reason for Jesus’ authority to judge, by highlighting a different perspective on his preexistence and heavenly origin, and offering reasons why he is able to reveal heavenly mysteries. As Son of Man, he is also Messiah and similar to God in ways that would not be discernible without the use of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. The apocalyptic Son of Man tradition has clearly experienced “Johannization,” but the apocalyptic aspects of the Son of Man in the Gospel of John are still noticeable and have not been overwhelmed by a Johannine distinctiveness. These features enhance the Christological portrait of the Johannine Jesus.

Chapter 10 J E SU S T H E S O N O F G O D I N J O H N ’ S G O SP E L :  THE LIFE-MAKING LOGOS Alicia D. Myers

Jesus’ identity as the “Son of God” is both a point firmly endorsed by the Gospel of John, and one that engenders some of the most—if not the most—ardent opposition to Jesus in this Gospel. Much of this opposition is a direct result of what John’s Gospel means with its identification of Jesus as the “Son of God.” The importance of the title is easily discerned with a quick overview of its appearances in the Gospel. The title “Son of God” (υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ) surfaces at least eight times in the Gospel of John: 1:49; 3:18; 5:25; 10:36; 11:4, 27; 19:7; 20:31.1 Breaking this list down further, we discover that Jesus himself uses the moniker four times (3:18; 5:25; 10:36; 11:4), others confess this title as an identity for him at least two times (Nathanael at 1:49; Martha at 11:27), it forms the basis of the charge brought against him in 5:16, 10:36, and 19:7, and the narrator provides the capstone reference in the so-called purpose statement of the Gospel in 20:31. According to John’s Gospel, recognizing that Jesus is the Son of God, in the way that this Gospel conveys, results in nothing less than “eternal life.” Each use of the title “Son of God” does not appear in isolation but is intimately bound to other titles and metaphors for Jesus’ identity, especially in relationship to God as “Father.” Indeed, it is by means of such layering that this title becomes so significant to the Gospel’s portrait of its protagonist. References to Jesus as “Son of God” in the Fourth Gospel reach far beyond a singular referent (e.g., kingship or divinity) and instead branch out to link other images to the larger motif of Jesus as “son” and God as his, unique “father.” In this way, the tradition of Jesus as the royal “Son of God” is blended with other, arguably more exalted traditions, in the memory of the Johannine community. For this community, Jesus as God’s Son means that he is more than just a king or a divinely-anointed leader for God’s Kingdom. Rather, he is the unique enfleshment of God’s logos who alone 1. To these eight occurrences, one might also add Jn 1:34, which contains a significant text critical issue over whether John (the Baptist) confesses Jesus to be the “Son of God” or the “Elect One of God.” For an overview of the evidence, as well as an argument in favor of the “Elect One” reading, see Tze-Ming Quek, “A Text-Critical Study of John 1.34,” NTS 55 (2009): 22–34.

142

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

completely reflects, reveals, and shows the way to the Father, who is the ultimate author of all life (1:1-5, 14-18; 5:26; 6:57). In this chapter, I will explore the connections between the title of “Son of God” in the Gospel of John and several other prominent themes, especially Jesus’ ability to give eternal life as the embodiment of God’s logos. I  will begin with a brief overview of traditional interpretations of the title “Son of God” in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John before turning to my own analysis of the Fourth Gospel. The repeated connection between Jesus as God’s Son and his ability to give life results in a specifically Johannine emphasis on the title: one that resonates with ancient understandings of conception and generation to emphasize Jesus’ unique, ontological, relationship with God. Thus, for John, it is as God’s Son that Jesus gives life and “makes alive” (ζῳοποιέω), just as his Father does (5:21). Jesus’ characterization as life-giving “Son of God” in John, therefore, reinforces the suggestion made by Dale Allison and others that language of “eternal life” replaces the dominant language of “Kingdom of God/Heaven” from the Synoptics.2 This is not to suggest that John’s Gospel dispenses with kingly or royal components in its characterization of Jesus or God’s eternal dominion. After all, Davidic overtones, kingship language, and the phrase “Kingdom of God” do appear in this Gospel as well, and even in connection to the title “Son of God” (e.g., 1:49; 3:5; 6:15; 12:1516; 18:18-19). Nevertheless, John’s use of the title “Son of God” works alongside other metaphors in the Gospel to emphasize Jesus’ ontological connection to God as the embodiment of God’s logos—the “light and life of humanity”—who alone completes God’s will by providing access to eternal life (1:4).

1. Son of God: A synopsis of Gospel perspectives The royal connotations behind the title “Son of God” are well-established by biblical scholars. Such understandings are rightly traced back to Davidic traditions preserved in Israel’s Scriptures, particularly in the oft-cited Ps. 2:7: “He said to me, ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you’ ” (NRSV).3 Referenced in the Synoptic 2.  Dale C.  Allison, Jr., Constructing Jesus:  Memory, Imagination, and History (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 187–90. Corresponding to this reading, Allison cites John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 218; Jörg Frey, Die eschatologische Verkündigung in den johanneischen Texten, Die johanneische Eschatologie, vol. 3, WUNT 117 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 254–70; E. F. Scott, “Life,” in A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, ed. James Hastings, 2  vols. (Edinburgh:  T&T Clark, 1908), 2:31. Beth Stovell, Mapping Metaphorical Discourse in the Fourth Gospel: John’s Eternal King, Linguistic Biblical Studies 5 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 3–19 offers an overview of various scholars supporting this position. 3. This is not to deny other traditions that connect divine Sonship and royalty throughout the ancient world. Rather, it is to specify the Davidic traditions that are particularly prominent in the Gospel accounts. See, especially, Lidija Novakovic, Messiah, the Healer of the Sick: A Study of Jesus as the Son of David in the Gospel of Matthew, WUNT II/170

Jesus the Son of God in John’s Gospel

143

accounts of Jesus’ baptism, this particular verse, and the traditions it encapsulates, hangs in the background of Jesus’ characterization in Mark, Matthew, and Luke— all of which build on the royal theme in various ways throughout their narratives. In these stories, Jesus’ anointing as God’s Son is a reflection of his status as the Davidic heir who brings the promise of God’s eternal reign to fruition. Matthew, for example, relishes the Davidic connection, which he exploits in his genealogy and then returns to repeatedly throughout his story (Mt. 1:1-17, 20; 9:27; 12:3, 23; 15:22; 20:30-31; 21:9, 15; 22:41-46). Like David, Jesus is chosen by God and anointed with God’s Spirit. Yet, as one greater than David, he is conceived by means of God’s Holy Spirit, and after his obedient life and death are vindicated with resurrection, he is given “all authority on heaven and earth” as the presence of God made manifest to his disciples (28:18-20). To be sure, such ideas are not entirely divorced from presentations of Jesus in John, especially in Nathanael’s confession at 1:49 that pairs the title “Son of God” with “King of Israel” (1:49). As Richard Hays notes, “The synonymous parallelism of these two titles [in John 1:49] demonstrates that ‘Son of God’ should be heard as a royal honorific designation.”4 Nevertheless, in the same paragraph, Hays also notes that such a designation brings more to the table for John:  “in the Fourth Gospel,” he writes, “ ‘Son of God’ is more than an exalted way of acclaiming Israel’s expected Davidic king:  it carries larger metaphysical implications about Jesus’ identity.”5 Thus, Jesus refuses the title “king” as it is placed upon him in Jn 6:15 and he spends the remainder of the Gospel defining his kingship in the acts of dying and rising again for the sake of his sheep (10:14-18). For John, Jesus does not need to be made “king” any more than he needs to be made “God’s Son.” What needs to take place is a recognition of how Jesus is God’s Son and King, alongside the other titles offered for him in this Gospel, in order to receive the life he administers and embodies. As Hays suggests, there is more afoot in John’s Gospel. Such a reading does not imply that the Synoptic Gospels are not also interested in making significant claims about Jesus by means of the associations present in the

(Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 2003). On additional elements of ideal kingship in Matthew’s Gospel see Alicia D.  Myers, “Jesus as Ideal King:  Isaiah 42 and the Characterization of Jesus in Matt 12:17–21,” in What Does Scripture Say? Studies in the Function of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity, ed. Craig A. Evans and Dan Zacharias, LNTS 469, SSEJC 17 (London: T & T Clark, 2012), 70–89. 4. Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016), 324. 5. Ibid. Extensive work has been done on Jesus’ kingship in John, particularly in light of Old Testament connections. A few studies are worth mentioning: Margaret Daly-Denton, David in the Fourth Gospel: The Johannine Reception of the Psalms, AGJU 47 (Leiden: Brill, 1999); J. G. van der Watt, Family of the King: Dynamics of Metaphor in the Gospel According to John, BIS 47 (Leiden:  Brill, 2000); Andrew C.  Brunson, Psalm 118 in the Gospel of John: An Intertextual Study on the New Exodus Pattern in the Theology of John, WUNT II/ 158 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003); Stovell, Mapping Metaphorical Discourse.

144

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

title “Son of God,” Davidic and otherwise. Indeed, Matthew and Luke demonstrate the developing ontological aspects of the title “Son of God” by including conception and birth narratives for Jesus that initiate Jesus’ characterization as “Son of God” long before his baptismal anointing. Thus, Matthew and Luke avoid the potential interpretation of a sudden divine adoption or “commissioning” of Jesus to become the Son of God only at his baptism, which could be inferred by Mark’s baptism account (Mk 1:10-11).6 Instead, both Matthew and Luke assert that Jesus’ ontological, divine Sonship is the result of Mary’s conception by means of the Holy Spirit. Luke is even more emphatic than Matthew that Mary was very much a virgin at the time of her conception (Mt. 1:18-25; Lk. 1:26-38). Rather than being “adopted” or recognized by God as his Son after his obedient display at his baptism, Matthew and Luke insist that Jesus is conceived as God’s Son, shaped and animated by the Holy Spirit.7 The only “adoption” that must occur in these stories is the implied “adoption” of Jesus by Joseph so that he can also claim to be a “Son of David” according to ancestral lineage (Mt. 1:1; Lk. 3:23-38). It should come as no surprise, then, that the Gospel of John offers its own development of the title, emphasizing in its own terms Jesus’ ontological relationship to God as his Son. The importance of filial language in John has been long acknowledged and variously explored by a number of scholars. In her study The God of the Gospel of John, Marianne Meye Thompson notes that the Gospel uses the designation “Father” (πατήρ) for God (θεός) 120 times.8 Moreover, Jesus’ relationship to this Father as Son is entirely unique in John’s Gospel—believers are identified as “children of God” (τέκνα θεοῦ, 1:12) rather than “sons” (υἱοί).9 Although risking a disservice to Thompson’s work by once again turning my attention to the Son

6.  Elizabeth Struthers Malbon uses language of “commissioning” instead of adoption in Mark’s Jesus:  Characterization as Narrative Christology (Waco, TX:  Baylor University Press, 2009), 77. On Markan adoptionism, see Donald H.  Juel, “The Origin of Mark’s Christology,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. James A. Charlesworth (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 449–60; Yigal Levin, “Jesus, ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of David’: The ‘Adoption’ of Jesus into the Davidic Line,” JSNT 28 (2006): 415– 42. Joel Marcus takes a more conciliatory middle way on this issue writing: “The two views are not wholly incompatible with each other; God could have planned a long time before to make Jesus Messiah at his baptism. Or Mark may not be sure in his own mind when Jesus became Messiah” (Mark 1–8 [AB27; New York: Doubleday, 1999], 1:160). 7. The role of spirit (πνεῦμα) in conception and generation is consistent in both Jewish and Greco-Roman theories of conception and fetal development. The spirit that animates a child in the womb bestows identity and character on that child. For an exploration of these ideas and their implications in the Gospel birth stories see Alicia D. Myers, Blessed Among Women? Mothers and Motherhood in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 42–76. 8.  Marianne Meye Thompson, The God of the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 57. 9. Ibid., 70.

Jesus the Son of God in John’s Gospel

145

rather than the Father, her observations on the Father’s attitudes toward the Son are relevant for the present discussion. She highlights that for John, “God’s actions as Father are focused on Jesus himself ” as the source of the life Jesus gives, the figure of authority who commissions Jesus, and as the one whose love is embodied and reflected in Jesus as Son.10 The Father-Son language that reverberates throughout John communicates a unique unity between God and Jesus: “The Son comes from God and is related to God in a direct manner.”11 Further, it is this unique unity that is at the core of the life-giving ability Jesus possesses and the mission he conducts.12 In addition to Thompson’s insightful work on this topic are a number of additional studies into the metaphorical or symbolic language of John’s Gospel, some among note being those by Dorothy Lee, Craig Koester, Jan G.  van der Watt, Ruben Zimmerman, Beth Stovell, and most recently, Adesola Akala.13 These scholars approach the language of “family” or the “Son-Father relationship” in terms of metaphor or symbol. I will not go into a full discussion of the various theories of metaphor or symbol used in these works. Instead, a couple succinct, preliminary understandings are sufficient here. In his introduction, van der Watt notes that while theories differ on the functions of “figurative language,” they agree that “[f]igurative language works by means of reference. What is referred to, differs from the literal meaning of the words.”14 As Koester helpfully clarifies, however, the literal meaning need not be completely disconnected from the figurative. He explains, “to speak metaphorically is to speak of one thing in terms appropriate to another.”15 In this way, metaphors bring greater understanding by bringing different, and sometimes jarring, images together to create what Koester describes as primary and secondary levels of meaning. By means of metaphors, then, audiences of John’s Gospel experience repeated collisions of various levels

10. Ibid., 58. 11. Ibid., 70. 12. Ibid., 78–82. 13.  Dorothy Lee, The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel:  The Interplay of Form and Meaning, JSNTSup 95 (Sheffield:  Sheffield Academic, 1995); van der Watt, Family of the King; Ruben Zimmermann, Christologie der Bilder im Johannesevangelium:  Die Chistopoetik des vierten Evangeliums unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Joh 10, WUNT 171 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001); idem, “Imagery in John:  Opening Up Paths into the Tangled Thicket of John’s Figurative World,” in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language, ed. Jörg Frey, Jan G. van der Watt, Ruben Zimmermann, WUNT 200 (Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 1–43; Craig R. Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis:  Fortress Press, 2003); Stovell, Mapping Metaphorical Discourse; Adesola J. Akala, The Son-Father Relationship and Christological Symbolism in the Gospel of John, LNTS 505 (London: Bloomsbury, 2014). 14. van der Watt, Family of the King, xviii. 15. Koester, Symbolism, 6. On the variety of relationships between literal and figurative meanings in metaphorical language see Koester, Symbolism, 8–15.

