John among the Apocalypses: Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the 'Apocalyptic' Gospel 0198784244, 9780198784241

Citation preview

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi

John among the Apocalypses

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi

John among the Apocalypses Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the “Apocalyptic” Gospel BENJAMIN E. REYNOLDS

1

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Benjamin E. Reynolds 2020 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2020 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2020934979 ISBN 978–0–19–878424–1 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi

For my parents

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi

Acknowledgments There is a small, but growing interest in understanding the Fourth Gospel in light of early Judaism. By this statement, I do not mean “early Judaism as background” to the Gospel nor do I mean “John and Judaism,” but rather I mean reading the Fourth Gospel as part of early Judaism. This perspective turns much twentieth-century Johannine scholarship on its head, but it is the twentieth-century discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls that has been the impetus behind our enriched understandings of Judaism during the Second Temple period. Reading the Gospel of John alongside earlier and contemporary Jewish literature opens new (or renewed?) avenues for understanding the Fourth Gospel, particularly in relationship to Jewish apocalyptic tradition. The present study grew out of the colloquium on the “Gospel of John and Intimations of Apocalyptic” hosted by Catrin Williams in 2010 at the University of Wales, Bangor in honor of John Ashton. My paper “John among the Jewish Apocalypses: Rethinking the Gospel of John’s Genre” was dying a slow, painful death in the question and answer period until John Ashton shifted the conversation by responding favorably while also graciously challenging me. John’s interaction sparked my interest in the topic further and began a friendship which continued until his death. John and I communicated back and forth as he worked on what became his final book, The Gospel of John and Christian Origins (Fortress, 2014), and as I continued working on the Gospel of John’s relationship with Jewish apocalypses. John agreed to write a foreword for the present volume, but I took too long to complete this project and he left us too soon. However, I imagine John’s comments would have sounded similar to his response to some of my earlier work: “it won’t surprise you to hear that I agree with much of what you say. But it won’t surprise you either to hear that I do have some disagreements also, and I think I owe it to you to spell these out.” I am grateful to John for his forthright honesty, his encouragement, his contribution to Johannine scholarship, and his friendship. There are numerous people whom I would like to thank for their advice and encouragement on the present volume. I am grateful to John Ashton and Jörg Frey for offering feedback on my preliminary outline for this project. I would also like to thank those who read a chapter or more of the present volume and in many instances challenged me to rethink an argument or saved me from

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi

viii



some embarrassing oversights. These include colleagues: Ian Boxall, Joseph Dodson, Natasha Duquette, Simon Gathercole, Jonathan Moo, Stacey Moo, Ian Scott, and Catrin Williams; and some former and current students: Morgan Clark, Spencer Healey, Ben Klassen, and Rachel VanderVeen. Of course, those mistakes that remain are mine alone. I am also grateful to Rachel VanderVeen for compiling the List of Abbreviations and to Marina Hanna for recreating the table of “master-paradigm” elements. I would also like to thank all those who were present at the Bangor Colloquium in 2010, particularly John Ashton, Ian Boxall, April DeConick, Jörg Frey, Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer, Judith Lieu, Christopher Rowland, Loren Stuckenbruck, and Catrin Williams, for the intellectually stimulating meeting that it was. I am grateful to others who have heard and commented on paper presentations that have been incorporated into this volume, which I gave in the intervening years at the Sixth Enoch Seminar (Milan, June 2011); the Johannine Literature Section, SBL Annual Meeting (Chicago, 2012); Wisdom and Apocalypticism Section and Johannine Literature Section joint session, SBL Annual Meeting (San Diego, 2014). I am grateful to the publishers—Bloomsbury, Brill, Fortress Press, and Mohr Siebeck—for permitting me to reuse material from previously published essays. In most cases, I have significantly reworked the material, but in a few instances, the detailed argument may be found in the original piece: “John and the Jewish Apocalypses: Rethinking the Gospel of John’s Genre.” In John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, edited by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland, 36–57. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc., 2013. (Incorporated into portions of Chapters 2 and 5.) “Apocalypticism in the Gospel of John’s Written Revelation of Heavenly Things.” Early Christianity 4, no. 1 (2013): 64–95, published by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. (Incorporated into portions of Chapters 2, 3, and 6.) “The Otherworldly Mediators in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: A Comparison with Angelic Mediators in Ascent Apocalypses and in Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah.” In Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction after the Fall, edited by Matthias Henze and Gabriele Boccaccini, 175–93. Leiden: Brill, 2013. (Incorporated into portions of Chapters 2 and 5.) “Apocalyptic Revelation in the Gospel of John: Revealed Cosmology, the Vision of God, and Visionary Showing.” In Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the Shaping of New Testament Thought, edited by Benjamin E. Reynolds and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi



ix

Loren T. Stuckenbruck, 109–28. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2017. (Incorporated into portions of Chapters 2 and 3.) I am also grateful for the permissions granted to include images of icons depicting St. John the Theologian dictating to his scribe Prochorus that are included on the cover of this volume and in Chapter 7. I am grateful to Tyndale University for two half-year sabbaticals (winter 2015 and autumn 2018) during which a majority of this book was researched and written. Without the freedom from administrative and teaching loads during those two semesters, I would not have been able to complete this project. Thanks to the staff of Tyndale University’s William Horsey Library for their research and teaching support, especially to Hugh Rendle, Isabella Guthrie-McNaughton, and Monica Duce. Thanks to the Sisterhood of St. John the Divine, particularly to Jeanette Strong, Sister Dorothy, and Sister Susanne at the Guest House and Sister Margaret Ruth in the library, for the peaceful study space for research and writing and their kind hospitality. The Sisterhood will always hold a special place for me, but it does so especially with this project because, as my thoughts were coalescing around the Gospel of John, Jewish apocalypses, and the book of Revelation, I noticed for the first time an icon (a quite large wall painting, mind you) that I had passed numerous times before. The Sisterhood’s icon sparked a reception history exploration of the literary and iconographic tradition of St. John, Prochorus, and the Cave of Revelation, and this exploration led to the central part of Chapter 7 of this volume. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback, as well as Tom Perridge, Karen Raith, John Smallman, Henry Clarke, and the rest of the OUP team for their patience and excellent work on this volume. Last, but not least, I would like to thank Lizzie and our three boys for their encouragement and patience, especially in the final stages of the project (“Dad, did you finish your book today?”). I dedicate this book to my parents Melissa and Roger Reynolds out of gratitude for their unwavering love and support.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi

Contents List of Illustrations List of Abbreviations

Introduction

xiii xv

1

1. Genre, “Apocalypse,” and the Gospel of John

15

2. The Manner of Revelation in Jewish Apocalypses and John

37

3. The Content of Revelation in Jewish Apocalypses and John

67

4. The Function of Revelation in Jewish Apocalypses and John

93

5. John’s Gospel as “Apocalyptic” Gospel

117

6. Interpreting the “Apocalyptic” Gospel with Jewish Apocalypses

144

7. The “Apocalyptic” Gospel and the Apocalypse of John

167

Conclusion

201

Appendix A: The Jewish Apocalypses Appendix B: The Jewish Apocalypses and the Gospel of John

211 212

References Index of Authors Index of Ancient Sources General Index

213 233 237 253

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi

List of Illustrations 7.1. St. John the Evangelist and Prochorus, 11th century (1059), Codex 587 m., fol. 1v, Monastery of Dionysiou, Mount Athos, Greece. Reproduced courtesy of the Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies in Thessaloniki.

192

7.2. The Evangelist John and Prochoros, 1334/35, Codex 81, fol. 238v, St. John the Theologian Monastery on the island of Patmos. Reproduced courtesy of Katheloumenos and Patriarachikos Exarchos Patmos, Kurillos.

193

7.3. John the Theologian and Prochoros, one panel from Four Icons from a Pair of Doors (Panels), Possibly Part of a Polyptych: John the Theologian and Prochoros, the Baptism (Epiphany), Harrowing of Hell (Anastasis), and Saint Nicholas, 15th century, possibly Cretan, in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. © Cultural Archive/Alamy Stock Photo.