146

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

of meaning that create multiple analogies to enable a deeper understanding of Jesus. It is by recognizing relationships between the literal and figurative aspects of metaphorical and symbolic language that John’s audiences better understand Jesus’ true identity and mission, including as the “Son of God.” Van der Watt argues that “family language,” including the language of Father and Son, is the “most prominent” of the “metaphorical networks” in the Gospel.16 Akala agrees. She suggests that the Son-Father relationship forms the “organizing principle” for John’s “symbolic network,” grounding any number of additional symbols for understanding both Jesus and God.17 Particularly helpful from all of these studies is the acknowledgment of the embedded nature of John’s language. Layering language and images throughout the Gospel, John makes it impossible to extract just one idea from his web. Instead, the language builds and draws us deeper into “the way” that Jesus reveals to the Father/God (1:18).18 Building on the observations of these scholars, therefore, we turn now to the task at hand:  namely, exploring what exactly it means for Jesus to be identified as “Son of God” in the Gospel of John. While the centrality of John’s Son-Father language is quite clear in the Gospel, a close reading of John’s language in light of ancient understandings of generation and filial relationships pushes against a purely royal interpretation of it. Unlike the Synoptic Gospels that emphasize the royal connotations of the title, especially by means of its connection to Psalm 2, John’s Gospel employs filial language in ways that reverberate with ancient procreative theories. As a result, John’s use of the title “Son of God” brings to the fore Jesus’ life-giving and, indeed, life-making power. While this certainly does not negate royal aspects of the title, it does push forward a particularly Johannine interest in life. For John, Jesus’ identity as God’s Son authenticates the unique claims about him as the means to eternal life in this Gospel story.

2. The logos made flesh is God’s Son Akala grounds her analysis of John’s “Son-Father Relationship” in two primary passages: the Prologue, defined as Jn 1:1-18, and the prayer from Jn 17:1-26.19 Her

16. Ibid., 161. 17. Akala, Son-Father Relationship, xv. 18.  See Craig R. Koester, “Jesus as the Way to the Father in Johannine Theology (John 14,6),” in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by the Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar, ed. G. van Belle, J. G. van der Watt, and P. Maritz, BETL 184 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005), esp. 126–33. 19.  While Akala’s delineation of the Prologue as Jn 1:1-18 corresponds to the majority reading, it is not the only possible conclusion. Jo-Ann A. Brant (John Paideia [Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker Academic,  2011], 26–27), for example, notes the very established tradition of interpreting the Prologue to end at v. 14, followed by vs. 15-18 as a quotation from John (the Baptist).

Jesus the Son of God in John’s Gospel

147

emphasis on the Prologue is in keeping with a number of other scholars, including Kasper Bro Larsen who argues that this passage “sets the stage” for the rest of the Gospel narrative with its robust presentation of the logos’s identity now enfleshed in the person, Jesus Christ (1:1-16).20 The initial characterization of Jesus from John’s Prologue, therefore, also plays an important role in the present analysis in spite of the fact that the word υἱός does not appear in the passage. Instead of υἱός, the Prologue infers “sonship” status with the phrase μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός (“unique/only one from a father”) in v.  14, followed with the enigmatic μονογενὴς θεὸς, ὁ ὤν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός (“unique/only one God, the one being in the bosom of the Father”) in v. 18. By reserving υἱός for later passages, the Prologue’s emphasis rests on its main character, who “becomes flesh” as Jesus Christ: namely, the logos. The well-known links to Genesis in the opening verses of John’s Gospel function as a dominant context for the Prologue and the Gospel as a whole (Jn 1:1-5; Gen. 1:1-2:4a).21 The very first verses of John’s story establish Israel’s Scripture as the foundational reference point for understanding God’s creating, sustaining, and revealing work by means of the logos throughout all time, including this new time marked by the logos taking on flesh and “tenting” (ἐσκήνωσεν) among God’s people (Jn 1:14; Exod. 40:34-38). Defining the logos as the “light” and “life” of humanity, the Prologue claims that Life has come to the created cosmos embodied in the person of Jesus (Jn 1:1-5, 9, 14-17). In this way, he is “unique” (μονογενοῦς, 1:16; μονογενὴς, 1:18) not only as the location of God’s “glory” (δόξαν, 1:14) but likewise in his ability to demonstrate that glory

20.  Kasper Bro Larsen, Recognizing the Stranger:  Recognition Scenes in the Gospel of John, BIS 93 (Leiden:  Brill, 2008), 74. See also Paul Duke, Irony in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985); Gail R. O’Day, Revelation in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Mode and Theological Claim (Philadelphia:  Fortress Press, 1986); Jeffrey L.  Staley, The Print’s First Kiss: A Rhetorical Investigation of the Implied Reader in the Fourth Gospel, SBLDS 82 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1988); R. Alan Culpepper, “The Christology of the Johannine Writings,” in Who Do You Say that I Am? Essays in Honor of Jack Dean Kingsbury, ed. Mark Allan Powell, David R. Bauer (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 85; Christopher W. Skinner, John and Thomas—Gospels in Conflict? Johannine Characterization and the Thomas Question, Princeton Theological Monographs 115 (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009); Alicia D. Myers, Characterizing Jesus: A Rhetorical Analysis on the Gospel’s Use of Scripture in its Presentation of Jesus, LNTS 458 (London: T&T Clark, 2012). 21.  Mary L. Coloe, “The Structure of the Johannine Prologue and Genesis 1,” ABR 45 (1997): 50–55; Elaine H. Pagels, “Exegesis of Genesis 1 in the Gospels of Thomas and John,” in For a Later Generation:  The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, ed. Randall A. Argall, Beverly A. Bow, Rodney A. Werline (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), 196–215; John Painter, “Earth Made Whole: John’s Rereading of Genesis,” in Word, Theology, and Community in John, ed. John Painter, R. Alan Culpepper, Fernando F.  Segovia (St. Louis:  Chalice, 2002), 65–84; Myers, Characterizing Jesus, 62–63. See also Daniel Boyarin’s classic overview, “The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John,” HTR 94 (2001): 243–84.

148

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

in granting the “life” that is a very part of his being. Jesus makes this claim in the Gospel through his healing narratives and the feeding of the five thousand, as well as in explicit and astounding speeches. For example, responding to the accusation that he “was calling God his own father, making himself equal to God” (5:18), Jesus states, “Just as the Father has life in himself, thusly also he gave to the Son to have life in himself ” (5:26). Understanding such claims is aided when we approach the Prologue with additional information about origins and procreation from Mediterranean antiquity. In separate publications, Adele Reinhartz and Turid Karlsen Seim explore the resonances between ancient theories of conception and generation, particularly Aristotle’s theory of epigenesis, and the Johannine Prologue.22 According to Aristotle, the animating and ordering principle that is λόγος is found only in male semen, which is the masculine and, he assumes, more perfect, part of the blood contributions required for human conception and generation (Gen. an. 2.3–6 [737a, 20–745b, 21]). Heated by the male body, semen is a combination of λόγος and vital spirit (πνεῦμα), and it alone can order and infuse life to create a fetus. In contrast, female contributions are in the form of menstrual blood, the cold and passive collection accumulating in her womb before menstruation each month. When added to the inanimate blood in a woman’s womb during sex, the life-orchestrating λόγος gives and orders life in the soulless matter of the woman (Gen. an. 1.2 [716a, 4–7]). In addition to images of Wisdom and creation, therefore, Reinhartz and Seim argue that audiences of John should also hear these assumptions about the logos and procreation when reading the Prologue. Indeed, as Gwynn Kessler has shown, the overlap between creation and procreation in Second Temple Jewish and later Rabbinic texts is well established; just as God is the source of all life in the beginning, so too does God continue creating life in each embryo conceived.23 Thus, it is not that one image overshadows the other in the Gospel of John, but rather, these motifs of creation and procreation work together to make a profound statement. Jesus is the logos, who is life at creation and all moments of procreation afterward, now made flesh. His very being is Life. Indeed, according to the Prologue, Jesus is not conceived like any other person. He is not described as one begotten “from bloods or the will of the flesh or the will of a man,” which would have contained a man’s λόγος and vital spirit (πνεῦμα).

22. Adele Reinhartz, “ ‘And the Word was Begotten’: Divine Epigenesis in the Gospel of John,” Semeia 85 (1999): 83–103; Turid Karlsen Seim, “Descent and Divine Paternity in the Gospel of John: Does the Mother Matter?” NTS 51 (2005): 361–75; eadem, “Motherhood and the Making of Fathers in Antiquity: Contextualizing Genetics in the Gospel of John,” in Women and Gender in Ancient Religions:  Interdisciplinary Approaches, ed. Stephen P.  Ahearne-Kroll, Paul A.  Holloway, James A.  Kelhoffer, WUNT 263 (Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 99–123. 23.  Gwynn Kessler, Conceiving Israel:  The Fetus in Rabbinic Narratives, Divinations:  Rereading Late Ancient Religion (Philadelphia:  University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009), 111–16.

Jesus the Son of God in John’s Gospel

149

Instead, Jesus is nothing other than God, the Father’s supremely superior, ultimate life-giving and ordering logos “become flesh” (σὰρξ ἐγένετο, 1:14). It is for this reason that he can be called a μονογενὴς θεός in 1:18. He is a unique and only child, who perfectly reflects his Father’s glory as though from a father alone (μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, 1:14; τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ, 3:16-18).24 For John’s Gospel, it is as though Jesus is from the Father alone, since he encapsulates God’s logos in human form. It is not surprising, then, that Jesus’ mother makes no appearance in the Prologue and is regularly distanced from her son in the Gospel narrative (2:1-12; 6:42; 19:25-27). In this way, Jesus’ mother provides one more clue to Jesus’ unique origins and his complete alignment with his Father. It is to his Father that Jesus is ultimately loyal because, as God’s logos in the flesh, Jesus embodies and enacts completely his Father’s will as the Son. This also explains why Jesus “has life” in himself just as the Father does in Jn 5:26. God and Jesus are “not simply metaphorically related as father and son” in John’s Gospel, but as Colleen Conway has recently concluded, “their relationship is the result of ideal masculine generation,” since Jesus is the enfleshment of the Father’s logos without explicit mention of maternal contributions.25 In other words, Jesus is God’s ideal, ontological Son. With this foundation in place, the Gospel moves quickly to make additional semantic links from the Prologue forward into the plot of Jesus-the-Word’s life story, thus making his Sonship the crux of conflict that leads finally to his crucifixion. One key passage is John 3, which contains a number of semantic links back to the Prologue, including an explicit connection between μονογενής and υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. Zimmermann has described these collections of terms in John as “clusters” of images, which blend in ways that prevent their complete separation.26 In the conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus blends aspects of the Prologue into his nighttime meeting with the “leader of the Pharisees” in ways that are only audible to the Gospel audience; nevertheless, their volume for these hearers makes them difficult to miss. As illustrated by Table  10.1 below, the semantic cluster in John 3 includes references to:  birth/begetting (1:12-13; 3:3-8); flesh (1:13-14; 3:6); witness/ testimony (1:7-8; 3:11); life (1:4; 3:15-16); light (1:4-5, 7-9; 3:19-21); the world (1:9-10; 3:16-17, 19); believing (1:7, 12; 3:12, 15-16, 18); Moses (1:17; 3:14); name

24. The debates over the meaning of μονογενής are well worn and will not be articulated in depth here. While the majority opinion pushes against a connection to γεννάω, it should be noted that μονογενής was used as a description for only children (e.g., Judg. 11:34; Tob. 3:15; Pss. 21:21; 34:17; Od. Sol. 14:13; Ps. Sol. 18:4; Lk. 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; Heb. 11:17). Philo offers a similar phrase in his description of “Sabbath” as a day begotten without a mother in Mos. 2.209–10. He describes Sabbath as superior, in part, because “she was motherless, exempt from female parentage, begotten by the Father alone (ἐκ μόνου πατρός), without begetting, brought to the birth, yet not carried in the womb” (LCL, Colson). 25.  Colleen M.  Conway, Behold the Man:  Jesus and Greco-Roman Masculinity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 145. 26. Zimmermann, “Images in John,” 31.

150

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

(1:6, 12; 3:1, 18); and, of course, μονογενής (1:14, 18; 3:16, 18). Significantly, many of these words resurface in John 3 after an absence in the later portions of John 1 and all of John 2. Rather than simply repeating these words with the same ideas from the Prologue in John 3, however, the narrator augments and expands upon these foundational ideas with new ones. In the process, the narrator continues to build the audience’s understanding of Jesus’ identity and mission, including his role as the “Son of God.” Thus, life (ζωή) is not simply “life” but grows to “eternal life” (ζωὴν αἰώνιον, 3:15-16) and shares space in the same dialogue that references the “Kingdom of God” (βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, 3:3, 5). Types of birth/begetting are again set in contrast, this time between “flesh” and “water and spirit” instead of “flesh” and “God” (1:12-13; 3:3, 6), and the superior type of birth is expanded with the multivalent ἄνωθεν (3:7, cf. 3:31).27 Jn 3:16-18 is especially significant for the present discussion because it is here that the Gospel explicitly combines μονογενής with υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ: For thusly God loved the world, that he gave the unique Son28 (τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ), so that each one who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life (ζωὴν αἰώνιον). For God did not send the Son (τὸν υἱόν) into the world that he might judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him. The one who believes in him is not judged; but the one who does not believe has already been judged, because he has not believed in the name of the unique Son of God. (μὴ πεπίστευκεν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ) (Emphasis added)

Verse 18 is particularly striking in its resonance with Jn 1:12, which contains the phrase “to the ones who believe in his name” (τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ). Already knowing that “his” name is “Jesus” in 1:17, Jn 3:18 offers another description for exactly who Jesus is. Moreover, this description confirms the reading of μονογενής given above: he is the Son of God (υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ). “Belief ” or “trusting” that the name of the μονογενής is “Jesus” frees one from judgment because, for John, it is the alignment of oneself with Life: the logos of God. This

27.  John’s testimony in 3:31-36 is tied directly to Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus with the use of ἄνωθεν. Explaining Jesus’ origins (and his superiority) he explains, “The one who comes from above (ἄνωθεν) is above all; the one who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks about earthly things. The one who comes from heaven is above all” (NRSV). In this way, John’s Gospel continues to build John (the Baptist’s) character as a reliable one, and who is aligned with God’s (and Jesus’) will (1:5-6). 28.  Υἱός in 3:16 is linked most closely to υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου that appears just prior in v. 15. The noun in v. 16, therefore, functions as a link to bring the ideas of the υἱὸς together with the foundational images of the Prologue (μονογενής), and finally the title υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ in v. 18.

Jesus the Son of God in John’s Gospel

151

“life” is “eternal” because it is true life spoken at creation and sustaining all things throughout time (1:1-5). This emphasis on “life” continues to emerge in the next utterance of υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ in 5:25. John 5 is a crucial cluster of υἱός and πατήρ language. This passage includes what are sometimes identified as the “apprentice” sayings in 5:19-23, which explain the relationship of the Son to the Father: the Son imitates the Father in his work.29 For the Gospel of John, this means that the Son has the authority to give life or, literally, to “make alive” (ζῳοποιέω). Jn 5:21 reads, “For just as the Father raises the dead and makes alive (ζῳοποιεῖ), thusly also the Son makes alive (ζῳοποιεῖ) whom he wills.” Again tying in terms from the Prologue and chapter 3, John 5 continues developing the emphasis on Jesus’ life-giving and life-making ability. In v. 25 Jesus explicitly ties these traits again to the title “Son of God” by saying: “Amen amen I say to you that the hour is coming and now is when the dead ones will hear the voice of the Son of God (υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ) and the ones who hear will live (ζήσουσιν)!” It is this context that precedes 5:26, already noted above for its significance in connecting Jesus’ Sonship to his ability to give life: “Just as the Father has life in himself, thusly also he gave to the Son to have life in himself ” (ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἔχει ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, οὕτως καὶ τῷ υἱῷ ἔδωκεν ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ). Jesus refutes the charge against him that he “makes himself equal to God,” not by denying his special relationship to God, but by reinforcing it. In other words, the Jews in John 5 are not wrong that Jesus is claiming a unique relationship with God; what they fail to recognize is the validity of that claim. Space constraints prevent a full exploration of the semantic links present between John 1 and 5, and John 3 and 5 here. Nevertheless, Table 10.1 shows that John is building another link in his chain of connections. In John 5, the narrator includes a number of reoccurring terms from John 1 and 3. Verse sections in bold indicate that a word does not occur in the intervening chapters. Verse sections in parenthesis indicate a word or phrase that occurs right before or after the highlighted sections, or note the use of a related word. This selection of words is, of course, limited and it does not mean to discount other instances of repetition in John 2, 4, or additional chapters. Moreover, as Jo-Ann Brant has demonstrated, there are limits to looking only for semantic links, since an author might change words or phrases as much for style as for theological import.30 Nevertheless, this method identifies quickly the

29.  C. H.  Dodd, Historical Traditions in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1963), 30–40; C.  K. Barrett, Gospel According to St John, 2nd ed. (New  York:  Macmillan, 1955; Philadelphia:  Westminster, 1978), 259–60; Raymond E. Brown, Gospel According to John I–XII (AB 29; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 218; van der Watt, Family of the King, 206–9; Ashton, Understanding, 324–28. 30.  Brant makes this clear throughout her analysis of the Gospel of John. For instance, she notes the importance of diction to ancient authors and audiences, including those of the Fourth Gospel (John, 71).

152

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

Table 10.1 Semantic links between John 1, 3, and 5 Jn 1:1-18

Jn 3:1-21

λόγος—1:1, 14 ζωή, ζάω—1:4

3:15–16

φῶς—1:4–5, 7–9 φαίνω—1:5 κόσμος—1:10 μαρτυρία/έω—1:7–8, 15 πιστεύω—1:7, 12 ὄνομα—1:6, 12 δίδωμι—1:12, 17 γεννάω—1:13 πατήρ—1:14, 18 μονογενής—1:14, 18 (1:19)

3:19–21 3:16–17, 19 3:11 3:12, 15–16, 18 3:1, 18 3:16 3:3–8 (3:35) 3:16, 18 οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι—3:1 δύναται—3:2–5, 9 ποιέω—3:2, 21 θαυμάζω—3:7 υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου—3:13–14

Jn 5:19-47 5:24, 38 (ῥήμασιν—5:47) 5:24, 26, 29, 39, 40 (ζῳοποιέω—5:21) 5:35 5:35 5:31–32, 34, 36–39 5:24, 46, 47 5:43 (2x) 5:22, 26, 27, 36 5:17–22, 26, 36–37, 43, 45 (5:1, 15, 16, 18) 5:19, 30, 44 5:19 (4x), 20, 27, 29–30, 36 5:20, 28 5:19–23, 26

connections between John 1, 3, and 5. John’s combination of motifs from these three chapters continues constructing Jesus’ identity for the Gospel audience, who alone has access to hear all of the building and blending happening within the Gospel. “Life” again emerges as a prominent theme surrounding Jesus’ identity, particularly as Son of God. It should not be surprising, then, that when “Son of God” is used again in Jn 11:4 and 27 Jesus’ ability to “make alive” is also at the forefront, this time the attention being put squarely on the literal resurrection of his friend, Lazarus. Jesus’ ability to give life (“make alive”), just as God alone does and when God alone does (on the Sabbath, 5:1-18; 7:14-36; 9:1-41), underscores the ontological connection between himself and his “Father.” As noted earlier, it is this behavior that forms the foundation for the charges against Jesus in John, often around his claim to be the “Son of God.” Returning again to John 5, the focus of Jesus’ opponents is not on the life that Jesus “makes” (ποιέω); instead, the charge against Jesus is consistently that he “makes himself (ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν) equal to God” as God’s Son (5:18). Jn 5:18 is simply the first communication of this charge. These charges are repeated in Jesus’ tumultuous exchange at Tabernacles in 8:12-59 and again at the Festival of Dedication in 10:31-38, where he justifies his self-designation as “Son of God” on the basis of Psalm 82. This charge remains the foundational charge against Jesus when the Jews bring him before Pilate in Jn 19:7 saying, “We have a law and according to the law he ought to die because he made himself a son of God” (ὅτι υἱὸν θεοῦ ἑαυτὸν ἐποίησεν).

Jesus the Son of God in John’s Gospel

153

Brant notes that the charge against Jesus is not for claiming God as his “Father” in a collective sense—in the way that God is the “Father” of all of Israel, which the Jews also claim in Jn 8:41.31 Instead, the sticking point is the unique nature of the Sonship that Jesus claims and, according to the Gospel’s presentation, that he lives out by “making alive” various persons around him. This unique nature is stressed by the Gospel, not only with its use of μονογενής, but also with the generative theories that linger in the Gospel’s text and context. As Lori Baron has observed, Jesus participates in rhetoric concerning the Shema.32 The Shema is based on Deut. 6:4, which declares to Israel God’s oneness and special relationship to Israel stating, “Hear (shema) O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one!”33 Jesus alludes to this text in John 5, 8, and 10 when his Sonship is a center of debate. The narrative characters accuse Jesus of disrupting the Shema, and Jewish monotheism, by “making himself ” a part of it: “I and the Father are one!” Jesus says in Jn 10:30. As we have seen, however, John’s Gospel presents Jesus as the manifestation of the logos who has been unified with God eternally (1:1-5). Thus, Jesus does not make himself anything, just as he does not make up any words to speak or actions to commit. Rather, Jesus acts out his own true and unique, unchanging identity. As he explains in 8:55, for him to behave any differently would make him a “liar” and, according to his own definition, a son of the devil (8:44). For John’s Gospel, therefore, the recognition of Jesus’ ontological tie to the Father is what is at stake.

3. Conclusions Bringing this discussion to a close, a few observations on the implications of this analysis can now be identified. In this chapter, I  have argued for the consistent connection in John between the title “Son of God” and Jesus’ unique ability to give and make alive just as God alone does. Although I have focused my attention primarily on John 1, 3, and 5 further uses illustrate this connection as well. Perhaps none so completely as the final use of υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ in Jn 20:30-31: Therefore, Jesus did (ἐποίησεν) many other signs before his disciples which are not written in this book. But these have been written that you might believe that

31. Ibid., 110. 32.  Lori Baron, “Interpreting the Shema:  Liturgy and Identity in the Fourth Gospel,” Annali di Storia dell’ Esegesi 27 (2010): 53–60. 33. Baron describes the Shema as “one of the most ancient prayers in the Jewish liturgy, going back to the days of the Second Temple. . . . It is the first prayer a Jewish child learns, and the last words uttered by or on behalf of a Jewish person on his or her deathbed. Indeed, Rabbi Akiva is said to have recited the Shema while he was being executed by the Romans and in so doing became the example for Jewish martyrs throughout the ages” (“Interpreting,” 53).

154

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John

Jesus is the Christ the Son of God (πιστεύητε ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ), and that believing you might have life in his name (πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ).

Here, again, we find the key words “life,” “believing,” “doing” or “making,” as well as several that resonate with the Prologue, “Christ” and “his name” (1:12, 17; see Table 10.1). My analysis, therefore, confirms what many of my colleagues have also observed: namely, that “life” has a special place in John, and that place is uniquely connected to Jesus’ identity as God’s Son. Thompson explains, These assertions assume that God is the living and life-giving Creator, who exercises sovereignty over all life, from creation to final redemption. The work of creation, the universal sovereignty over creation, and its expected final redemption are all carried on in the Gospel through the Son, and they are all expressed in terms of life.34

This focus on “life” resonates with the earlier suggestion that analyzing John’s use of the title “Son of God” substantiates the claim that “eternal life” occupies the location of “Kingdom of God” voiced in the Synoptic traditions. Allison argues that ζωὴ αἰώνιος acts as the “comprehensive term for salvation” in John in the same way that βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, or βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, does in the Synoptics. He likewise notes the associations between God’s kingdom/reign and “life” in wider Jewish traditions that make the transition between the two understandable and with precedent.35 Since life is the telos of Jesus’ mission for salvation and restoration in John, it is necessary for Jesus’ characterization to reflect this purpose. For this reason, it is not the royal connotations of divine Sonship that occupy the majority of the Fourth Gospel’s attention, but rather the ontological relationship between God and Jesus that explains his unique ability to give what he promises: eternal life (ζωὴ αἰώνιος). For this reason, the Gospel blends and mixes memories of Jesus and from Jesus to construct a new portrait of God’s unique Son. Certainly he is also God’s representative, or “king,” but this designation is not what comes to the

34. Thompson, God of the Gospel of John, 80; emphasis added. 35.  Allison, Constructing Jesus, 188–89. Allison traces rabbinic traditions that connect “the utopian future of God’s rule” with “the life of the world to come.” Allison argues that the phrase “the life of the world to come,” as well as other similar phrases concerning “life,” are “practically synonymous” with the shorter phrase “the world to come” (‘Abot R. Nat. A 36; B 22; Tanḥ. Buber Shelah 28; b. Soṭah 7b; Num. Rab. 9:17; m. B. Meṣ. 2:11; t. Sanh. 12:11; b. Giṭ. 57b; Gen. Rab. 9:8; 14:3; t. Sanh. 13:2). From this, he writes “[i]n short, ‘the world to come’ is a way of referring to eschatological life” (p. 189). John’s move (as well as other places in the Synoptics where “life” is used synonymously with “Kingdom of God/Heaven”) is entirely within Jewish tradition. See Mk 9:43-47; 10:17-25; Mt. 19:17; 25:31-46; to which one might add the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16.

Jesus the Son of God in John’s Gospel

155

fore in Jesus’ identity as God’s Son. Instead, the title “Son of God” in John points to Jesus’ identity as the enfleshment of God’s logos, Life and Light, the residence of God’s glory and the only one who can show the way to the living Father. The product of divine generation, Jesus is God’s ideal Son. He embodies the Life that originates in the Father. As God’s logos he communicates that life to all those who hear, accept, and believe that the name of God’s Son is indeed “Jesus.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY Akala, Adesola J. The Son-Father Relationship and Christological Symbolism in the Gospel of John. LNTS 505. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Allison, Dale C. Jr. Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010. Anderson, Paul N. The Christology of the Fourth Gospel Its Unity and Disunity in the Light of John 6. WUNT II/78. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1996. Anderson, Paul N. “The Having-Sent-Me Father: Aspects of Agency, Encounter, and Irony in the Johannine Father-Son Relationship.” Semeia 85 (1999): 33–57. Anderson, Robert T. and Terry Giles. The Samaritan Pentateuch. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2012. Ashton, John. Understanding the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. 2nd ed. 2007. Ashton, John. “The Johannine Son of Man: A New Proposal.” NTS 57 (2011): 508–29. Ashton, John. The Gospel of John and Christian Origins. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014. Atkins, J. D. “The Trial of the People and the Prophet: John 5:30–47 and the True and False Prophet Traditions.” CBQ 75 (2013): 279–96. Attridge, Harold W. “Philo and John: Two Riffs on One Logos.” SPhiloA 17 (2005): 103–17. Aune, David E. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983. Bakker, Adolpine. “Christ an Angel? A Study of Early Christian Docetism.” ZNW 32 (1933): 255–65. Barclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (325 BCE–117 CE). Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996. Baron, Lori. “Interpreting the Shema: Liturgy and Identity in the Fourth Gospel.” Annali di Storia dell’ Esegesi 27 (2010): 53–60. Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St John. New York: MacMillan, 1955. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978. Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. Bauckham, Richard. “Messianism according to the Gospel of John,” in Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John, ed. John Lierman. WUNT II/219. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006, pp. 34–68. Bauckham, Richard. “The Audience of the Gospel of John,” in The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007, pp. 113–23. Bauckham, Richard. “Jewish Messianism according to the Gospel of John,” in The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007, pp. 225–31. Bauckham, Richard. The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Ben-Hayyim, Ze’ev. Tibat Marqe: A Collection of Samaritan Midrashim. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1988. Bertram, Georg. “ἔργον, κτλ.” TDNT 2 (1964): 635–52.

158

Bibliography

Bittner, Wolfgang J. Jesu Zeichen im Johannesevangelium: Die Messias-Erkenntnis im Johannesevangelium vor ihrem jüdischen Hintergrund. WUNT II/26. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. Blank, Josef. Krisis: Untersuchungen zur johanneischen Christologie und Eschatologie. Freiburg im Breisgau: Lambertus, 1964. Bligh, John. “The Man Born Blind.” HeyJ 7 (1966): 132–33 Boccaccini, Gabriele, ed. Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007. Boismard, Marie-Emile. Moses or Jesus: An Essay in Johannine Christology, trans. B. T. Viviano. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. Borgen, Peder. Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo. NovTSup 10. Leiden: Brill, 1965. Borgen, Peder. “Observations on God’s Agent and Agency in John 5–9: Tradition, Exposition, and Glimpses into History,” in Glimpses of Jesus through the Johannine Lens. John, Jesus, and History, vol. 3, ed. Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just, and Tom Thatcher. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016, pp. 423–38. Bowman, John. “Early Samaritan Eschatology.” JJS 6 (1955): 63–72. Boyarin, Daniel. “The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John.” HTR 94 (2001): 243–84. Boyarin, Daniel. “How Enoch Can Teach Us about Jesus.” Early Christianity 2 (2011): 51–76. Boyarin, Daniel. The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ. New York: New Press, 2012. Brant, Jo-Ann. John. Paideia. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011. Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John. 2 vols. AB 29–29A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966–1970. Brown, Raymond E. The Epistles of John. AB 30. Garden City, NT: Doubleday, 1982. Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to New Testament Christology. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1994. Bruce, F. F. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983. Brunson, Andrew C. Psalm 118 in the Gospel of John: An Intertextual Study on the New Exodus Pattern in the Theology of John. WUNT II/158. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Bühner, J.-A. Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4. Evangelium: Die kultur- und religionsgeschichtlichen Grundlagen der johanneischen Sendungschristologie sowie ihre traditionsgeschichtliche Entwicklung. WUNT II/2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1977. Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament. 2 vols. London: SCM Press, 1951–1955. Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971. Burger, Christoph. Jesus als Davidssohn: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. FRLANT 98. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Burkett, Delbert R. “Two Accounts of Lazarus’ Resurrection in John 11.” NovT 36 (1994): 209–32. Burkett, Delbert R. The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Byrne, Brendan. Lazarus: A Contemporary Reading of John 11:1–46, Zacchaeus Studies: New Testament. Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier/Liturgical, 1991. Byrskog, Samuel. Jesus the Only Teacher: Didactic Authority and Transmission in Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism and the Matthean Community. ConBNT 24. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wicksell, 1994.