195

7.4. St John the Evangelist and Prochoros, by Emmanuel Lambardos, 1602, in the Museum of Icons, the Hellenic Institute for Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Studies in Venice, http://www.istitutoellenico.org/ english/museo/index.html. © the History Collection/Alamy Stock Photo.

196

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi

List of Abbreviations AB ABD ABRL AGJU AJEC AnBib ANF ATR BBET BBR BETL Bib BIS BJS BMSEC BNTC BZNW CBET CBQ CBQMS CBS CC CCR CCSS CEJL CRINT CurBR DCLS DCLY DOP DOS ECC EJL ExpT HbibSt

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols., ed. David Noel Freedman, New York, 1992 Anchor Bible Reference Library Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity Analecta Biblica Ante-Nicene Fathers Australasian Theological Review Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie Bulletin for Biblical Research Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Biblica Biblical Interpretation Series Brown Judaic Studies Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Studies in Early Christianity Black’s New Testament Commentaries Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Core Biblical Studies Concordia Commentary Cambridge Companions to Religion Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Currents in Biblical Research Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook Dumbarton Oaks Papers Dumbarton Oaks Studies Eerdmans Critical Commentary Early Judaism and its Literature Expository Times Herders Biblische Studien/Herder’s Biblical Studies

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi

xvi    HBT HNT HTR HTS ICC IDBSup IRT ITC ITQ JAJSup JBL JCT JSJ JSJSup JSNT JSNTSup JSPSup JTS KD LBS LEC LNTS MNTS MS NHMS NIGTC NovT NovTSup NTL NTOA NTR NTS NTT OED OTP OTRM PMLA RBL RBS RechBib

Horizons in Biblical Theology Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review Harvard Theological Studies International Critical Commentary Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume, ed. K. Crim. Nashville, 1976 Issues in Religion and Theology International Theological Commentary Irish Theological Quarterly Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish and Christian Texts Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Journal for the Study of Judaism, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Kerygma und Dogma Linguistic Biblical Studies Library of Early Christianity Library of New Testament Studies McMaster New Testament Studies manuscript Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies New International Greek Testament Commentary Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum, Supplements New Testament Library Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus New Testament Readings New Testament Studies New Testament Theology Oxford English Dictionary The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols., ed. James H. Charlesworth, New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985 Oxford Theology and Religion Monographs Proceedings of the Modern Language Association Review of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Studies Recherches Bibliques

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi

   RNT RSB RSR SAAA SANt SBLDS SBLMS SBLRBS SBLSBS SBT SCS SEÅ SJs SNTS SNTSMS STDJ SVTP TBN THKNT TJ TSAJ TZ WBC WUNT ZNW

xvii

Regensburger Neues Testament Religious Studies Bulletin Recherches de science religieuse Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles Studia Aarhusiana Neotestamentica Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study Society of Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical Study Studies in Biblical Theology Septuagint and Cognate Studies Svensk exegetisk årsbok Studia Judaeoslavica Society for New Testament Studies Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica Themes in Biblical Narrative Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Trinity Journal Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Theologische Zeitschrift Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

Introduction Without doubt, the Gospel of John has a place among the four Gospels as a narrative telling of the life of Jesus,¹ but from the beginning of the fourfold Gospel, the Gospel according to John has been understood to be recognizably different, as the eagle soaring above Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Although the Gospel of Luke and the longer ending of Mark recount Jesus’s ascension to heaven (Luke 24:51; Mark 16:19), John frames Jesus’s life by presenting him as one who was with the God “in the beginning” and who is “from above.” John speaks of Jesus’s descent from heaven, his being sent by the Father, and his return to the Father. John also portrays Jesus as speaking the Father’s words, doing the Father’s works, and being one with the Father. There are many more differences between the Synoptic Gospels and John, but the questions that continue to puzzle interpreters are why John is different and how we can explain John’s distinctiveness among the Gospels. As is often noted, Clement of Alexandria referred to John as a “spiritual gospel” (πνευματικὸν . . . εὐαγγέλιον), in contrast to “the bodily” content (τὰ σωματικὰ) in “the Gospels” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.14.7). While what Clement meant by that description is not entirely clear, his comment is one of the earliest acknowledgments of John’s difference from, and yet similarity to, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John’s distinctiveness has earned it various descriptors from its many interpreters, such as “the maverick Gospel,”² a “dramatische Erzählung,”³ and “the prophetic Gospel.”⁴ In addition, John has been compared with Gnosticism,⁵

¹ D. Moody Smith, John among the Gospels, 2nd edn (Columbia, SC, 2001); and even among the “other” gospels, on which, see Lorne R. Zelyck, John among the Other Gospels: The Reception of the Fourth Gospel in the Extra-Canonical Gospels, WUNT, II/347 (Tübingen, 2013). ² Robert Kysar, John, the Maverick Gospel, 3rd edn (Louisville, KY, 2007). ³ Michael Theobald, Das Evangelium nach Johannes. Kapitel 1–12, RNT (Regensburg, 2009), 14–17. ⁴ Anthony Tyrrell Hanson, The Prophetic Gospel: A Study of John and the Old Testament, Scholars’ Editions in Biblical Studies (London, 2006). ⁵ Rudolf Bultmann, “Die Bedeutung der neuerschlossenen mandäischen und manichäischen Quellen für das Verständnis des Johannesevangeliums,” ZNW, 24 (1925), 100–46. John among the Apocalypses: Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the “Apocalyptic” Gospel. Benjamin E. Reynolds, Oxford University Press (2020). © Benjamin E. Reynolds. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198784241.001.0001

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

2

   

mysticism,⁶ drama,⁷ rhetoric,⁸ wisdom,⁹ Greco-Roman novels,¹⁰ the trial motif,¹¹ narrative philosophy,¹² and the list goes on. Many comparisons have also been made to various types of literature and literary techniques,¹³ including a recent comparison of John with Northrop Frye’s archetypes.¹⁴ In addition, Jo-Ann Brant, George Parsenios, and Kasper Bro Larsen have highlighted various literary techniques evident in John, from dramatic dialogue to farewell and recognition scenes.¹⁵ The list of comparisons continues because, as Harold Attridge memorably argues, John appears to bend genre.¹⁶ With regard to genre theory, the bending, or “skewing,” as Ruth Sheridan refers to it,¹⁷ of genre might be considered generic change (i.e., change related to genre) or the modification or extension of genre. Modification of genre commonly occurs when authors create a new text within the boundaries of existing genre expectations but extend the genre by playing with those same expectations.¹⁸ While there may be various genre “type-scenes” in the Gospel of John, it is notable that these embedded genres (partial genres set within a larger genre) do not function across the entirety of the Gospel. For example, embedded genres ⁶ Jey J. Kanagaraj, “Mysticism” in the Gospel of John: An Inquiry into its Background, JSNTSup, 158 (Sheffield, 1998); April D. DeConick, Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the Gospels of John and Thomas and Other Ancient Christian Literature, JSNTSup, 157 (Sheffield, 2001). ⁷ Jo-Ann A. Brant, Dialogue and Drama: Elements of Greek Tragedy in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA, 2004); also Ben Witherington, III, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Louisville, KY, 1995), 4–5. ⁸ Margaret Davies, Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel, JSNTSup, 69 (Sheffield, 1992). ⁹ Martin Scott, Sophia and the Johannine Jesus, JSNTSup, 71 (Sheffield, 1992); William R. G. Loader, Jesus in John’s Gospel: Structure and Issues in Johannine Christology (Grand Rapids, MI, 2017). ¹⁰ Meredith J. C. Warren, My Flesh Is Meat Indeed: A Nonsacramental Reading of John 6:51–8 (Minneapolis, MN, 2015); Jo-Ann A. Brant, “John among the Ancient Novels,” in The Gospel of John as Genre Mosaic, ed. by Kasper Bro Larsen, SANt, 3 (Göttingen, 2015), 157–68. ¹¹ Andrew T. Lincoln, Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA, 2000). ¹² Troels Engberg-Pedersen, John and Philosophy: A New Reading of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford, 2017). ¹³ Mark W. G. Stibbe, John as Storyteller: Narrative Criticism and the Fourth Gospel, SNTSMS, 73 (Cambridge, 1992). ¹⁴ Brian Larsen, Archetypes and the Fourth Gospel: Literature and Theology in Conversation, T&T Clark Biblical Studies (London, 2018). ¹⁵ Jo-Ann A. Brant, John, Paideia (Grand Rapids, MI, 2011); George L. Parsenios, Departure and Consolation: The Johannine Farewell Discourses in Light of Greco-Roman Literature, NovTSup, 117 (Leiden, 2005); Kasper Bro Larsen, Recognizing the Stranger: Recognition Scenes in the Gospel of John, BIS, 93 (Leiden, 2008); George L. Parsenios, Rhetoric and Drama in the Johannine Lawsuit Motif, WUNT, I/258 (Tübingen, 2010). ¹⁶ Harold W. Attridge, “Genre Bending in the Fourth Gospel,” JBL, 121/1 (2002), 3–21; Harold W. Attridge, “The Gospel of John: Genre Matters?,” in The Gospel of John as Genre Mosaic, ed. by Kasper Bro Larsen, SANt, 3 (Göttingen, 2015), 27–45; Harold W. Attridge, “Genre,” in How John Works: Storytelling in the Fourth Gospel, ed. by Douglas Estes and Ruth Sheridan (Atlanta, GA, 2016), 7–22. ¹⁷ Ruth Sheridan, “John’s Gospel and Modern Genre Theory: The Farewell Discourse (John 13—17) as a Test Case,” ITQ, 75/3 (2010), 287–99. ¹⁸ Alastair Fowler, Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes (Cambridge, MA, 1982), 23–4; Heta Pyrhönen, “Genre,” in The Cambridge Companion to Narrative, ed. by David Herman (Cambridge, 2007), 118–19.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi



3

in John may include a “farewell scene” in John 13–17 or a “betrothal scene” in John 4, but neither, I would argue, says much about John 3 or 10 or 20. Throughout this study, my concern will be whether or not we may determine a generic mode that explains the Gospel of John’s “genre bending.” As will be discussed more fully in Chapter 1, modes provide a “thematic and tonal qualification” to a genre,¹⁹ such as a “comic novel” or a “romantic comedy.”²⁰ Speaking of John as a “genre mosaic” helpfully highlights the existence of various embedded genres present in the Gospel,²¹ but I contend that paying attention to the generic mode of the Gospel of John offers us a better way to explain the framing of John’s Gospel as a revelatory narrative and its distinctiveness from the Synoptic Gospels.²² Calling John a “prophetic Gospel”²³ or describing it as being shaped by the Hebrew Bible²⁴ approaches the modal understanding of the Gospel in its entirety and recognizes the underlying debt and overwhelming influence of the Scriptures of Israel on John’s narrative of Jesus.²⁵ Attridge’s argument for John as “dramatic” also tends toward a modal description, but the four “dramatic” features he offers as evidence are not consistent across the Gospel, particularly the “delayed exit” and “recognition scene” which are found in only a few passages.²⁶ Adele Reinhartz’s description of John as a “cosmological tale” comes much closer, in my opinion, to describing the Gospel’s overarching heavenly and revelatory perspective on Jesus’s life.²⁷ The framing of the Gospel from the perspective of Jesus’s descent from heaven, his being sent from the presence of the Father, his speaking the words of the Father, his doing the Father’s works, his making the Father

¹⁹ John Frow, Genre, The New Critical Idiom, 2nd edn (London, 2015), 73. ²⁰ Fowler, Kinds of Literature, 106–8; Frow, Genre, 69–74. See the section “Genre Theory” in Chapter 1. ²¹ See Kasper Bro Larsen, ed., The Gospel of John as Genre Mosaic, SANt, 3 (Göttingen, 2015). ²² See Attridge, “Genre Matters?,” 32–4; Sheridan, “John’s Gospel,” 298–9. ²³ Hanson, The Prophetic Gospel. ²⁴ Saeed Hamid-Khani, Revelation and Concealment of Christ: Theological Inquiry into the Elusive Language of the Fourth Gospel, WUNT, II/120 (Tübingen, 2000). ²⁵ See Alicia D. Myers and Bruce G. Schuchard, eds., Abiding Words: The Use of Scripture in the Gospel of John, SBLRBS, 81 (Atlanta, GA, 2015); Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2 vols (Grand Rapids, MI, 2003), 47–51. ²⁶ Attridge, “Genre Matters?,” 34–40. ²⁷ Adele Reinhartz, The Word in the World: The Cosmological Tale in the Fourth Gospel, SBLMS, 45 (Atlanta, GA, 1992), 16–28; relatedly, Loader, Jesus in John’s Gospel, 423–55. Cf. Frey’s post-Easter perspective on Jesus in Jörg Frey, The Glory of the Crucified One: Christology and Theology in the Gospel of John, trans. by Wayne Coppins and Christoph Heilig, BMSEC (Waco, TX, 2018). While Frey’s view addresses the post-Easter recognition of the disciples (John 2:22; 12:16), such a perspective is not entirely distinct among the four Gospels (Luke 24:25–7; 24:44–6; see the fulfillment passages in Matt. 1–2).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

4

   

known, and his returning to the Father²⁸ is the most distinctive difference between the Fourth Gospel and Matthew, Mark, and Luke. What is the best way to describe John’s otherness in comparison to the Synoptic Gospels, its tendency toward skewing and bending genre, and from where might this heavenly perspective derive? We seem to find ourselves back at Rudolf Bultmann’s riddles about what the Gospel of John reveals, the point from which John Ashton, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, and William Loader have also begun their studies of the Fourth Gospel.²⁹ Bultmann contended that the two significant questions concerning John are “What is John’s place in the development of early Christianity?” and “What is its central vision [zentrale Anschauung], its basic concept [Grundkonzeption]?”³⁰ His answer to the first question—Mandean Gnosticism—has all but been abandoned in scholarship, particularly in light our greater awareness of early Judaism following the discovery of and scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the resulting renewal of interest in other early Jewish literature. With regard to his second question, Bultmann was correct to argue that John’s Grundkonzeption is revelation (Offenbarung) as disclosed by Jesus the revealer through his words and deeds.³¹

Revelation in the Gospel of John Within Johannine scholarship, revelation is commonly recognized as the centralizing feature of the Gospel of John. Bultmann’s own commentary is structured around the concept of revelation, with his two major divisions of the Gospel entitled “Chapters 2–12: The Revelation of the ΔΌΞΑ to the World” and “Chapters 13–20: The Revelation of the ΔΌΞΑ before the Community.”³² He, of course, famously said that Jesus is the Revealer but that there is no content to the revelation apart from revealing that he is the Revealer.³³ Many studies and commentaries on the Fourth Gospel, whether they explicitly follow Bultmann’s lead or not, are also structured around the ²⁸ These features are what William Loader considers the central structure of the Gospel. See Loader, Jesus in John’s Gospel. ²⁹ John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 2nd edn (Oxford, 2007), 2–11; Engberg-Pedersen, John and Philosophy, 1–3; Loader, Jesus in John’s Gospel, 2–12. ³⁰ Bultmann, “Die Bedeutung,” 100, 102. ³¹ See Ashton, Understanding, 491–529. ³² Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. by G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia, PA, 1971), vii–xii. ³³ Bultmann, “Die Bedeutung,” 102; Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. by Kendrick Grobel, 2 vols (New York, 1951), , 66. Engberg-Pedersen, John and Philosophy, 2, notes that William Wrede made this exact point twenty years before Bultmann.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi



5

concept of revelation. For example, Michael Theobald divides the Gospel into “Revelation of the Son to the World” and “Revelation of the Son to his Own.” Paul Rainbow’s chapters include: “The Revelation of God (the Father),” “God’s Self-Revelation in Christ’s Person,” “God’s Self-Revelation in Christ’s Work,” and “The Revelation of the Father in the Son by the Paraclete.”³⁴ Within modern critical scholarship, however, Bultmann was not the first to highlight revelation as a centralizing theme of the Fourth Gospel. Bernhard Weiss comments on Johannine revelation in his Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie des Neuen Testaments, which was originally published in 1868. Weiss’s statements sound eerily familiar: “As the living organ of the revelation of the Father, Jesus must know Himself as such, and this presupposes that He perfectly knows the Father, who is revealed in His works.” And again: “the contents of His word are, to be sure, with John mainly Himself again, i.e. the meaning of the revelation given in His person and His works.”³⁵ Hugo Huber, a contemporary of Bultmann, also argued that Jesus is the Revealer and that Jesus’s words and signs are the medium of that revelation.³⁶ Half a century later, Gail O’Day notes the centrality of revelation in John but focuses on the revelatory nature of the text: “It is . . . not the content of what Jesus says but the fact that an encounter with the divine occurs that is at the core of revelation in John.”³⁷ In a recent commentary, Francis Martin and William Wright, IV have made a similar claim: “Jesus’ whole life—his person, words, and deeds—is a revelation of the Father, of himself as the Son, and of the infinite love between them.”³⁸ Philip van den Heede continues the tradition arguing that revelation is a central category for John and that the form of Jesus’s revelation is at the same time its content.³⁹ These scholars are part of a long-standing recognition within Johannine scholarship that revelation is central to the Gospel.

³⁴ Theobald, Evangelium, 27–8; Paul A. Rainbow, Johannine Theology: The Gospel, the Epistles and the Apocalypse (Downers Grove, IL, 2014). ³⁵ Bernhard Weiss, Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Berlin, 1868). Citations from the English translation of Weiss’s third edition: Bernhard Weiss, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, trans. by James E. Duguid, 2 vols (Edinburgh, 1883), , 332, 352. My interaction with Weiss is indebted to James M. Boice, Witness and Revelation in the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI, 1970), 45. ³⁶ Hugo H. Huber, Der Begriff der Offenbarung im Johannes-Evangelium: ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Eigenart des vierten Evangeliums (Göttingen, 1934), 27, 84. However, there is a troubling emphasis on the Gospel’s newness and opposition to Jewish theology (57). ³⁷ Gail R. O’Day, Revelation in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Mode and Theological Claim (Philadelphia, PA, 1986), 39. ³⁸ Francis Martin and William M. Wright, IV, The Gospel of John, CCSS (Grand Rapids, MI, 2015), 24. ³⁹ Philippe van den Heede, Der Exeget Gottes. Eine Studie zur johanneischen Offenbarungstheologie, HBibSt, 88 (Freiburg, 2017), 13, 25–6. See also Michael Labahn, Offenbarung in Zeichen und Wort: Untersuchungen zur Vorgeschichte von Joh 6,1-25a und seiner Rezeption in der Brotrede, WUNT, II/117 (Tübingen, 2000), 283, for Jesus’s revelation in deed and word.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

6

   

Intriguingly, arguments for the existence and centrality of revelation in the Fourth Gospel are typically not forthcoming in Johannine scholarship. The most likely reason for this is that the revelatory nature of the Gospel appears quite obvious. Jesus’s making the Father known seems to fit a general understanding of “revelation” (John 1:18), not to mention that Jesus reveals his glory (ἐφανέρωσεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, 2:11). In her epilogue to the volume John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, Adela Yarbro Collins questions whether Bultmann was correct in his assessment of revelation as the central outlook of the Gospel of John. She states, “A close reading [of the Gospel of John] reveals that the themes of revelation and Jesus as revealer are less dominant than Rudolf Bultmann, for example, supposed.”⁴⁰ Yarbro Collins views Jesus not so much as revealer but as delegate for God and as a salvific figure. To put this in more explicitly Johannine terms, John’s Jesus is more Savior of the world (4:42) than revealer sent from heaven.⁴¹ She says, “The redeemer does not descend and ascend primarily to convey revelation but to save the world.”⁴² This perspective comes out more clearly in Yarbro Collins’s reading of the Son of Man’s descent and ascent in light of the crucifixion (3:13 with 3:14⁴³). Likewise, the ascent mentioned in 6:62, she claims, is not an ascent but “equivalent to the ‘lifting up’, that is, the crucifixion.”⁴⁴ Laura Holmes, in her review of the volume, suggests that Yarbro Collins’s critique concerning the revelatory nature of John undercuts the project of understanding the theme of revelation in the Fourth Gospel as “intimations of apocalyptic.”⁴⁵ I disagree with Holmes’s assessment that Yarbro Collins undercuts the project because there are different understandings of “apocalyptic” at play

⁴⁰ Adela Yarbro Collins, “Epilogue,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 307. ⁴¹ Yarbro Collins, “Epilogue,” 302–3, 305. ⁴² Yarbro Collins, “Epilogue,” 304. ⁴³ A correspondence between ὑψόω and the crucifixion may be argued, but G. C. Nicholson, Death as Departure: The Johannine Descent-Ascent Schema, SBLDS, 63 (Chico, CA, 1983), 141, lists no fewer than five major interpretations of the meaning of ὑψόω in the Gospel of John. The crucifixion is generally understood as part of the meaning of ὑψόω, but the question is whether the term primarily refers to the crucifixion as Jesus’s exaltation or the crucifixion as the beginning of his exaltation, which is then completed in Jesus’s resurrection and return to the Father. In my opinion, the interpretation of John 3:14; 8:28; and 12:34 in terms of 2:22; 7:39; and 12:16 indicates that the “lifting up”/exaltation of Jesus includes the crucifixion but is not completed until he returns to the Father. See Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (I–XII): Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 29 (Garden City, NY, 1966), 146. For a longer discussion, see Benjamin E. Reynolds, The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John, WUNT, II/249 (Tübingen, 2008), 122–7. Frey, Glory of the Crucified One, 247–51, however, argues for the exaltation primarily through crucifixion. ⁴⁴ Yarbro Collins, “Epilogue,” 303, apparently misses the word “before” in 6:62. She also connects 1:51 to the crucifixion (301). ⁴⁵ Laura C. S. Holmes, “Review of John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, Edited by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland,” RBL, 2015, https://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp? TitleId=9697, accessed April 3, 2020.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi



7

between the contributors to the volume and Yarbro Collins.⁴⁶ Nevertheless, Yarbro Collins and Holmes helpfully challenge Johannine scholarship’s often unsupported assumption that revelation is the Fourth Gospel’s “zentrale Anschaaung, seine Grundkonzeption.”⁴⁷ Johannine scholars have probably for too long assumed the correctness of Bultmann’s view without arguing for it, even if few have found his contention of a gnostic Redeemer myth origin for that revelation viable.⁴⁸ Yarbro Collins’s and Holmes’s critiques highlight the need to define “revelation” and to argue for its importance in the Fourth Gospel.

Defining “Revelation” “Revelation” is generally understood to refer to the making known of something that was previously unknown. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “revelation” can also refer to making something known that was merely unrecognized. It may also refer to the act or experience of something unknown being made known (i.e., “a revelation”),⁴⁹ a “source of enlightenment,” or also something that inspires awe (“The Gospel of John is a revelation”). The sort of revelation that is considered to be present in the Fourth Gospel is the generally understood meaning, namely that something unknown is made known. However, the origin of that revelation is also an important part of the definition. The OED definition that best defines the revelation Bultmann referred to and which I will use in the following study is: “1.a.) The disclosure or communication of knowledge, instructions, etc., by divine or supernatural means.”⁵⁰ Yarbro Collins is, I think, justified in pointing out that Johannine scholars tend to assume the dominance of this sort of revelation in the Gospel of John; however, I think she is incorrect to suggest that “revelation” is not central to the Gospel of John. Having defined “revelation” in this way, I will argue for the presence and centrality of revelation in the Gospel in the following section. ⁴⁶ It should be noted that Yarbro Collins was not in attendance at the Bangor Colloquium and wrote the epilogue in response to the completed essays. ⁴⁷ Bultmann, “Die Bedeutung,” 102. ⁴⁸ Ashton, Understanding, 3, refers to Bultmann’s Mandean hypothesis as “one of the oddest of the many remarkable bits of jetsam that litter the shores of Johannine scholarship.” ⁴⁹ Both Boice, Witness and Revelation, and O’Day, Revelation in the Fourth Gospel, address the theological aspects of natural and supernatural revelation in their opening sections. ⁵⁰ Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford, 2000), http://dictionary.oed.com/entrance.dtl, s.v. “revelation” (emphasis mine). Markus N. A. Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity, WUNT, II/36 (Tübingen, 1990), 2, defines revelation similarly: “ ‘Revelation’ designates a) any divine disclosure communicated by visionary or prophetic means, or b) the manifestation of heavenly realities in a historical context.”