Bibliography

159

Casey, Maurice. From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God: The Origins and Development of New Testament Christology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1991. Casey, Maurice. Is John’s Gospel True? London: Routledge, 1996. Charlesworth, James H. “Did the Fourth Evangelist Know the Enoch Tradition?” in Testimony and Interpretation: Early Christology in Its Judeo-Hellenistic Milieu. Studies in Honour of Peter Pokorný, ed. J. Mrazek and J. Roskovec. London: T & T Clark, 2004, pp. 223–39. Chartrand-Burke, Tony. “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas: The Text, Its Origin, and Its Transmission.” PhD diss. University of Toronto, 2001. Chibici-Revneanu, Nicole. “Königlicher Glaube: Der βασιλικός in Joh 4,46–54 als Paradigma eines nachösterlichen Jüngers.” BN 136 (2008): 85–104. Chilton, Bruce. “The Gospel according to John’s Rabbi Jesus.” BBR 25 (2015): 39–54. Cho, Sukmin. Jesus as Prophet in the Fourth Gospel. New Testament Monographs 15. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006. Clark-Soles, Jaime. “Scripture Cannot Be Broken: The Social Function of the Use of Scripture in the Fourth Gospel,” in Abiding Words: The Use of Scripture in the Gospel of John, ed. Alicia D. Myers and Bruce G. Schuchard. RBS 81. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015, pp. 95–117. Cohen, Shaye J. D. “Epigraphical Rabbis.” JQR 72 (1981): 1–17. Collins, John J. “The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism.” NTS 38 (1992): 448–66. Collins, John J. “Genre, Ideology and Social Movements in Jewish Apocalypticism,” in Seers, Sibyls, and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 2001, pp. 25–38. Collins, John J. The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010. Coloe, Mary L. “The Structure of the Johannine Prologue and Genesis 1.” ABR 45 (1997): 50–55. Colwell, E. C. “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament.” JBL 52 (1933): 12–21. Conway, Colleen M. Behold the Man: Jesus and Greco-Roman Masculinity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Cotton, Hannah M., Leah Di Segni, Werner Eck, Benjamin Isaac, Alla Kushnir-Stein, Haggai Misgav, Jonathan Price, and Ada Yardeni, eds. Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/ Palaestinae, vol. 1/1, Jerusalem. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Culpepper, R. Alan. The Johannine School: An Evaluation of the Johannine-School Hypothesis Based on an Investigation of the Nature of Ancient Schools. SBLDS 26. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1975. Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Foundations and Facets: New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. Culpepper, R. Alan. “The Christology of the Johannine Writings,” in Who Do You Say that I Am? Essays in Honor of Jack Dean Kingsbury, ed. Mark Allan Powell and David R. Bauer. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006, pp. 66–87. Culpepper, R. Alan. “Nicodemus: The Travail of New Birth,” in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Approaches to Seventy Figures in John, ed. Steven A. Hunt, D. Francois Tolmie, and Ruben Zimmermann. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016, pp. 249–59. Daly-Denton, Margaret. David in the Fourth Gospel: The Johannine Reception of the Psalms. AGJU 47. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Daube, David. “Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: The Meaning of ΣΥΓΧΡΑΟΜΑΙ.” JBL 69 (1950): 137–47. De Boer, Martinus C. Johannine Perspectives on the Death of Jesus. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996.

160

Bibliography

Deines, Roland. “Galilee and the Historical Jesus in Recent Research,” in Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods, vol. 1, ed. David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015, pp. 26–37. Del Verme, Marcello. “La città di Gerusalemme come polo soteriologico: Religioni de salvezza a Bethzathá/Bethesdá (Gv 5,1–9).” Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni 75 (2009): 145–98. Dennis, John A. Jesus’ Death and the Gathering of True Israel. WUNT II/217. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Dexinger, Ferdinand. Der Taheb: Ein “messianischer” Heilsbringer der Samaritaner. Salzburg: Müller, 1986. Dexinger, Ferdinand. “Samaritan Eschatology,” in The Samaritans, ed. Alan David Crown. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989, pp. 266–92. Dieckmann, H. “ ‘Der Sohn des Menschen’ im Johannesevangelium.” Scholastik 2 (1927): 229–47. Dirkse, Peter A., and Douglas M. Parrott, “NHC VI, 8: Asclepius 21–29,” in Nag Hammadi Codices V, 2–5 and VI, ed. Douglas M. Parrott. CGL. Leiden: Brill, 1979, pp. 395–452. DiTommaso, Lorenzo. “Apocalypses and Apocalypticism in Antiquity. Part I.” CurrBR 5 (2007): 235–86. DiTommaso, Lorenzo. “Apocalypses and Apocalypticism in Antiquity. Part II.” CurrBR 5 (2007): 367–432. Dodd, C. H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953. Dodd, C. H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. Duke, Paul. Irony in the Fourth Gospel. Atlanta: John Knox, 1985. Dunn, James D. G. Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1 . Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. Edwards, Ruth B. “Charin anti Charitos: Grace and Law in the Johannine Prologue.” JSNT 32 (1988): 3–15. Repr. pp. 190–202 in New Testament Backgrounds. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Edwards, Ruth B. Discovering John: Content, Interpretation, Reception. 2nd ed. London: SPCK, 2014. Ellens, Harold. The Son of Man in the Gospel of John. New Testament Monographs 28. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2010. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. John and Philosophy: A New Reading of the Fourth Gospel. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017. Evans, Craig A. “Prophet, Sage, Healer, Messiah, and Martyr: Types and Identities of Jesus,” in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, vol. 2, ed. Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 2011, pp. 1217–43. Feldman, Louis H. Philo’s Portrayal of Moses in the Context of Ancient Judaism. CJA 15. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007. Fiensy David A. and James Riley Strange, eds. Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods, 2 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The One Who Is to Come. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007. Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology. WUNT II/94. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Formesyn, R. “Le sèmeion johannique et le sèmeion hellénistique.” ETL 38 (1962): 861–94. Fortna, Robert T. “Source and Redaction in the Fourth Gospel’s Portrayal of Jesus’ Signs.” JBL 89 (1970): 151–66.

Bibliography

161

Fortna, Robert T. The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel. SNTSMS 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Fortna, Robert T. The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988. Reprinted London: T & T Clark, 2004. Frey, Jörg. Die eschatologische Verkündigung in den johannischen Texten. Die johanneische Eschatologie, vol. 3. WUNT 117. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Frey, Jörg, Daniel R. Schwartz, and Stephanie Gripentrog, eds., Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World. AJEC 71. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Freyne, Sean. “Locality and Doctrine: Mark and John Revisited,” in Galilee and Gospels: Collected Essays. WUNT 125. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000, pp. 287–98. Freyne, Sean. “Messiah and Galilee,” in Galilee and Gospel: Collected Essays. WUNT 125. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000, pp. 230–70. Gieschen, Charles A. Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence. AGJU 42. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Glasson, T. Francis. Moses in the Fourth Gospel. SBT 40. London: SCM Press, 1963. Goodacre, Mark. Thomas and the Gospels: The Case for Thomas’s Familiarity with the Synoptics. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012. Grabbe, Lester L. “ ‘Son of Man’: Its Origin and Meaning in Second Temple Judaism,” in Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels: Reminiscences, Allusions, and Intertextuality, ed. Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Gabriele Boccaccini. EJL. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016, pp. 169–97. Grundmann, Walter. “δύναμαι, δύναμις.” TDNT 2 (1964): 284–317. Haenchen, Ernst. John. 2 vols. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. Hahn, Ferdinand, The Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity, trans. Harold Knight and George Ogg. London: Lutterworth, 1969. Hanson, Anthony Tyrrell. The Prophetic Gospel: A Study of John and the Old Testament. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991. Harvey, A. E. Jesus on Trial: A Study in the Fourth Gospel. London: SPCK, 1976. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016. Hengel, Martin. “The Kingdom of Christ in John,” in Studies in Early Christology. London: T & T Clark, 2004, pp. 333–58. Henze, Matthias. Jewish Apocalypticism in Late First Century Israel Reading Second Baruch in Context. TSAJ 142. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Hezser, Catherine. The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine, TSAJ 66. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Hofius, Otfried. “Die Auferweckung des Lazarus: Joh 11,1–44 als Zeugnis narrativer Christologie.” ZTK 102 (2005): 17–34. Hooker, Morna D. The Son of Man in Mark: A Study of the Background of the Term “Son of Man” and Its Use in St. Mark’s Gospel. London: SPCK, 1967. Hooker, Morna D. “The Johannine Prologue and the Messianic Secret.” NTS 21 (1974): 40–58. Horsley, Richard and Tom Thatcher. John, Jesus, and the Renewal of Israel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013. Hoskyns, Edwin Clement, and Francis Noel Davey. The Fourth Gospel. 2nd ed. London: Faber and Faber, 1956. Hunt, Steven A. “Nathanael: Under the Fig Tree on the Fourth Day,” in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel, ed. Steven A. Hunt, D. Francois Tolmie, and Ruben Zimmermann. WUNT 314. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013, pp. 189–201.

162

Bibliography

Hunt, Steven A., D. Francois Tolmie, and Ruben Zimmermann. “An Introduction to Characterization in John and Related New Testament Literature,” in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Approaches to Seventy Figures in John, ed. Steven A. Hunt, D. Francois Tolmie, and Ruben Zimmermann. WUNT 314. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013, pp. 1–33. Hurtado, Larry. “First Century Jewish Monotheism,” in How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005, pp. 111–33. Hurtado, Larry. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism. 3rd ed. London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015. Hutter, U. “πατρίς, ίδος, ἡ.” EDNT 3:58 Hylen, Susan E. Imperfect Believers: Ambiguous Characters in the Gospel of John. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2009. Isenberg, Wesley W. trans., “The Gospel of Philip,” in The Nag Hammadi Library in English, ed. James M. Robinson, 3rd ed. San Francisco: Harper, 1990, pp. 142–215. Jensen, Morten Hørning. “The Political History in Galilee from the First Century BCE to the End of the Second Century CE,” in Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods, vol. 1, ed. David A. Fiensy, and James Riley Strange. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015, pp. 51–74. Jonge, Marinus, de. “Jesus as Prophet and King in the Fourth Gospel.” ETL 49 (1973): 160–77. Jonge, Marinus, de. “Jewish Expectations about the ‘Messiah’ according to the Fourth Gospel.” NTS 19 (1973): 246–70. Juel, Donald H. “The Origin of Mark’s Christology,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. James H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992, pp. 449–60. Juncker, Günther. “Christ As Angel: The Reclamation of a Primitive Title.” TJ 15 (1994): 221–50. Karakolis, Christos. “Is Jesus a Prophet according to the Witness of the Fourth Gospel? A Narrative-Critical Perspective,” in Christ of the Sacred Stories, ed. Pedrag Dragutinović, Tobias Nicklas, Kelsie Rodenbiker, and Vladan Tatalović. WUNT II/453. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017, pp. 119–39. Käsemann, Ernst. “The Problem of the Historical Jesus,” in Essays on New Testament Themes, trans. W. J. Montague. SBT 41. London: SCM Press, 1964, pp. 14–47. Käsemann, Ernst. The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17, trans. Gerhard Krodel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968. Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Keith, Chris. The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy of Jesus. NTTSD 38. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Keith, Chris. Jesus’ Literacy: Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee. LNTS 413. New York: T & T Clark, 2011. Keith, Chris. “The Competitive Textualization of the Jesus Tradition in John 20:30-31 and 21:24-25.” CBQ 78.2 (2016): 321–37. Kessler, Gwynn. Conceiving Israel: The Fetus in Rabbinic Narratives. Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009. Koester, Craig R. “Hearing, Seeing, and Believing in the Gospel of John.” Bib 70 (1989): 327–48.

Bibliography

163

Koester, Craig R. “ ‘The Savior of the World’ (John 4:42).” JBL 109 (1990): 665–80. Koester, Craig R. “Messianic Exegesis and the Call of Nathanael (John 1:45–51).” JSNT 39 (1990): 23–34. Koester, Craig R. Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Koester, Craig R. “Jesus as the Way to the Father in Johannine Theology (John 14,6),” in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by the Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar, ed. G. van Belle, J. G. van der Watt, and P. Maritz. BETL 184. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005, pp. 117–34. Koester, Craig R. “What Does It Mean to Be Human?” in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language, ed. Jörg Frey, Jan G. Van der Watt, and Ruben Zimmermann. WUNT 200. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006, pp. 403–20. Koester, Craig R. The Word of Life: A Theology of John’s Gospel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. Köstenberger, Andreas. “Jesus the Rabbi in the Fourth Gospel,” in Studies in John and Gender: A Decade of Scholarship. New York: Lang, 2001, pp. 65–98. Kovacs, Judith L. “ ‘Now Shall the Ruler of This World Be Driven Out’: Jesus’ Death as Cosmic Battle in John 12:20–36.” JBL 114 (1995): 227–47. Kraus, Wolfgang. “Die Bedeutung von Dtn 18,15–18 für das Verständnis Jesu als Prophet.” ZNW 90 (1999): 153–76. Labahn, Michael. Jesus als Lebensspender: Untersuchungen zu einer Geschichte der johanneischen Tradition anhand ihrer Wundergeschichten. BZNW 98. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. Lagrange, M.-J. Évangile selon Saint Jean, EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1925. Lapin, Hayim. “Rabbi.” ABD 5 (1992): 600–2. Lapin, Hayim. “Epigraphical Rabbis: A Reconsideration.” JQR 101 (2011): 311–46. Larsen, Kasper Bro. Recognizing the Stranger: Recognition Scenes in the Gospel of John. BIS 93. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Lausberg, Heinrich. Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary Study. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Layton, Bentley, ed. Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2–7. CGL. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Le Donne, Anthony, and Tom Thatcher. “Introducing Media Culture to Johannine Studies: Orality, Performance and Memory,” in The Fourth Gospel in First-Century Media Culture. LNTS 426. London: T & T Clark, 2011, pp. 1–8. Lee, Dorothy. Flesh and Glory: Symbolism, Gender, and Theology in the Gospel of John. New York: Crossroad, 2002. Lee, Dorothy. The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel: The Interplay of Form and Meaning. JSNTSup 95. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. Levin, Yigal. “Jesus, ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of David’: The ‘Adoption’ of Jesus into the Davidic Line.” JSNT 28 (2006): 415–42. Levine, Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005. Lierman, John. “The Mosaic Pattern of John’s Christology,” in Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John, ed. John Lierman. WUNT II/210. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006, pp. 210–34. Lieu, Judith M. “Narrative Analysis and Scripture in John,” in The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. L. North, ed. Steve Moyise. JSNTSup 189. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000, pp. 144–63.

164

Bibliography

Lieu, Judith M. “Messiah and Resistance in the Gospel and Epistles of John,” in Redemption and Resistance: The Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity, ed. Markus Bockmuehl, and James Carleton Paget. London: T & T Clark, 2007, pp. 97–108. Lightfoot, R. H. St John’s Gospel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1956. Lincoln, Andrew T. The Gospel According to St John. BNTC 4. London: Continuum and Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005. Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1972. Lindars, Barnabas. “Rebuking the Spirit: A New Analysis of the Lazarus Story John 11.” NTS 38 (1992): 89–104. Lindars, Barnabas. “Traditions behind the Fourth Gospel,” in L’Evanglie de Jean. Sources, rédaction, théologie, ed. Marinus de Jonge. BETL 44. Gembloux: Duculot, 1977, pp. 107–24. Loader, William. Jesus in John’s Gospel: Structure and Issues in Johannine Christology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017. Lundhaug, Hugo. Images of Rebirth: Cognitive Poetics and Transformational Soteriology in the Gospel of Philip and the Exegesis on the Soul. NHMS 73. Leiden: Brill, 2010. MacDonald, John. Memar Marqah: The Teachings of Marqah. 2 vols. BZAW 84. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1963. MacRae, George. “Messiah and Gospel,” in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, ed. Jacob Neusner, William Scott Green, and Ernest S. Frerichs . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987, pp. 169–85. Maddox, Robert “The Function of the Son of Man in the Gospel of John,” in Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L. L. Morris on This 60th Birthday, ed. Robert J. Banks. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974, pp. 186–204. Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers. Mark’s Jesus: Characterization as Narrative Christology. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009. Marcus, Joel. “Mark 14:61: ‘Are You the Messiah-Son-of-God?’ ” NovT 31 (1989): 125–41. Marcus, Joel. Mark 1–8. AB 27. New York: Doubleday, 1999. Marcus, Joel. “Birkat Ha-Minim Revisited.” NTS 55 (2009): 523–51. Martyn, J. Louis. “We Have Found Elijah,” in The Gospel of John in Christian History: Essays for Interpreters. New York: Paulist Press, 1978, pp. 9–54. Martyn, J. Louis. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. 3rd ed. NTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003. Mason, Steve. “Jews, Judeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of the Categorization in Ancient History.” JSJ 38 (2007): 457–512. McCarthy, Carmel. The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament. OBO 36. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. McGrath, James F. John’s Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology. SNTSMS 111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Meeks, Wayne A. “Galilee and Judea in the Fourth Gospel.” JBL 85 (1966): 159–96. Meeks, Wayne A. The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. NovTSup 14. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Meeks, Wayne A. “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism.” JBL 91 (1972): 44–72. Meier, John P. “From Elijah-like Prophet to Royal Davidic Messiah,” in Jesus: A Colloquium in the Holy Land, ed. James D. G. Dunn, and Doris Donnelly. London: Continuum, 2001, pp. 45–83.

Bibliography

165

Menken, Maarten J. J. Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form. CBET 15. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996. Menken, Maarten J. J. “Scriptural Dispute between Jews and Christians in John: Literary Fiction or Historical Reality? John 9:13–17, 24–34 as a Test Case,” in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel: Papers of the Leuven Colloquium, 2000, ed. Reimund Bieringer, Didier Pollefeyt, and Frederique Vandecasteele-Vanneuville. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2001, pp. 445–60. Menken, Maarten J. J. “Allusions to the Minor Prophets in the Fourth Gospel,” in Studies in John’s Gospel and Epistles: Collected Essays. CBET 77. Leuven: Peeters, 2015, pp. 167–86. Menken, Maarten J. J. “Jesus and the Scriptures According to John 5:37–47,” in Studies in John’s Gospel and Epistles: Collected Essays. CBET 77. Leuven: Peeters, 2015, pp. 251–70. Merx, Adalbert. Der Messias oder Ta’eb der Samaritaner. BZAW 17. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1909. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1994. Moloney, Francis J. The Johannine Son of Man. BSRel 14. 2nd ed. Rome: Libreria Ateneo Salesiano, 1978. Moloney, Francis J. Belief in the Word: Reading the Fourth Gospel: John 1—4. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. Moloney, Francis J. The Gospel of John. SP 4. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1998. Moloney, Francis J. “The Johannine Son of Man Revisited,” in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar, ed. Gilbert Van Belle, J. G Van der Watt, and P. J. Maritz. BETL 184. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005, pp. 177–202. Moloney, Francis J. “Constructing Jesus and the Son of Man.” CBQ 75 (2013): 719–38. Moloney, Francis J. “ The Parables of Enoch and the Johannine Son of Man,” in Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift, ed. Darrell L. Bock and James H. Charlesworth, Jewish and Christian Texts 11. London. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013, pp. 269–93. Moser, Marion. Schriftdiskurse im Johannesevangelium: Eine narrativ-intertextuelle Analyse am Paradigma von Joh 4 und Joh 7. WUNT II/380. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Moule, C. F. D. “Neglected Features in the Problem of ‘the Son of Man,’ ” in Neues Testament Und Kirche: Für Rudolf Schnackenburg. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1974, pp. 413–28. Mowinckel, Sigmund. He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism, trans. G. W. Anderson. Nashville: Abingdon, 1956. Repr. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005. Murphy, Frederick J. Apocalypticism in the Bible and Its World: A Comprehensive Introduction. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012. Myers, Alicia D. “Jesus as Ideal King: Isaiah 42 and the Characterization of Jesus in Matt 12:17–21,” in What Does Scripture Say? Studies in the Function of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity, ed. Craig A. Evans, and Dan Zacharias. LNTS 469. SSEJC 17. London: T & T Clark, 2012, pp. 70–89. Myers, Alicia D. Characterizing Jesus: A Rhetorical Analysis on the Gospel’s Use of Scripture in Its Presentation of Jesus. LNTS 458. London: T & T Clark, 2012. Myers, Alicia D. Blessed Among Women? Mothers and Motherhood in the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.

166

Bibliography

Neirynck, Frans. “John and the Synoptics,” in L’Évangile de Jean: Sources, Rédaction, Théologie. BETL 94. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1987, pp. 73–106. Neufeld, Dietmar. “ ‘And When That One Comes’: Aspects of Johannine Messianism,” in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Craig A. Evans, and Peter W. Flint. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997, pp. 120–40. Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36. 81–108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001. Nickelsburg, George W. E., and James K. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012. North, Wendy E. S. “The Jews in John’s Gospel: Observations and Inferences,” in A Journey Round John: Tradition, Interpretation and Context. LNTS 534. London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015, pp. 148–67. Novakovic, Lidija. Messiah, the Healer of the Sick: A Study of Jesus as the Son of David in the Gospel of Matthew. WUNT II/170. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Novenson, Matthew V. “Whose Son Is the Messiah?” in Son of God: Divine Sonship in Jewish and Christian Antiquity, ed. Garrick V. Allen, Kai Akagi, Paul Sloan, and Madhavi Nevader. University Park: Penn State University Press, 2018. Novenson, Matthew V. The Grammar of Messianism: An Ancient Jewish Political Idiom and Its Users. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017. O’Day, Gail R. Revelation in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Mode and Theological Claim. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. Obermann, Andreas. Die christologische Erfüllung der Schrift im Johannesevangelium: Eine Untersuchung zur johanneischen Hermeneutik anhand der Schriftzitate. WUNT II/83. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Odeberg, Hugo. The Fourth Gospel: Interpreted in Its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1929. Overman, J. Andrew. Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. Pagels, Elaine H. “Exegesis of Genesis 1 in the Gospels of Thomas and John,” in For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, ed. Randall A. Argall, Beverly A. Bow, and Rodney A. Werline. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000, pp. 196–215. Painter, John. “The Enigmatic Johannine Son of Man,” in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, vol. 3, ed. F. Van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, Gilbert Van Belle, and J. Verheyden. BETL 100. Louvain: Peeters, 1992, pp. 1869–87. Painter, John. “Earth Made Whole: John’s Rereading of Genesis,” in Word, Theology, and Community in John, ed. John Painter, R. Alan Culpepper, and Fernando F. Segovia. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2002, pp. 65–84. Pilch, John J. Healing in the New Testament: Insights from Medical and Mediterranean Anthropology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000. Price, Jonathan J. “Synagogue Building Inscription of Theodotus in Greek, 1c BCE-1c CE,” in Hannah M. Cotton, Leah Di Segni, Werner Eck, Benjamin Isaac, Alla Kushnir-Stein, Haggai Mirgav, Jonathan Price, and Ada Yardeni, eds. Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/ Palaestinae, vol. 1/1, Jerusalem, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010, pp. 53–57. Quek, Tze-Ming. “A Text-Critical Study of John 1.34.” NTS 55 (2009): 22–34. Reider, Joseph, and Nigel Turner. An Index to Aquila. Leiden: Brill, 1966. Reinhartz, Adele. “ ‘And the Word was Begotten’: Divine Epigenesis in the Gospel of John.” Semeia 85 (1999): 83–103.

Bibliography

167

Reinhartz, Adele. “Jesus as Prophet: Predictive Prolepses in the Fourth Gospel.” JSNT 36 (1989): 3–16. Reinhartz, Adele. “The Johannine Community and Its Jewish Neighbors: A Reappraisal,” in Literary and Social Readings of the Fourth Gospel. What Is John? vol. 2, ed. Fernando Segovia. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998, pp. 111–38. Reinhartz, Adele. “Reading History in the Fourth Gospel,” in What We Have Heard from the Beginning: The Past, Present, and Future of Johannine Studies, ed. Tom Thatcher. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007, pp. 190–94. Reinhartz, Adele, Steve Mason, Daniel Schwartz, Annette Yoshiko Reed, Joan Taylor, Malcolm Lowe, Jonathan Klawans, Ruth Sheridan, and James Crossley. “Jew and Judean: A Forum on Politics and Historiography in the Translation of Ancient Texts.” Marginalia, released August 26, 2014. http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/jewjudean-forum/ (accessed April 16, 2017). Reinmuth, E. “Lazarus and his Sisters—What was John’s Point?” Review of Theological Literature 11 (1999): 7–20 Rengstorf, Karl H. “μαθητής.” TDNT 4 (1967): 415–60. Rengstorf, Karl H. “σημεῖον, κτλ.” TDNT 7 (1971): 200–61. Reynolds, Benjamin E. The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John. WUNT II/249. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Reynolds, Benjamin E. “The Johannine Son of Man and the Historical Jesus: Shall Ever the Twain Meet? John 9:35 as a Test Case.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 9 (2011): 230–42. Reynolds, Benjamin E., and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, eds. The Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the Shaping of New Testament Thought. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2017. Riesner, Rainer. Jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der EvangelienÜberlieferung. WUNT II/7. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981. Riesner, Rainer. “Jesus as Preacher and Teacher,” in Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition, ed. Henry Wansbrough. JSNTSup 64. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991, pp. 185–210. Roose, Hanna. “Joh 20,30f.: Ein (un)passender Schluss? Joh 9 und 11 als primäre Verweisstellen der Schlussnotiz des Johannesevangeliums.” Bib 84 (2003): 326–43. Rowland, Christopher. The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity. London: SPCK, 1982. Repr. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002. Rowland, Christopher. “Christ in the New Testament,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. John Day. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Repr. London: T & T Clark, 2013, pp. 474–96. Sanday, William. The Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel. London: Macmillan, 1872. Sanders, E. P. Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies. London: SCM Press and Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990. Sasse, Markus. Der Menschensohn im Evangelium nach Johannes. TANZ 35. Tübingen: Francke, 2000. Schäfer, Peter. Jesus in the Talmud. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. “Die Messiasfrage im Johannesevangelium.” in Neutestamentliche Aufsätze: Festschrift für Josef Schmid zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. J. Blinzler, Otto Kuss, and Franz Mussner. Regensburg: Pustet, 1963, pp. 240–64. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. “Zur Traditionsgeschichte von Joh 4:46–54.” BZ 8 (1964): 58–88. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel According to St John, trans. Kevin Smyth, Cecil Hastings, Francis McDonagh, David Smith, Richard Foley, and G. A. Kon. 3 vols. New York: Herder/Seabury/Crossroad, 1968, 1980, 1982.

168

Bibliography

Schnelle, Udo. Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. Schnider, Franz, Jesus der Prophet. OBO 2. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1973. Schröter, Jens. Jesus of Nazareth: Jew from Galilee, Savior of the World, trans. Wayne Coppins. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2015. Schulz, Siegfried. Untersuchungen zur Menschensohn-Christologie im Johannesevangelium. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Methodengeschichte der Auslegung des 4. Evangeliums. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957. Scott, E. F. “Life,” in A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, vol. 2, ed. James Hastings. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908, pp. 30–32. Seim, Turid Karlsen. “Descent and Divine Paternity in the Gospel of John: Does the Mother Matter?” NTS 51 (2005): 361–75. Seim, Turid Karlsen. “Motherhood and the Making of Fathers in Antiquity: Contextualizing Genetics in the Gospel of John,” in Women and Gender in Ancient Religions: Interdisciplinary Approaches, ed. Stephen P. Ahearne-Kroll, Paul A. Holloway, and James A. Kelhoffer. WUNT 263. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010, pp. 99–123. Sheridan, Ruth. Retelling Scripture: “The Jews” and the Scriptural Citations in John 1:19– 12:15. BIS 110. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Sheridan, Ruth. “Issues in the Translation of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι in the Fourth Gospel.” JBL 132 (2013): 671–95. Sheridan, Ruth. “Johannine Sectarianism: A Category Now Defunct?” in The Origins of John’s Gospel, ed. Stanley E. Porter, and Hughson T. Ong. Leiden: Brill, 2016, pp. 142–66. Skinner, Christopher R. John and Thomas—Gospels in Conflict? Johannine Characterization and the Thomas Question. Princeton Theological Monographs 115. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009. Skinner, Christopher R. “Introduction: Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John: Reflections on the Status Quaestiones,” in Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John, LNTS 461. London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2013, pp. xvii–xxxii. Skinner, Christopher R. “Characterization,” in How John Works: Storytelling in the Fourth Gospel, ed. Douglas Estes, and Ruth Sheridan. RBS 86. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2016, pp. 115–32. Smith, D. Moody. The Theology of the Gospel of John. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Smith, D. Moody. John. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999. Smith, D. Moody. John among the Gospels: The Relationship in Twentieth-Century Research. 2nd ed. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2001. Stackert, Jeffrey. A Prophet Like Moses: Prophecy, Law, and Israelite Religion. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Staley, Jeffrey L. The Print’s First Kiss: A Rhetorical Investigation of the Implied Reader in the Fourth Gospel. SBLDS 82. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1988. Stegner, William Richard. “The Ancient Jewish Synagogue Homily,” in Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament: Selected Forms and Genres, ed. David E. Aune. SBLSBS 21. Atlanta: Scholars, 1988, pp. 51–69. Stone, Michael E. “Lists of Revealed Things in the Apocalyptic Literature,” in Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright, ed. Frank Moore Cross, Werner E. Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976, pp. 414–52.