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

8

   

Evidence of Revelation in John One of the difficulties with tracing the concept of revelation throughout John is that there are multiple terms connected to the concept, and these terms are often interconnected within the Gospel’s narrative (e.g., word, truth, believe, seeing, glory). Even so, various interpreters have presented lists of vocabulary terms relevant to the theme of revelation in John. For example, Hugo Huber lists the New Testament revelation terms as ἀποκαλύπτω, γνωρίζω, δείκνυμι, δηλόω, and φανερόω, but of these John only uses γνωρίζω, δείκνυμι, and φανερόω. Huber also includes ἀκούω, βλέπω, θεάομαι, πέμπω, and the “signconcept,” before mentioning the substantives “truth,” “light,” “life,” and other symbolic concepts like “way,” “gate,” “shepherd,” “vine,” “bread,” “water of life,” “flesh,” and “resurrection.” While he does seem to list every Johannine concept under “revelation,” Huber highlights the revelatory character of these seven verbs in relation to Jesus’s speech and actions. Particularly, he notes that φανερόω describes the self-revelation inherent in Jesus’s work.⁵¹ James Boice states that “the witness of Jesus is revelation” and also notes the revelatory use of φανερόω, γνωρίζω, and δείκνυμι in the Fourth Gospel. Like Huber, Boice mentions the verbs of sending, coming, seeing, perceiving, hearing, and believing.⁵² John Ashton includes a much longer list of terms than Huber or Boice. He states, “Every major motif in the Gospel is directly linked to the concept of revelation.”⁵³ Saeed Hamid-Khani, like Ashton, includes an extensive list. Along with the verbs already listed, Hamid-Khani lists “a cluster of expressions which underlie the idea [of ‘revelation’]”: ἐξηγέομαι, τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνεωγότα, παρρησία, ὀδηγέω, ἀναγγέλλω, ἀπαγγέλλω, ἀκοή, μαρτυρία, and μαρτυρέω. Hamid-Khani contends that the “concept is imbedded deeply in the Christology of the Fourth Gospel.”⁵⁴ And in one final example, Philippe van den Heede lists various “Offenbarungsverben” in John’s Gospel of which Jesus is the subject: λέγω-λαλέω, μαρτυρέω, φανερόω, δείκνυμι, and γνωρίζω.⁵⁵ Strangely, Huber, Boice, and Ashton state that the verb ἀποκαλύπτω is absent from the Fourth Gospel, but the verb is present in the citation from Isa. 53:1 in John 12:38 (more on this later in this section). I do not have space to trace the revelatory character of all the vocabulary listed

⁵¹ Huber, Begriff der Offenbarung, 72–84. ⁵² Boice, Witness and Revelation, 31–4. ⁵³ Ashton, Understanding, 491–2 (emphasis original); similarly, J. Terence Forestell, The Word of the Cross: Salvation as Revelation in the Fourth Gospel, AnBib, 57 (Rome, 1974), 43–56. ⁵⁴ Hamid-Khani, Revelation and Concealment, 344–5. ⁵⁵ Van den Heede, Der Exeget Gottes, 13.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi



9

by these scholars;⁵⁶ however, I will briefly draw attention to some instances of revelation—that is, the “disclosure or communication of knowledge by supernatural means”—in the Gospel of John. Many of these instances contain vocabulary included in these lists. The portrayal of Jesus as a heavenly figure in the Gospel is directly related to revelation, and it is one of its distinctive motifs. That Jesus is a “man from heaven”⁵⁷ is evident from the opening line of the Gospel. The Word was with God in the beginning (πρὸς τὸν θεόν, John 1:1, 2; 17:24); he was in the bosom of the Father (1:18). Jesus’s origin is heaven. He is “from above” (3:31; 8:23), descended from heaven (3:13; 6:35), and has come into the world (1:9; 3:19; 9:30; 11:27). Jesus is the Son of Man who has descended from heaven (3:13), and he is the Bread of Life who has descended from heaven (6:33). He is the Son who has been sent into the world (3:17; 10:36; 17:21), and he is the one coming from heaven (3:31). Jesus’s heavenly origin and eventual return to his Father in heaven frame the narrative of Jesus’s life and underline the heavenly nature of what he does and says (6:62; 14:2–3, 12, 28; 16:5).⁵⁸ Jesus has come from heaven and what he says and does includes the revelation of heavenly things. His words and actions come directly from the Father. He speaks the Father’s words (8:28–9; 12:49–50) and testifies to what he has seen and heard from above (3:11, 32; 8:38, 40; 15:15).⁵⁹ Jesus’s heavenly origin gives him the knowledge and authority to speak heavenly things that he has heard from the Father (3:11–12, 31–6).⁶⁰ The fact that he is “from above” (3:31) and can speak of heavenly things (τὰ ἐπουράνια, 3:12) indicates that divine disclosure is integral to Jesus’s activity. Even his works are revelatory in nature. The Father has shown the Son what he does, and Jesus does those things that the Father has shown him (5:19–22). Since these are the Father’s works that Jesus does, they indicate “God’s self-revelation in Jesus.”⁶¹ The works, like Jesus’s words, are heavenly in origin and are revealed to those on ⁵⁶ On φανερόω, see Huber, Begriff der Offenbarung, 73–4; and Christopher Rowland and Christopher R. A. Morray-Jones, The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament, CRINT, 12 (Leiden, 2009), 14; on ἀναγγέλλω, see Catrin H. Williams, “Unveiling Revelation: The Spirit-Paraclete and Apocalyptic Disclosure in the Gospel of John,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 104–27; on δείκνυμι, see Benjamin E. Reynolds, “Apocalyptic Revelation in the Gospel of John: Revealed Cosmology, the Vision of God, and Visionary Showing,” in The Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the Shaping of New Testament Thought, ed. by Benjamin E. Reynolds and Loren T. Stuckenbruck (Minneapolis, MN, 2017), 109–28. ⁵⁷ Wayne A. Meeks, “Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,” JBL, 91/1 (1972), 44–72. ⁵⁸ See Reinhartz, The Word in the World, 29–30. ⁵⁹ Boice, Witness and Revelation, 39–74, argues that Jesus’s testimony is primarily revelation. ⁶⁰ Cf. W. H. Cadman, The Open Heaven: The Revelation of God in the Johannine Sayings of Jesus, ed. by G. B. Caird (Oxford, 1969), 3–14. ⁶¹ Ashton, Understanding, 497.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