Bibliography

169

Stone, Michael E., and Matthias Henze. 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: Translations, Introductions, and Notes. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014. Stovell, Beth. Mapping Metaphorical Discourse in the Fourth Gospel: John’s Eternal King. Linguistic Biblical Studies 5. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Strack, Hermann L., and Günther Stemberger. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, trans. Marcus Bockmuehl, 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and the Christology of the Apocalypse of John. WUNT II/70. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Thatcher, Tom. “Why John Wrote a Gospel: Memory and History in an Early Christian Community,” in Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity, ed. A. Kirk, and Tom Thatcher. SBL Semeia Studies 52. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005, pp. 79–97. Thatcher, Tom. “The Rejected Prophet and the Royal Official (John 4,43–45): A Case Study in the Relationship between John and the Synoptics,” in Studies in the Gospel of John and its Christology. Festschrift Gilbert Van Belle, ed. Joseph Verheyden, Geert van Oyen, Michael Labahn, and Reimund Bieringer. BETL 265. Leuven: Peeters, 2014, pp. 119–48. Theobald, Michael. Das Evangelium nach Johannes: Kapitel 1–12. RNT. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 2009. Thompson, Marianne Meye. John: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2015. Thompson, Marianne Meye. The God of the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Thompson, Marianne Meye. The Humanity of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988. Repr. as The Incarnate Word: Perspectives on Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993. Thyen, Hartwig. Das Johannesevangelium. HNT 6. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Tov, Emmanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011. Tuckett, Christopher. Christology and the New Testament: Jesus and His Earliest Followers. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Turner, Martha Lee. The Gospel of Philip: The Sources and Coherence of an Early Christian Collection. NHMS 38. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Twelftree, Graham H. In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism Among Early Christians. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Ulmer, Rivkin. “Pesiqta Rabbati: A Text-Linguistic and Form-Critical Analysis of the Rabbinic Homily.” JJS (2013): 64–97. Unnik, W. C. van. “The Quotation from the Old Testament in John 12:34.” NovT 3 (1959): 174–79. Unnik, W. C. van. “Three Notes on the Gospel of Philip.” NTS 10 (1964): 465–69. Van Belle, Gilbert. “The Faith of the Galileans: The Parenthesis in Jn 4,44.” ETL 74 (1998): 27–44. Van Belle, Gilbert. “The Meaning of ΣΗΜΕΙΑ in Jn 20,30–31.” ETL 74 (1998): 300–25. Van Belle, Gilbert. “The Signs of the Messiah in the Fourth Gospel: The Problem of a ‘Wonder-Working Messiah,’ ” in The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition: Essays in Honour of Maarten J. J. Menken, ed. Bart J. Koet, Steve Moyise, and Joseph Verheyden. NovTSup 148. Leiden: Brill, 2013, pp. 159–78. Van der Watt, J. G. Family of the King: Dynamics of Metaphor in the Gospel according to John. BIS 47. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

170

Bibliography

Wahlde, Urban C. von. Gnosticism, Docetism, and the Judaisms of the First Century: The Search for the Wider Context of the Johannine Literature and Why It Matters. LNTS 517. London: T & T Clark, 2015. Whittaker, Molly. “ ‘Signs and Wonders’: The Pagan Background.” SE 5 (1968): 155–58. Williams, Catrin H . I Am He: The Interpretation of ’Anî Hû’in Jewish and Early Christian Literature. WUNT II/113. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Williams, Catrin H. “Patriarchs and Prophets Remembered: Framing Israel’s Past in the Gospel of John,” in Abiding Words: The Use of Scripture in the Gospel of John, ed. Alicia D. Myers, and Bruce G. Schuchard. RBS 81. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015, pp. 187–212. Williams, Catrin H. “The Voice in the Wilderness and the Way of the Lord: A Scriptural Frame for John’s Witness to Jesus,” in The Opening of John’s Narrative (John 1:19– 2:22): Historical, Literary, and Theological Readings from the Colloquium Ioanneum 2015 in Ephesus, ed. R. A. Culpepper, and J. Frey. WUNT 385. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017, pp. 39–47. Williams, Catrin H., and Christopher Rowland. John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic. London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2013. Wink, Walter. John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition. SNTSMS 7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Witkamp, L. T. “The Use of Traditions in John 5:1-18.” JSNT 25 (1985): 19–47. Yarbro Collins, Adela, and John J. Collins. King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. Yarbro Collins, Adela, and John J. Collins. King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. Zahn, Theodor. Das Evangelium des Johannes. Leipzig: Deichert, 1908. Zimmermann, Ruben. Christologie der Bilder im Johannesevangelium: Die Chistopoetik des vierten Evangeliums unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Joh 10. WUNT 171. Tübingen. Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Zimmermann, Ruben. “Imagery in John: Opening Up Paths into the Tangled Thicket of John’s Figurative World,” in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language, ed. Jörg Frey, Jan G. van der Watt, and Ruben Zimmermann. WUNT 200. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006, pp. 1–43. Zimmermann, Ruben. “ ‘The Jews’: Unreliable Figures or Unreliable Narration?” in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Approaches to Seventy Figures in John, ed. Steven A. Hunt, D. Francois Tolmie, and Ruben Zimmermann. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016, pp. 71–109. Zsengeller, J. “Canon and the Samaritans,” in Canonization and Decanonization, ed. A. van der Kooij, and K. van der Toorn. SHR 82. Leiden: Brill, 1988, pp. 161–72. Zumstein, Jean. “Der irdische Jesus im Johannesevangelium,” in Kreative Errinerung: Relecture und Auslegung im Johannesevangelium. 2nd ed. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2014, pp. 65–81. Zumstein, Jean. L’Évangile selon Saint Jean (1–12). CNT IVa. Genève: Labor et Fides, 2014.

AUTHOR INDEX Akala, Adesola J. 145, 146 Allison, Dale C. Jr. 7, 8, 15, 142, 154 Anderson, Paul N. 92, 106, 109, 130 Anderson, Robert T. 113 Ashton, John 14, 15, 78, 84, 86, 92, 101, 107, 126, 127, 129, 133, 142 Atkins, J. D. 102 Attridge, Harold W. 110 Aune, David E. 13, 94, 98 Bakker, Adolpine 22 Barclay, John M. G. 10 Baron, Lori 153 Barrett, C. K. 4, 74, 88, 103, 151 Bauckham, Richard 13, 14, 26, 47, 78, 86, 93, 94, 101, 102, 103, 116, 119, 120 Ben-Hayyim, Ze’ev 97 Bertram, Georg 82 Bittner, Wolfgang J. 101 Blank, Josef 136 Bligh, John 86 Boccaccini, Gabriele 118 Boismard, Marie-Emile 92, 95, 99, 103, 106 Borgen, Peder 37, 68, 69, 100 Bowman, John 113 Boyarin, Daniel 127, 137, 147 Brant, Jo-Ann 54, 146, 151, 153 Brown, Raymond E. 1, 10, 54, 55, 57, 65, 96, 103, 116, 136, 151 Bruce, F. F. 54, 116 Brunson, Andrew C. 143 Bühner, J.-A. 22, 105 Bultmann, Rudolf 10, 54, 55, 65, 82, 109, 122, 126, 136 Burger, Christoph 116 Burkett, Delbert R. 6, 88 Byrne, Brendan 88 Byrskog, Samuel 63 Casey, Maurice 121, 138 Charlesworth, James H. 129

Chartrand-Burke, Tony 56 Chibici-Revneanu, Nicole 83 Chilton, Bruce 12, 61, 130 Cho, Sukmin 92, 99, 104, 106 Clark-Soles, Jaime 42 Cohen, Shaye J. D. 63, 73 Collins, John J. 13–14, 111, 112, 126, 127, 137 Coloe, Mary L. 147 Colwell, E. C. 96 Conway, Colleen M. 149 Culpepper, R. Alan 2, 3, 4, 9, 23, 35, 64, 79, 81, 147 Daley-Denton, Margaret 143 Daube, David 113 Davey, Francis Noel 54 De Boer, Martinus C. 119 Deines, Roland 46 Del Verme, Marcello 84 Dennis, John A. 57 Dexinger, Ferdinand 113 Dieckmann, H. 133 Dirkse, Peter A. 122 DiTommaso, Lorenzo 126 Dodd, C. H. 46, 54, 55, 77, 80, 81, 86, 89, 112, 121, 131, 151 Duke, Paul 147 Dunn, James D. G. 5, 6, 61 Edwards, Ruth B. 33 Ellens, Harold 129, 134 Engberg-Pedersen, Troels 109 Evans, Craig A. 5, 61 Feldman, Louis H. 115 Fiensy, David A. 46 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 111 Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. 22 Formesyn, R. 80 Fortna, Robert T. 79, 82, 85, 86, 121

172

Author Index

Frey, Jörg 10, 134, 142 Freyne, Sean 46, 52, 57 Gieschen, Charles A. 22 Giles, Terry 113 Glasson, T. Francis 91, 101 Goodacre, Mark 52 Grabbe, Lester L. 127, 137 Gripentrog, Stephanie 10 Grundmann, Walter 80 Haenchen, Ernst 86, 88 Hahn, Ferdinand 94 Hanson, Anthony Tyrrell 40 Harvey, A. E. 102, 106 Hays, Richard B. 43, 143 Hengel, Martin 119 Henze, Matthias 135, 138 Hezser, Catherine 63, 73 Hofius, Otfried 88 Hooker, Morna D. 27, 110, 120, 136, 137 Horsley, Richard 55, 58, 94, 101 Hoskyns, E. C. 54 Hunt, Steven A. 3, 45 Hurtado, Larry 22, 26 Hutter, U. 52 Hylen, Susan E. 4 Isenberg, Wesley W. 122 Jensen, Morten Hørning 46 Jonge, Marinus, de 91, 93, 97, 120 Juel, Donald H. 144 Juncker, Günther 22 Karakolis, Christos 91, 98, 104, 105 Käsemann, Ernst 10, 17, 46, 59, 85, 90 Keener, Craig S. 57, 66, 87 Keith, Chris 12, 51, 55, 57, 99 Kessler, Gwynn 148 Koester, Craig R. 2, 5, 14, 23, 25, 46, 62, 66, 67, 71, 83, 87, 94, 103, 128, 145, 146 Köstenberger, Andreas 12, 61 Kovacs, Judith L. 132 Kraus, Wolfgang 94 Labahn, Michael 97 Lagrange, M.-J. 53, 55 Lapin, Hayim 63

Larsen, Kasper Bro 147 Lausberg, Heinrich 73, 74 Layton, Bentley 122 Le Donne, Anthony 8 Lee, Dorothy 10, 145 Levin, Yigal 144 Levine, Lee I. 67, 68 Lierman, John 13, 92, 106 Lieu, Judith M. 41, 42, 120 Lightfoot, R. H. 87 Lincoln, Andrew T. 4, 31, 33, 38, 78, 84, 88, 98, 104 Lindars, Barnabas 78, 83, 85, 89 Loader, William 8, 9 Lundhaug, Hugo 122 MacDonald, John 114 MacRae, George 121 Maddox, Robert 127 Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers 144 Marcus, Joel 118, 144 Martyn, J. Louis 8, 11, 13, 84, 86, 92, 93, 94, 98, 100, 101, 104, 105, 117, 120, 130, 133, 134 Mason, Steve 10 McCarthy, Carmel 69 McGrath, James F. 121 Meeks, Wayne A. 14, 46, 47, 50, 51, 54, 91, 96, 97, 99, 100, 102, 105, 113, 114, 115, 120, 121 Meier, John P. 116 Menken, Maarten J. J. 37, 39, 91, 93, 96, 97, 98, 103 Merx, Adalbert 113 Metzger, Bruce M. 86, 88 Moloney, Francis J. 4, 15, 25, 45, 57, 61, 83, 129, 130, 135, 136, 137 Moser, Marion 96 Moule, C. F. D. 137 Mowinckel, Sigmund 115 Murphy, Frederick J. 126 Myers, Alicia D. 16, 143, 144, 147 Neirynck, Frans 78 Neufeld, Dietmar 120 Nickelsburg, George W. E. 125 North, Wendy E. S. 11, 34, 42 Novakovic, Lidija 142 Novenson, Matthew V. 14, 111, 112, 118

Author Index O’Day, Gail R. 147 Obermann, Andreas 63, 70 Odeberg, Hugo 114 Overman, J. Andrew 63 Pagels, Elaine H. 147 Painter, John 128, 131, 147 Parrott, Douglas M. 122 Pilch, John J. 85, 90 Price, Jonathan 67 Quek, Tze-Ming 141 Reider, Joseph 111 Reinhartz, Adele 13, 46, 106, 117, 148 Reinmuth, E. 89 Rengstorf, Karl H. 64, 82, 83 Reynolds, Benjamin E. 15, 126, 130, 133, 136, 138 Riesner, Rainer 61 Roose, Hanna 87 Rowland, Christopher 122, 126, 127, 135 Sanday, William 121 Sanders, E. P. 72 Sasse, Markus 130, 134 Schäfer, Peter 86 Schnackenburg, Rudolf 71, 83, 120, 136 Schnelle, Udo 20, 80 Schnider, Franz 96, 97 Schröter, Jens 58 Schulz, Siegfried 136 Schwartz, Daniel R. 10 Scott, E. F. 142 Seim, Turid Karlsen 148 Sheridan, Ruth 31, 42, 68, 70 Skinner, Christopher R. 3, 34, 147 Smith, D. Moody 61, 97, 99, 101, 116, 117 Stackert, Jeffrey 112 Staley, Jeffrey L. 147

173

Stegner, William Richard 68 Stemberger, Günther 74 Stone, Michael E. 126, 138 Stovell, Beth 142, 143, 145 Strack, Hermann L. 74 Strange, James Riley 46 Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 22, 126 Thatcher, Tom 8, 35, 55, 58, 94, 99, 101 Theobald, Michael 94, 95, 96, 98, 102, 105 Thompson, Marianne Meye 10, 17, 64, 101, 104, 144, 145, 154 Thyen, Hartwig 55, 56, 57 Tolmie, Francois 3 Tov, Emmanuel 69 Tuckett, Christopher 1 Turner, Martha Lee 122 Turner, Nigel 111 Twelftree, Graham H. 13, 77, 79, 81 Ulmer, Rivkin 69 Unnik, W. C. van 119, 122 Van Belle, Gilbert 81, 99, 100 Van der Watt, J. G. 143, 145, 146 VanderKam, James K. 130 Wahlde, Urban C. von 121 Whittaker, Molly 80 Williams, Catrin H. 13, 40, 47, 95, 127, 131 Wink, Walter 110 Witkamp, L. Th. 84, 85, 86 Yarbro Collins, Adela 14, 111 Zahn, Theodor 114 Zimmermann, Ruben 3, 34, 145, 149 Zsengeller, J. 113 Zumstein, Jean 8, 94, 98, 100, 103