10     earth. Jesus’s works are the Father’s works that he has shown to Jesus (δεικνύμι, 5:19–20; also 4:34; 5:36; 6:29). The signs Jesus does are part of the works and testify to his heavenly origin and his relationship with the Father; yet Marianne Meye Thompson disputes the revelatory nature of the signs, saying that they do not contain previously unknown things. She contends that God has provided for his people in the past, and wine, bread, and sight are all earthly things.⁶² She is correct that God’s provision and the earthly aspects of the signs are not unknown, but the specific deeds Jesus does point to something previously unknown and something new. Even if wine is not revelatory, Jesus’s disciples saw something new in the turning of water into wine, namely Jesus’s revealed glory (ἐφανέρωσεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, 2:11). In 9:3, Jesus says that the blindness of the man born blind is not because of sin but “in order that that works of God might be revealed [φανερωθῇ] in him.” Jesus’s signs, while including earthly things such as wine, mud, water, and bread, point to previously unknown knowledge about his heavenly origin that is made known by a heavenly figure.⁶³ They also “point the way to a true faith and are therefore revelatory in the full sense”⁶⁴ (20:30). Jesus, the stranger from heaven,⁶⁵ makes the Father known (ἐξηγήσατο, 1:18). Whether the sense of the verb ἐξηγήσατο is “reveal,” “guide,” “show,” or “make known,”⁶⁶ Jesus, as the only one who has seen the Father and been with him, makes the Father known in a way that was not previously known.⁶⁷ Thus, “revelation is paramount in the expression.”⁶⁸ Not only does Jesus make the Father known, but he has revealed and made known the Father’s name (ἐφανέρωσά σου τὸ ὄνομα, 17:6; ἐγνώρισα . . . τὸ ὄνομα σου, 17:26). Jesus’s revelation of the Father is made plain in John 14. When Philip asks Jesus to show them the Father, Jesus replies that seeing him is seeing the Father (14:8–9). Jesus makes the Father known and is the revelation of the Father. To know Jesus is to know the Father (14:7); to see Jesus is to see the Father.⁶⁹ Jesus is the vision of God on earth.⁷⁰ ⁶² Marianne Meye Thompson, “Signs and Faith in the Fourth Gospel,” BBR, 1 (1991), 89–108. ⁶³ See van den Heede, Der Exeget Gottes, 112, 116. ⁶⁴ Ashton, Understanding, 496. ⁶⁵ Marinus de Jonge, Jesus: Stranger from Heaven and Son of God: Jesus Christ and the Christians in Johannine Perspective, trans. by John E. Steely, SBLSBS (Missoula, MT, 1977). ⁶⁶ John F. McHugh, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on John 1–4, ICC (London, 2009), 72–3. ⁶⁷ Marianne Meye Thompson, “Jesus: ‘The One Who Sees God’,” in Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity, ed. by David B. Capes, April D. DeConick, and Helen K. Bond (Waco, TX, 2007), 225–6. ⁶⁸ Keener, Gospel of John, I, 424; also Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary, trans. by John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI, 1997), 59 n. 143. ⁶⁹ 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 Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar, ed. by Gilbert Van Belle, J. G. van der Watt, and P. Maritz, BETL, 184 (Leuven, 2005), 117–33; Frey, Glory of the Crucified One, 285–312. ⁷⁰ Jesus as the vision of God will be discussed further in Chapter 3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi



11

Further evidence of revelation in the Gospel of John is evident in John 1:51. Jesus declares that Nathanael and the disciples will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man. The opening of heaven suggests that what will be seen includes heavenly revelation. Jesus the Son of Man, as the one connecting heaven and earth, and thus God and humanity, is the revealer of the Father.⁷¹ The concepts of light, truth, and glory also reflect the revelatory nature of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel.⁷² Jesus is the light that has come into the darkened world, shines in the darkness, and enlightens all people (1:4–5, 9; 3:20–1; 8:12; 9:5; 12:46). As was hinted at above, the revelation of Jesus’s glory is part of Jesus’s revelation of the Father, because Jesus shares the glory of the Father (2:11; 13:31–2; 17:1, 5). The glory seen in Jesus is the Father’s glory (12:41), and it is disclosed through Jesus’s words and works (1:14). Truth is another revelatory motif in John. Its close connection to testimony and its referent is suggestive of truth that is disclosed (1:14, 17; 5:33; 8:40–6). In the conclusion to John 1–12, the final action of the Revealer in the public sphere is to hide from the crowd (ἐκρύβη ἀπ’ αὐτῶν, 12:36; cf. 12:34–5). Then the evangelist states that they did not believe even though he did many signs before them (12:37). This lack of belief is said to fulfill Isaiah’s words in Isa. 53:1 (John 12:37–8). The citation asks two questions, and Catrin Williams argues that the second question indicates that Jesus is “the visible embodiment of ‘the arm of the Lord’” (καὶ ὁ βραχίων κυρίου τίνι ἀπεκαλύφθη;, “to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” 12:38).⁷³ This citation, the only instance of the verb ἀποκαλύπτω in the Gospel of John, summarizes all that has proceeded in John 1–12 and highlights that, particularly in his signs, Jesus is the revealer of the Father. Revelation is evident in John, and Jesus is a heavenly figure who reveals that revelation. While Yarbro Collins is correct to claim that the Fourth Gospel downplays heavenly vision, I disagree with her contention that revelation plays a less than dominant role in the Gospel, as well as with her view that Johannine revelation is at odds with salvation.⁷⁴ As I have highlighted in this section, Jesus’s revelation is central to the Gospel’s narrative, including its role in salvation.⁷⁵ The Johannine Jesus is “the revealer” because he discloses heavenly things (3:12–13), including God’s words, deeds, and the Father himself

⁷¹ Hamid-Khani, Revelation and Concealment, 346; van den Heede, Der Exeget Gottes, 211–13. ⁷² Ashton, Understanding, 492. ⁷³ Catrin H. Williams, “Johannine Christology and Prophetic Traditions: The Case of Isaiah,” in Reading the Gospel of John’s Christology as Jewish Messianism: Royal, Prophetic, and Divine Messiahs, ed. by Benjamin E. Reynolds and Gabriele Boccaccini, AJEC, 106 (Leiden, 2018), 107. ⁷⁴ Yarbro Collins, “Epilogue,” 301, 307. ⁷⁵ Forestell, Word of the Cross, 1–57.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

12     (1:18; 14:9–11). He is the light of the world bringing the light of revelation to the dark incomprehension of the world (1:5; 8:12). The one who was with God in the beginning and through whom all things came to be (1:1–4) has entered the world (1:9; 9:39), manifested the glory of God (1:14; 2:11), and revealed the “arm of the Lord” through his speech and actions (12:38, 49–50). It is difficult to read the Fourth Gospel “without a pervasive sense that somehow or other heavenly things are spoken of on virtually every page.”⁷⁶

The Background of John’s Revelation If divine disclosure is central to the Gospel of John, this raises questions about where this revelatory focus derives from, especially if such a supernatural revelatory perspective is not evident in the Synoptic Gospels. Thus, we return to Bultmann’s first riddle about the place of the Gospel within early Christianity. Bultmann argued that the central theme of revelation derived from Mandean and Manichean Gnosticism. After noting twenty-eight parallels between the Gospel of John and gnostic literature, Bultmann claims that the Gospel of John assumes the gnostic Redeemer myth and is only understandable in relation to it.⁷⁷ There are few now who are persuaded that the Gospel’s revelation theme derives from Mandean Gnosticism, and there are a number of reasons for doubting Bultmann’s claims. First, the dating of the Mandean literature is later than the Gospel, and scholars are unsure how useful the literature is even for first- or second-century gnostic thought, especially since the gnostic literature appears to be dependent on early Christian thought.⁷⁸ Second, the Gospel and the Mandean literature reflect differences at key points.⁷⁹ Third, Wayne Meeks points out that Bultmann’s features of the gnostic Redeemer myth do not exist in any one text. He states that the “typical gnostic myth with which Bultmann compared the Johannine pattern is an abstraction, obscuring the variety of actual gnostic myths in extant texts.”⁸⁰ While gnostic influence may not be

⁷⁶ John Ashton, The Gospel of John and Christian Origins (Minneapolis, MN, 2014), 116. ⁷⁷ Bultmann, “Die Bedeutung,” 139: “das Johannesevangelium den skizzierten Erlösungsmythos voraussetzt und nur auf seinem Hintergrund verständlich ist”; Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, , 12–13. ⁷⁸ Keener, Gospel of John, 166. ⁷⁹ Stephen S. Smalley, John: Evangelist and Interpreter (London, 1978), 52–5; Judith M. Lieu, “Gnosticism and the Gospel of John,” ExpT, 90/8 (1979), 233–7. ⁸⁰ Meeks, “Man from Heaven,” 45 (emphasis original).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi