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 1:1-2:4a 2:2 2:7 2:21 6:4 6:13 6:24 6:28 7:21 12:1 12:3 17:9-14 27:35 28:12 49:10-11 49:10 Exodus 3:1-6 3:12 4:1-17 4:1-9 5:1 5:2 12:23 12:27 16 16:2 16:4 16:7 16:8 16:11-36 16:14-15 16:15 17:1-7 20:1 20:5 20:8-11 20:8-10 20:12 20:13 24:16 33:12–34:9

147 82 19 18 18 18 18 18 18 69 58 73 49 50, 128 14 112, 119

14 81, 105 83 98 13 24 18 18 104 68 13, 38, 68, 70, 100 68 68 100 38 68, 100 13, 100 39 66 74 38 39 73 39 33

33:20 33:22-23 34:1 34:4 34:6 34:10-12 40:34-38

33 33 33, 82 33 33 13 147

Leviticus 6:27 12:3 16:27 17:10-14 17:11 19:18 24:16 24:17

18 74 18 71 18 67 38, 73 73

Numbers 12:8 16:28 21:8-9 24:5-7 24:15-17 24:17

41 105 129 113 94 112, 113

Deuteronomy 2:14 4:34 5:4 5:12-15 5:16 5:17 5:22-26 5:33 6:4-5 6:4 6:22 7:19 8:3 11:3 13 13:1-11 13:2-6 13:2

84 83 38 38 39 73 39 39 67 153 83 83 70 83 106 97 102 97

176

Index of Ancient Sources

13:6 18 18:15-22 18:15-19 18:15-18 18:15 18:18-19 18:18 18:20-22 18:22 26:8 28:46 29:3 33:8-11 34:10-12 34:10 34:11

102 106, 111, 113 106 94, 95, 96, 99, 102, 106, 107 13, 69, 92 37, 49, 92, 99 94, 95, 98, 105, 106 37, 49, 92, 99, 102, 110, 112 97 106 81, 83 83 83 94 98, 102, 104 49, 99 83

Judges 11:12 11:34

104 149

2 Samuel 7:12-13 7:14 12:1-7

14 15 95

1 Kings 17:1 17:8-24 17:8-16 17:17-24 17:18 17:23 18:1

105 13 104 104 104 104 105

2 Kings 4:1–5:19 3:13 4:1-7 4:42 4:43-44 4:43 4:44 14:25

13 104 104 104 105 104 105 52, 103

34:15

18

Psalms 2:7 21:21 34:17 56:4 66:5 73:26 75:25 77:12 78:24 78:39 82 82:6 89:36-39 102:4 102:11 103:15 136:25 145:21

13, 142 149 149 18 82 18 22 82, 100 38, 68 18 152 39 119 18 18 18 18 18

Isaiah 1:1 1:4 6:8 6:9 6:10 9:1-2 9:1 9:2 10:7-17 11:1-5 14:13-14 40:3 40:6-8 40:6-7 42:6-7 47:6-8 52-53 54:13 58:5-6 66:23

129 129 93 105 78 11, 56 57 57 24 112 24 110 18 18 57 24 137 69, 75 86 18

105 18 14 81

66 18

2 Chronicles 32:7-8 35:21

18 104

Jeremiah 1:7 17:5 23:4-6 32:20-21

Job 9:8 12:10

79 18

Ezekiel 18:20 20:48

Index of Ancient Sources 21:5 29:32 34:23

18 24 14

Daniel 7 7:13-14 7:14 11:36-39

137 6, 15, 130 132 24

Hosea 12:13

92

Amos 9:11 9:13

14 14

Micah 5:2

116

Nahum 1:1

52, 103

Zechariah 14:6-8

57

Malachi 3:1 3:3 3:23-24 4:5-6 4:5

100 93 93 13 110

NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 1:1-17 1:1 1:18-25 1:20 2:23 4:23 7:22 8:1-4 8:5-13 8:14-15 8:28-34 9:27 9:30 9:35 10:5-6 10:8 11:2-6

143 144 144 143 53, 57 67 80 80 32 84 32 143 89 67 32 78 81

177

11:9 11:13-14 11:14 11:20 11:21 11:23 12:3 12:9-14 12:23 12:24 12:28 13 13:37-39 13:54 13:57 13:58 14:2 15:21-28 15:22 15:24 16:14 16:17 17:4 17:10-13 17:10-12 19:17 19:28 20:30-31 20:33 21:9 21:15 21:23-29 22:41-46 23:6-7 23:8-10 25:31-46 25:36 25:39 26:25 26:39 26:49 26:63 27:11 27:32 28:18-20

107 93 110 80 80 80 143 68 143 79 81 53 96 52, 53, 80 52, 53 80 80 32 143 32 110 18, 24 68 93 110 154 58 143 63 143 143 71 143 63 96 154 78 78 68 51 68 118, 119 119 51 143

Mark 1:9 1:10-11 1:17-18 1:21-28 1:21 1:23-27

53 144 64 80 64 68

178

Index of Ancient Sources

1:39 1:43 2:21 4:1 4:38 4:48 5:1-20 5:30 5:35 6 6:1 6:2 6:4 6:5 6:14 6:15 6:34 6:56 7:1-5 7:24-30 7:27 8:28 9:5 9:11-13 9:17 9:38 9:39 9:43-47 10:17-25 10:35 10:51 11:21 11:27-12:44 12:14 12:19 12:28-34 12:32 14:5 14:36 14:45 15:3 15:21

67 89 6 6 63 6 32 80 6 53 52, 53 6, 67, 80 6, 52, 99 80 80 110 6 78 72 32 32 6, 110 63 93 6 6 80 154 154 63 63 63 71 63 63 67 63 89 51 63 96 51

Luke 1:17 1:26-38 3:12 3:23-38 4:15 4:16-20 4:22-24 4:24 4:25-26

93, 110 144 64 144 67 62 53 6, 13, 53, 99 110

4:31-37 4:40 4:44 5:17 6:19 7:1-10 7:12 7:16 7:18-23 7:26 7:39 8:26-39 8:42 8:46 9:1 9:2 9:8 9:19 9:38 10:13 11:2 11:15 11:20 13:33 18:41 19:37 20:1-21:4 22:30 22:42 22:67 22:70 23:3 23:26 24:7 24:19

80 78 67 80 80 32 32, 149 6 81 107 6 32 32, 149 80 80 78 110 110 32, 149 78 64 79 81 6 63 80 71 58 51 119 119 119 51 137 6

John 1 1:1-18 1:1-16 1:1-5 1:1-3 1:1-2 1:1 1:3 1:4-5 1:4 1:5-6 1:5 1:6 1:7-9 1:7-8 1:7

109, 111, 150, 151, 152 32, 80, 90, 118, 146 147 1, 26, 142, 147, 151, 153 110 125, 133 48, 152 128 57, 149, 152 89, 128, 142, 149, 152 150 152 9, 24, 93, 150 95, 152 149, 152 149, 152

Index of Ancient Sources 1:9-11 1:9-10 1:9 1:10 1:11 1:12-13 1:12 1:13-14 1:13 1:14-18 1:14-17 1:14

1:15-18 1:15 1:16 1:17 1:18

1:19-28 1:19-25 1:19 1:20-25 1:20-21 1:20 1:21-25 1:21 1:23 1:24-34 1:24 1:25 1:26-27 1:28 1:29 1:30 1:33-34 1:34 1:35-42 1:35-38 1:35 1:36 1:38-39 1:38 1:41-51 1:41 1:42 1:43-46 1:43-44 1:45-48 1:45-46

32, 37 149 24, 110, 128, 147 152 48, 53, 56, 110 19, 32, 110, 149, 150 144, 149, 150, 154 149 152 142 147 9, 10, 15, 17, 19, 29, 32, 33, 48, 59, 61, 79, 87, 110, 125, 128, 146, 147, 149, 150, 152 146 95, 152 33, 42, 147 33, 42, 50, 100, 110, 125, 128, 149, 150, 152, 154 1, 15, 28, 32, 33, 34, 48, 109, 128, 133, 142, 146, 147, 149, 150, 152 93, 95 95 36, 38, 110, 152 101 93, 128 95, 110 105 13, 93, 95, 96, 99, 111, 116 92, 93, 102, 106 13 28, 36 93, 95, 96, 99, 102, 106 95 57 111, 125, 128 23 93 48, 111, 141 57 64 125 128 65 3, 12, 62, 63, 64, 65, 125, 128 57 3, 14, 31, 49, 65, 111, 112, 125 95, 128 45 49 95 11, 45, 99, 112, 115

1:45

179

1:51

3, 14, 31, 39, 48, 95, 111, 125, 128 65 31, 49, 53 34, 132, 134 106 49 48 3, 11, 12, 14, 15, 49, 63, 65, 112, 125, 128, 141, 142, 143 4, 21, 26, 50, 128, 136

2 2:1-12 2:1-11 2:4 2:6 2:7-8 2:9 2:10 2:11 2:13-25 2:13-16 2:13 2:16 2:18 2:19 2:20 2:21-22 2:22 2:23-25 2:23-24 2:23 2:24-25 2:25

150, 151 149 23, 79 104 28, 34, 105 105 47 24 1, 34, 55, 57, 81, 83 10 32 4, 34, 54 11 36, 54, 80 36, 85, 106 84, 85 36 34, 85 35, 54, 99 35 81, 82, 83 106 9, 29

3 3:1-2 3:1 3:2-5 3:2 3:3-8 3:3 3:4 3:5 3:6 3:7 3:8 3:9-10 3:11 3:12-13 3:12 3:13-14

149, 150, 151, 152 35 9, 24, 35, 51, 83, 150, 152 152 35, 80, 81, 152 149, 150 150 35, 84 142, 150 10, 19, 149, 150 150, 152 47 35 149, 152 133 149, 150, 152 152

1:46-49 1:46 1:47-51 1:47-48 1:47 1:49-50 1:49

180

Index of Ancient Sources

3:13 3:14-18 3:14 3:15-18 3:15-16 3:16-18 3:16-17 3:16 3:17 3:18 3:19-21 3:19 3:21 3:22-25 3:22 3:25-26 3:25 3:26 3:27-36 3:28 3:31-36 3:31 3:34 3:35

8, 15, 115, 127, 129, 131, 136, 139 134 15, 40, 100, 106, 129, 136, 149 129, 132 149, 150, 152 149, 150 149 33, 133, 150, 152 48 33, 88, 141, 150, 152 152 149 152 65 84 63 65 65 65 110 150 48, 115, 150 106, 133 152

4 4:1-42 4:1-3 4:1-2 4:1 4:4-42 4:4 4:5-6 4:6-7 4:7 4:9 4:10-15 4:10 4:11 4:12 4:14 4:18-19 4:19-20 4:19

97, 112, 151 4, 57 36 65 88 53 53 50 22 31 4, 11, 31, 97 84 84 47 50 47 106 4 13, 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 99, 103, 106, 107, 113 4, 11, 97 4 97 106, 113 4, 11, 32 5, 27, 48 4, 14, 93, 96, 97, 112, 113, 114, 120 14, 48

4:20 4:21-24 4:21-22 4:21 4:22 4:25-26 4:25 4:26

4:27 4:29 4:30 4:31-32 4:31 4:32 4:33-34 4:34 4:36 4:37 4:38 4:39 4:40 4:42 4:43 4:43-45 4:44 4:45 4:46-54 4:46-47 4:46 4:47 4:48 4:50 4:51 4:53 4:54 5 5:1-18 5:1-9 5:1 5:3 5:5 5:6 5:7 5:8-10 5:8 5:9 5:10 5:12 5:13 5:14 5:15 5:16-47 5:16-18 5:16 5:17-24 5:17-22 5:17-18 5:17 5:18

65 4, 23, 24, 96, 97, 112 65 65 12, 65 22 65 81, 82 65 65 66 65, 97 53 4 53 53 5, 13, 31, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 91, 98, 99, 106, 107 35, 53, 54, 55, 56, 82, 83, 99 32, 79, 83 83 78, 82, 83 53, 78, 83 35, 81, 82, 83, 99 35, 83, 84, 85, 87, 90, 104 83, 90 35, 83, 84, 90, 104 53, 54, 55, 81, 82 151, 152, 153 152 79, 84, 85, 88 32, 34, 84, 152 77, 78 9, 24, 78 84, 106 78 37 84, 85 11, 85 78, 85 23 35, 78 84 24, 85 11 37, 38, 73 11, 12, 83, 85, 86, 141, 152 2 152 88 71, 86 24, 71, 73, 82, 83, 85, 86, 148, 152

Index of Ancient Sources 5:19-29 5:19-23 5:19-21 5:19 5:20 5:21

5:28 5:29-30 5:29 5:30-47 5:30 5:31-32 5:33 5:34 5:35 5:36-39 5:36-37 5:36 5:37-47 5:37-39 5:37-38 5:37 5:38 5:39-47 5:39-40 5:39 5:40 5:42 5:43 5:44 5:45-47 5:45 5:46 5:47

15, 38, 130 40, 151, 152 71 152 82, 152 12, 74, 82, 84, 85, 131, 142, 151 152 131, 152 89 88, 141, 151 25 15, 19, 28, 142, 148, 149, 151, 152 15, 127, 130, 132, 134, 141, 152 89, 152 152 152 102 38, 152 99 38 24, 152 38, 152 152 99, 152 38, 152 38, 39 38 39 38 152 13, 50 39 11, 70, 152 152 38 152 38, 152 71, 100 152 49, 152 72, 152

6 6:1-15 6:1-13 6:2 6:3 6:4 6:5-7 6:7

99, 102, 112, 114, 115, 130 68, 79, 84, 104 37, 102 35, 37, 47, 78, 81 100 34, 69, 100 34 84

5:22 5:24 5:25-29 5:25 5:26-27 5:26 5:27

6:9 6:10 6:12-13 6:13 6:14-15 6:14

6:15 6:16-21 6:22-24 6:23 6:25 6:26-27 6:26 6:27 6:30-32 6:30-31 6:30 6:31 6:32-59 6:32-35 6:32-34 6:32-33 6:32 6:33-48 6:33 6:34 6:35-48 6:35 6:38 6:40 6:41-43 6:41 6:42 6:45 6:47 6:48-51 6:48 6:49-58 6:51 6:52 6:53 6:56-59 6:57-58 6:57 6:58 6:59 6:62 6:63 6:67 6:70 6:71

181 104 105 100, 105 105 14, 93, 100, 101, 102, 107 13, 35, 37, 69, 81, 91, 92, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 106, 111, 114, 116 100, 101, 102, 114, 142, 143 79 68 88 63 35 81 130, 131, 136, 138 35, 54 38 80, 100 68, 69 12 50 68 38 38, 69, 100 38 100 63 68 19, 38, 47, 70 38, 115 38, 70 70 36 17, 31, 48, 49, 149 69, 70, 75 70 38 70 38, 68, 70 10, 19, 47, 70, 96, 115 17, 36, 83, 84 19, 130, 131, 136 19, 20 38 26, 131, 142 84 10, 38, 61, 67 130, 131, 136, 139 19 58 58 58