13

entirely dismissed,⁸¹ it is seriously questionable whether Bultmann’s gnostic Redeemer myth existed, and if so, whether it existed in the form that he presented.⁸² On the other hand, the discovery and study of the Dead Sea Scrolls have led to a growing awareness of the Gospel of John’s close relationship with early Judaism. Wilhelm Michaelis, as cited by C. K. Barrett in 1967, states: “It may now be said that the Palestinian character of the Gospel of John has become so clear that attempts to promote another provenance really should cease.”⁸³ Since that time, various studies on the Fourth Gospel and the Dead Sea Scrolls have drawn attention to John’s close relationship with early Judaism,⁸⁴ and numerous others have highlighted John’s relationship with early Jewish literature and the themes, thought, and scriptural interpretation of that literature.⁸⁵ These studies all draw attention to the need to reconsider John as a text at home within early Judaism. In light of this pendulum shift, reconsideration of the Fourth Gospel’s theme of revelation is necessary particularly in relation to early Jewish perspectives on revelation. In his commentary on John, Barrett states: It might seem at first glance that John bears no relation at all to the apocalyptic literature; this, however, is not so. It must in the first place be recognized that apocalyptic is not exclusively concerned with the future. Apocalypse means the unveiling of secrets; very frequently the secrets disclose future events, but sometimes they make known present facts, especially facts regarding the life of heaven, divine and angelic beings, and the like.⁸⁶ ⁸¹ See the recent assessment by Alastair H. B. Logan, “The Johannine Literature and the Gnostics,” in The Oxford Handbook of Johannine Studies, ed. by Judith M. Lieu and Martinus C. de Boer (Oxford, 2018), 171–85. ⁸² See Brown, Gospel, liv–lvi; Keener, Gospel of John, 161–9. ⁸³ C. K. Barrett, The Gospel of John and Judaism: The Franz Delitzsch Lectures, University of Münster, 1967, trans. by D. Moody Smith (London, 1975), 8; cited from Wilhelm Michaelis, Einleitung in das Neue Testament: die Entstehung, Sammlung und Überlieferung der Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 3rd edn (Bern, 1961), 125. ⁸⁴ Raymond E. Brown, “Qumran Scrolls and the Johannine Gospel and Epistles: Other Similarities,” CBQ, 17/4 (1955), 559–74; James H. Charlesworth and Raymond E. Brown, eds., John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York, 1990); Mary L. Coloe and Tom Thatcher, eds., John, Qumran, and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Sixty Years of Discovery and Debate, EJL, 32 (Atlanta, GA, 2011). ⁸⁵ See Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer, “The Johannine Literature and Contemporary Jewish Literature,” in The Oxford Handbook of Johannine Studies, ed. by Judith M. Lieu and Martinus C. de Boer (Oxford, 2018), 155–70; Benjamin E. Reynolds and Gabriele Boccaccini, eds., Reading the Gospel of John’s Christology as Jewish Messianism: Royal, Prophetic, and Divine Messiahs, AJEC, 106 (Leiden, 2018); especially the recent dissertation on this subject, Wally V. Cirafesi, “John within Judaism: Religion, Ethnicity, and the Shaping of Jesus-Oriented Jewishness in the Fourth Gospel” (Ph.D. diss., University of Oslo, 2018). ⁸⁶ C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd edn (Philadelphia, PA, 1978), 31.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

14     In his comment that John is similar to Jewish apocalyptic literature, Barrett strikingly describes “apocalyptic” in a manner not unlike the theme of revelation that is central to John. John Ashton has helpfully blazed the trail further by arguing for John’s revelation in terms of Jewish apocalyptic tradition.⁸⁷ Ashton is correct to see Jewish apocalyptic tradition underlying the Gospel of John’s disclosure of heavenly realities through Jesus, the one who descends from heaven, but, as will be argued in this study, beginning in Chapter 1, there are some challenges to Ashton’s arguments in light of recent scholarship on Jewish apocalyptic tradition and Jewish apocalypses. In the rest of this study, I will be arguing that the Fourth Gospel’s distinctiveness among the Gospels, namely the centrality of revelation and the Gospel’s revelatory perspective on the life of Jesus, may best be explained by examining it “among the apocalypses.” Since much of this argument is dependent on genre and definitions of “apocalypse” and “apocalyptic,” I will address these topics in Chapter 1, along with a detailed interaction with John Ashton. Chapters 2–4 contain an extensive comparison of the Gospel of John with the Society of Biblical Literature Genre group’s definition of “apocalypse” that was published in Semeia 14. This comparison will include examples from Jewish apocalypses, specifically 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, 2 Baruch, 3 Baruch, 4 Ezra, Apocalypse of Abraham, Apocalypse of Zephaniah, Daniel, Jubilees, Testament of Abraham, and Testament of Levi.⁸⁸ Chapters 2–4 compare the form, content, and function of the genre of apocalypse with the Gospel of John, respectively. In Chapter 5, I argue that John’s close affinity with the genre of “apocalypse” does not mean that the Gospel is an apocalypse or “an apocalypse in reverse,” as John Ashton has argued, but that John is a gospel in kind and an apocalypse in mode—in other words, the Gospel of John is an “apocalyptic” gospel. In Chapter 6, I explore how viewing John as an “apocalyptic” gospel can provide insight into John’s relationship with the Torah, and I also offer some suggestions for future comparisons. In Chapter 7, I consider what John as “apocalyptic” Gospel might mean for understanding the Gospel’s relationship with the book of Revelation and how early Christian tradition, particularly Byzantine iconographic tradition, offers a possible explanation for the apocalyptic mode of John’s Gospel. The conclusion summarizes the main arguments from the preceding chapters.

⁸⁷ Ashton, Understanding, 6–7, 305–529; Ashton, Christian Origins, 97–118. See also Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, 123–31. ⁸⁸ John J. Collins, “The Jewish Apocalypses,” Semeia, 14 (1979), 21–49.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

1 Genre, “Apocalypse,” and the Gospel of John The theme of revelation has a central place in the Gospel of John, just as Rudolf Bultmann, John Ashton, and other Johannine scholars have rightly recognized. The Gospel’s narrative is a revelatory telling of the life of Jesus, the one who descended from heaven and who speaks “heavenly things.” The best explanation for the Fourth Gospel’s revelatory framework is not to be found in gnostic Redeemer myths but, as will be argued in this study, in the Gospel’s affinity with Jewish apocalypses. It quickly becomes apparent that this argument is dependent upon ascertaining what genre is and how we determine what kind of literature we read. Engaging in this sort of literary and narrative comparison requires an understanding of genre, of the meaning of “apocalypse,” of whether a text “belongs” or “participates” in a genre, and how that may be determined. Therefore, in this chapter, I will first discuss modern genre theory and the importance of cognitive prototypes for understanding genre. Second, I will address the standard definition of “apocalypse” and the various debates concerning that definition. I will conclude the chapter with a preliminary discussion about the Gospel of John and “apocalyptic,” including John Ashton’s arguments for an affinity between Jewish apocalyptic tradition and the Fourth Gospel.