182 7 7:1-8:59 7:1-52 7:1 7:2 7:3 7:10 7:12-13 7:12 7:13 7:14-36 7:14-24 7:14 7:15 7:16-18 7:16-17 7:16 7:17 7:18 7:19-24 7:19 7:20 7:21 7:22-23 7:22 7:23 7:25-52 7:25-29 7:25-27 7:25 7:26-27 7:26 7:27-28 7:27 7:28-29 7:28 7:30 7:31-32 7:31 7:32 7:33-34 7:35 7:37-38 7:37 7:38 7:39 7:40-43 7:40-41 7:40 7:41-44 7:41-43 7:41-42

Index of Ancient Sources 102, 115, 116, 119 83 85 71, 72, 73, 84 28, 31, 34 82 10, 31 102 35, 71, 102 37, 72 152 62, 71 4, 32, 61, 71 12, 63, 72, 73 12, 72 72, 75, 102, 106 73 73 73 11, 12, 72 37, 71, 73 35, 73 82 40, 74 28, 85 12, 74, 85 71 14 35 37, 50, 71, 73 11, 14, 115 50, 112 48 14, 31, 46, 50 11 47, 48, 50 71 36 81, 112 50, 51 131 84 102 32 47, 103 47 11, 35 93, 101 13, 91, 92, 96, 99, 102, 103, 106, 107, 111 99 116 31, 50

7:41 7:42 7:45-47 7:45 7:46 7:47 7:48-49 7:49 7:50-52 7:51 7:52

48, 54, 102, 112, 115, 116 14, 51 41 51 23 102 51 41 35 23 11, 31, 48, 54, 56, 85, 91, 92, 93, 99, 103, 107, 115

8 8:12-59 8:12-19 8:12 8:14 8:15 8:16 8:17 8:18 8:20 8:21 8:22 8:23 8:26 8:28 8:31-32 8:33 8:37 8:39-59 8:40 8:41-44 8:41 8:42 8:48-59 8:48-49 8:49 8:54-55 8:55 8:56 8:57 8:58 8:59

153 72, 152 40 11, 56, 57 46, 99 131 131 40, 41 99 32, 71, 72, 74 131 84 2, 45, 48 131 15, 61, 72, 74, 75, 131, 136 65 41 37, 39 50 24, 37, 39 39 153 39, 48 39 39 39 39 39, 41 41 84 2, 27 37, 39

9 9:1-41 9:1-7 9:1 9:2 9:3 9:4-5

97 152 5, 24, 79, 86 9 12, 65, 66 66, 82 66, 78

Index of Ancient Sources 9:4 9:5 9:6-7 9:6 9:7 9:9-41 9:11 9:13-17 9:13-16 9:14 9:15-17 9:16 9:17

9:24-34 9:28-29 9:29 9:33 9:34-35 9:34 9:35-41 9:35-39 9:35-38 9:35-37 9:35 9:38 9:39

82, 86, 90 57, 86 82 87 97 87 5, 9, 23, 24, 87, 88 37, 117 11 85, 87 97 9, 23, 36, 66 5, 13, 87, 91, 92, 97, 98, 99, 103, 104, 106, 107, 117 117 37 47 5, 11, 37, 47, 66, 87, 98, 112, 113, 117 2, 37 40 47, 117 5, 87, 132 87 11 87 134 5, 15, 35, 66 5 87, 88, 131, 136, 138 87, 97 48, 132

10 10:1-18 10:2 10:4 10:5 10:14-18 10:15 10:16 10:17-18 10:19-39 10:22-30 10:22-23 10:22 10:24-25 10:24 10:25-30 10:25 10:27 10:30 10:31-38

118, 153 14 34 64 64 143 27 32 27 83 57 32 29 27 47, 48, 112, 118 39 99 64 39, 118, 153 152

9:18-34 9:18-23 9:18 9:22

10:31-33 10:31 10:32-38 10:32-33 10:32 10:33 10:34 10:35-36 10:35 10:36 10:37-39 10:37 10:38 10:42 11 11:1-57 11:1-53 11:1 11:2 11:3 11:4 11:6 11:8 11:9 11:11-14 11:12 11:14 11:15 11:16 11:18-19 11:18 11:23-27 11:23-24 11:23 11:24-26 11:25-27 11:25-26 11:25 11:27 11:29 11:33 11:35 11:36 11:37 11:38 11:40 11:42 11:43 11:44 11:45-53 11:45

183

37, 39 82 40, 88 81, 82 10, 24, 81, 82, 118 39, 41 40 41 47, 48, 88, 141 40 81, 82 82 57 118 77, 79 88 78 78, 88 78, 89 5, 48, 88, 106 78 12, 37, 63, 65 78 34 64 152 89 34, 90 36 12 88 84 106 90 35 88 12, 88, 118 88, 89, 90, 111, 112, 113, 118, 141, 152 85 88, 90 89, 90 89 79 89, 90 1, 88, 89 36 89 89, 90 83 89

184

Index of Ancient Sources

11:46-53 11:47 11:48 11:49-52 11:50 11:51-52 11:52 11:55

36, 90 9, 23, 88 89 116 23 32 58 32

12 12:1 12:2 12:3 12:9-11 12:9 12:11 12:12-15 12:12 12:15-16 12:16 12:17 12:18-19 12:18 12:19 12:20-23 12:20-21 12:20 12:23-24 12:23 12:26 12:27 12:28-34 12:29 12:30-33 12:31-32 12:31 12:32-34 12:32-33 12:32 12:33 12:35 12:38-40 12:38 12:41 12:42 12:46 12:48-50

118, 132 10, 32, 85 23 35 36 85 83 57 10, 36 142 8, 34 85, 89 35 81 36, 89 10 32 78 15, 32 118, 125, 132, 135, 136, 139 64 51 35 84

13:1-11 13:1-3 13:1 13:3 13:4-5

23 66 32 25 66

15, 118 132 15, 134 15 132, 134 81 118 41 92 41, 93 36, 37, 117 57 106

13:4 13:6 13:7 13:8 13:13-16 13:13-15 13:13-14 13:13 13:14 13:19 13:23 13:25-26 13:28 13:31-32 13:31 13:34 13:36-38

85 66 84 66 67 75 34 5 12, 61 106 34 34 84 132, 134, 136 125, 135, 139 67 34

14:5 14:8-12 14:8 14:9-11 14:10 14:11 14:12 14:15-23 14:15 14:16-17 14:19 14:23 14:24 14:25-26 14:25 14:26 14:29 14:31

34, 84 82 34, 84 133 82, 106 82 82, 87 67 47 35 26, 84 84 106 35 47 9, 49, 75 106 85

15:1 15:4-10 15:12-13 15:13 15:16 15:17 15:20 15:24 15:25 15:26

47, 96 65 67 10 63 67 86 82 41 35

16:1-2 16:1 16:2 16:7-15 16:13

34 34 117 35 49

Index of Ancient Sources 16:17-18 16:17 16:29

34 84 34

17:1-26 17:1-5 17:2 17:3 17:4 17:5 17:8 17:14 17:16 17:22 17:24

146 133 10, 131 87, 112 82 27, 31 106 48 48 27 27, 31

18 18:3 18:5 18:7-8 18:7 18:11 18:12 18:13 18:14 18:15 18:19 18:20 18:29 18:33-19:25 18:33-38 18:33 18:34 18:36 18:37 18:40

120 36, 37 49, 115 48 115 10, 51 37, 72, 81, 83 96 23, 116 34 119 4, 62 23 56 57 119 47 11, 47, 120 48, 99, 120 37

19 19:5 19:6 19:7-9 19:7 19:9 19:14 19:15 19:19-20 19:19 19:20-21 19:21 19:25-27 19:26-27 19:30 19:31

112, 115 10, 23, 24 36, 37 48 10, 46, 83, 88, 141, 152 45, 46, 47, 48 24, 111 37 32 12, 48, 54, 115 36 36, 83 149 34 47 85, 111

185

19:34 19:38 19:39 19:40 19:42

103 37, 83 35 34 34

20:1 20:2 20:7 20:8 20:13-18 20:13 20:16 20:19 20:20 20:24 20:25 20:28-29 20:28 20:30-31 20:30 20:31

85 88 89 34 63 88 12, 62 37, 85 88 58 88 41 1, 26, 61, 88, 120 81, 87, 90, 120, 153 81 89, 104, 111, 112, 113, 118, 141

21 21:1 21:4-14 21:7 21:9 21:12 21:14 21:19 21:20-24 21:22

57 84 79, 88 34, 88 64 88 85 64 34 64

Acts 3:22 5:36 7:36 7:37 7:56 8:27-35 10:28 12:22 13:14 14:8-20 19:1-7

92, 95 101 98 92, 95 137 137 77 24 67 21 64

Romans 8:11

89

1 Corinthians 6:14

89

186 15:12 15:14 15:17 15:50

Index of Ancient Sources 89 89 89 18, 19

2 Corinthians 4:14

89

Galatians 1:14 1:16 3:19

72 18 22

Ephesians 6:12 Hebrews 1:6-9 1:14 2:2 2:3 2:6 2:14 11:14 11:17 12:22 13:2

2 Maccabees 9:12

24, 25

Sirach 14:18 17:11 17:31 45:3 45:5 45:17

18 70 18 98 70 66

Tobit 3:15 12:19

149 22

Wisdom 10:15-16 11:1 12:5 16:20-21

98 92 18 22

18

22 22 22 22 138 18 52 149 22 22

1 Peter 2:21-25

137

1 John 4:2 4:9

10 33

2 John 7

10

Revelation 1:13 4:1 14:14 19:1

138 128 138 128

APOCRYPHA Judith 3:8 6:2

24 24

1 Maccabees 1:10 4:46 14:41

24 94 94

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA Apocalypse of Abraham 12:1-2 23 19:1-3 128 2 Baruch 22:1 29:3 29:8 30:1 39-40 40:1-2 46:1-3 50:2-51:3 53:1 70:9 72-74 72:2

129 129 138 129, 131, 132 129 134 66 130 129 129 129 134

1 Enoch 1-36 37-71 39:12-13 46-48 48:3 48:5 48:6 48:10 49:4 51:3 52:4 62:2-5

126 127 22 130 131 132 14, 115 128 134 132 128 132

Index of Ancient Sources 62:2-3 62:2 62:14 69:27-29 69:27 71:14

134 128, 131, 132 134, 138 132 130, 134 127

Exagoge (Ezekiel the Tragedian) 226 98 4 Ezra 7:32-36 11-13 12:42 13 13:10 13:26 13:37-38 13:52 14:30

130 129 66 115 134 131 134 115 70

Jubilees 48:4

98

Liber antiquitarum biblicarum (Pseudo-Philo) 33:1 66 33:3 66 35:6 92 51:3 66 51:6 66 Odes of Solomon 18:4 149 Psalms of Solomon 2:28-32 24 14:2 70 14:3 149 17:40 14 Sibylline Oracles 5:33-35 24 5:137-54 24 5:214-21 24 Testament of Abraham 4:9-11 22 6:1-2 22 Testament of Benjamin 9:2 94 Testament of Job 48:3 22

49:2 50:1

187 22 22

DEAD SEA SCROLLS 1QS IX, 11 4Q 175 5-20

94 94

HELLENISTIC JEWISH AUTHORS Josephus Antiquities 4.16 4.22 4.146 4.149 4.329 11.165 13.297 13.408 17.271-72 19.4 19.345 19.347 20.97-98 20.168-70 20.168

102 102 102 102 92 52 72 72 101 24 24 24 101 101 101

Jewish War 2.259 2.261-63 2.262 2.434-44

101 101 102 101

Philo Allegorical Interpretation 1.5-6 86 2.3 25 Cherubim 77

25

Dreams 2.127

67

Embassy to Gaius (Legatio ad Gaium) 22 24 74-80 24 93-97 24 118 24 156 67 162 24 278 52

188

Index of Ancient Sources

Eternity 43

25

Flight 137

70

Heir 191

70

Hypothetica 13

67

Migration 43

69

Moses 1.95 1.210 2.3 2.187 2.208-10 2.215-16

83 81, 98 115 92 149 67

Names 259-60

70

Sacrifices 92 Special laws 1.64-65 2.62-64 2.210 2.218 4.149-50

25

94 67 83 83 72

Shabbat 18:3-19:4 18:3 19:2

28 74 74

Sukkah 4:1 4:8 4:9

29 29 29

Yadayim 3:8

72

Tosefta Sanhedrin 12:11 13:2

154 154

Babylonian Talmud Berakot 28b 66 56b 86 64a 69 Gittin 57b

154

Shabbat 116a

86

Sotah 7b

154

Targums Targum of the Psalms Psalm 12:5 62

RABBINIC TEXTS Targum Neofiti Exodus 21:4

Mishnah ’Abot 1:1-18 1:3 1:6

72 62 64

Other Rabbinic Texts ’Abot de Rabbi Nathan 25 66 37 74

Baba Metzi’a 2:11

154

‘Eduyyot 8:7

Genesis Rabbah 9:8 154 14:3 154

72

Kelim 10:1 Nedarim 3:11

62

Midrash Tanhuma 28 154 28 Numbers Rabbah 9:17 154 74

Index of Ancient Sources SAMARITAN SOURCES Memar Marqah 1.9 114 EARLY CHRISTIAN TEXTS Acts of John 83-93

20

Apocalypse of Peter VII.3.81 29 Augustine Confessions 7.9

Origen Contra Celsum 1.69-70 2.6 7.14 7.16-17

189

23 28 29 29

Tertullian Adversus Praxean 21.8 23 27.11 23 De carne Christi 9.7 23

29

NAG HAMMADI

Gospel of Thomas 31 53

Gospel of Philip 62 122

Ignatius Smyrneans 1:1 2 3:1 5:2 6:1 6:12

CLASSICAL GREEK AND LATIN WRITERS 20 20 20 20 20 19

Ephesians 7:1

20

Trallians 9:1 10

20 20

Magnesians 11

20

Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.11.3 29 3.22.2 23 Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 8 115 34.2 21 56.4 22 56.60 22 57.2 22 110 115

Apollodorus Library 1.97

25

Aristotle Generation of Animals 1.2 (716a, 4-7) 148 2.3-6 (737a, 20 – 745b, 21) 148 Cassius Dio Roman History 59.26.5 59.28.5-6

25 25

Dio Chrysostom Orations 3.30-31 79 Diogenes Laertius Lives 2.48 64 7.2-3 64 Epictetus Diatr 2.8.1-2

21

Homer Odyssey 1.95-230 2.267-95

21 21

190 2.382-87 2.399-401 6.20-40 7.20-35 13.220-25 Iliad 4.86-87 13.27-30 13.43-45 16.715-20 17.71-73 17.554-56 22.238-48 24.354-458

Index of Ancient Sources 21 21 21 21 21

21 79 21 21 21 21 21 21

Ovid Metamorphoses 1.212-13 21

1.220 8.618-724

21 21

Plato Charmides 164b

25

Republic 2.359e 2.360c 2.380d

25 25 21

Quintilian Institutes 5.10.87-94 74 Virgil Aeneid 1.314-15 9.646-52

21 21