Genre Theory Talking about genre is inherently “slippery.”¹ We seem to know instinctively what sort of genre we read or write,² but we have difficulty explaining how we know it and what specifically leads to our knowledge of genres. From the time ¹ John M. Swales, Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings, Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series (Cambridge, 1990), 33. ² Maria Antónia Coutinho and Florencia Miranda, “To Describe Genres: Problems and Strategies,” in Genre in a Changing World, ed. by Charles Bazerman, Adair Bonini, and Débora Figueiredo (West Lafayette, IN, 2009), 36. John among the Apocalypses: Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the “Apocalyptic” Gospel. Benjamin E. Reynolds, Oxford University Press (2020). © Benjamin E. Reynolds. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198784241.001.0001

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

16     of Plato and Aristotle, genre was thought to be static in the sense that there were pure forms to which literature conformed (the epic, lyric, and drama³). The Romantics recognized that genre was not static because they experienced the beginning of a new genre, the novel.⁴ Heta Pyrhönen notes, “the Romantics emphasized that genres are historically determined, dynamic entities whose developmental trajectory may be described with organic metaphors: a genre grows, flowers, ages, and may finally die.”⁵ The Russian Formalists, however, pushed the evolutionary nature of genre even further by acknowledging that texts shape and influence genres, rather than only genre shaping texts. As a result, genres are now recognized as being dependent upon, and often in tension with, previous genres.⁶ The consequence of these shifts in understanding genre is that genre theorists are not as concerned with classification as when it was thought that genres needed to fit into Platonic or Aristotelian models. Recent genre theory is actually averse to viewing genre as mere classification,⁷ in part because of Jacques Derrida’s contention that texts do not “belong” to genres but “participate” in them.⁸ Standard, formal lists of genre characteristics or taxonomies were often drawn from scientific classifications of flora and fauna, and these sorts of taxonomic classifications of genre are no longer considered beneficial in determining genre because genres are now understood to be “open-ended,” mixed, and to modify one another, unlike plants and animals.⁹ Alastair Fowler, following Ludwig Wittgenstein, suggests that family resemblance theory offers a better way to categorize genre relationships.¹⁰ In this approach, categorizations are made on the basis of family resemblances, such as similar features or tendencies. Family resemblance, however, has its deficiencies, as John Swales notes. As an example, he points out that a knife and a spoon resemble each other because they are eating utensils, a spoon and a teapot may resemble each ³ This triad has been pointed out to be a conflation of Plato’s and Aristotle’s views. See David Duff, “Introduction,” in Modern Genre Theory, ed. by David Duff (New York, 2000), 3. ⁴ See the introduction in David Duff, ed., Modern Genre Theory (New York, 2000), for a historical discussion of genre theory; and John Frow, Genre, The New Critical Idiom, 2nd edn (London, 2015), 55–78. ⁵ Heta Pyrhönen, “Genre,” in The Cambridge Companion to Narrative, ed. by David Herman (Cambridge, 2007), 111. ⁶ Tzvetan Todorov, “The Origin of Genres,” in Modern Genre Theory, ed. by David Duff (New York, 2000), 196. ⁷ Alastair Fowler, Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes (Cambridge, MA, 1982), 37. ⁸ Jacques Derrida, “The Law of Genre,” in Modern Genre Theory, ed. by David Duff (New York, 2000), 219–31. ⁹ Frow, Genre, 56–9. ¹⁰ Fowler, Kinds of Literature, 42. See George Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind (Chicago, 1987), 16, for a brief summary of Wittgenstein.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

, “ , ”     

17

other because they both hold liquid, and again, a teapot and a suitcase both have handles. Obviously, the family can grow quite large if there is no control on what kind of family resemblances we are talking about. Swales rightly draws attention to the lack of family resemblance between knives and suitcases and that, if we work hard enough, it may be possible for anything to resemble anything else.¹¹ Prototype theory has provided genre theorists with a way “to find a course between trying to produce unassailable definitions of a particular genre and relaxing into the irresponsibility of family resemblances.”¹² Eleanor Rosch’s cognitive studies highlighted the way in which the mind categorizes things in relation to prototypes.¹³ As human beings, we have in our minds prototypical examples of various categories: a fork as an eating utensil, a chair as furniture, etc.¹⁴ What is intriguing about these prototypes is that boundaries exist between categories (eating utensils are not furniture), but within categories there is a hierarchical relationship to the prototype. Not all elements in a category are equal. In other words, some examples are closer to the prototype, while others are marginal.¹⁵ For example, regarding eating utensils, a fork may be the prototype, but knives and spoons also participate in the category but are not prototypical.¹⁶ In the North American context, the robin is commonly recognized as a prototypical bird. Chickens and woodpeckers are also recognized as birds but not as prototypical. Penguins, ostriches, and kiwis, on the other hand, are also birds but marginally so. Swales states, “It might therefore be the case that what holds shared membership together is not a shared list of defining features, but inter-relationships of a somewhat looser kind.”¹⁷ Prototypes, therefore, are useful for reining in the extremes of categorization by family resemblance approaches and for recognizing how humans cognitively categorize things.¹⁸ As we move from biological to literary genre categorization, the boundaries between categories become a bit fuzzier. Bird, mammal, and reptile have clear

¹¹ Swales, Genre Analysis, 51. ¹² Swales, Genre Analysis, 52. ¹³ Eleanor Rosch, “Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104/3 (1975), 192–233. For a summary, see Lakoff, Women, Fire, 39–56. ¹⁴ These prototypes are obviously tied to culture, language, and geography, among other determinants. ¹⁵ Rosch, “Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories,” 225; Michael Sinding, “From Fact to Fiction: The Question of Genre in Autobiography and Early First-Person Novels,” SubStance, 39/2 (2010), 107–30. ¹⁶ However, if chopsticks are the prototypical eating utensil, then we have a completely different set of hierarchical relationships. ¹⁷ Swales, Genre Analysis, 49–50. ¹⁸ Lakoff, Women, Fire, 68–9, argues that prototypes are organized “by means of structures called idealized cognitive models” (emphasis original).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

18     boundaries, while tragedy, biography, historical narrative, novel, and short story are not always as clearly demarcated.¹⁹ However, with regard to the genre of novel, we tend to consider a text’s participation in the genre in relation to a prototype novel. The novels of Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, and James Joyce, among others, are often suggested as prototypical examples, while Herman Melville’s Moby Dick tends to be considered a marginal example. Readers do not need a list of features to determine the genre because they are intrinsically alerted to the genre as they read, just as the author pays attention to prototypical elements in the writing.²⁰ Taxonomic classification is thus not the best way to describe what a literary genre is. When considering genre prototypes, the dimensions of form, function, and content all play a role. John Swales, however, argues that a text’s “communicative purpose” is its primary prototypical feature.²¹ His focus on academic writing clearly shapes his prioritizing of function. His examples of administrative correspondence and student research papers do support function as an important genre determinant, although, by admitting that the rhetorical purpose of poetry cannot determine the genre, Swales demonstrates the weakness of his argument.²² Likewise, sonnets, haikus, and limericks are not determined by purpose but primarily by form (i.e., structure).²³ Swales is likely correct that purpose is the prototypical feature of interview rejection letters and some other administrative correspondence, but their form and content are also relevant generic features. Thus, a combination of form, content, and function is needed for determining genre prototypes. According to John Frow, “genres are always complex constellations which must be defined in terms of all three of these dimensions: the formal, the rhetorical [i.e., function], and the thematic [i.e., content].” Thinking about genres as “complex constellations” is a helpful reminder of the way in which various literary features work together in the determining of genre. This reality is the main reason why taxonomic lists are not sufficient guides to genre categorization. Frow, however, draws attention to two “codas” that must be considered regarding this complex constellation of form, function, and content. First, they overlap and are not mutually exclusive. Second, each of the three dimensions cannot be equally weighted. In other words, for

¹⁹ Michael Sinding, “Framing Monsters: Multiple and Mixed Genres, Cognitive Category Theory, and ‘Gravity’s Rainbow’,” Poetics Today, 31/3 (2010), 476–7. ²⁰ Which is why John Frow, “ ‘Reproducibles, Rubrics, and Everything You Need’: Genre Theory Today,” PMLA, 122/5 (2007), 1626–34, argues for the importance of educating students about genre. ²¹ Swales, Genre Analysis, 45, 52, and also 46. ²² Swales, Genre Analysis, 47. ²³ Sinding, “Framing Monsters,” 477.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

, “ , ”     

19

some genres, form may be more determinative of genre, while for others, it may be content or function.²⁴ A comparison of the genres of short story, novel, interview rejection letter, and sonnet demonstrates these two caveats. Thus, literary genre categorization must consider the complex relationships of these three dimensions of form, content, and function. Modern genre theory has made it clear that texts participate in genres and cannot be said to belong to a genre. Genres influence each other, and texts modulate and mutate the genres in which they participate.²⁵ Pyrhönen notes how “a genre continually remakes and reworks its norms, thus extending them.”²⁶ Some of this extension can take place through the embedding of other genres, such as the inclusion of a letter in a biography or a vision in a short story.²⁷ Extension can also take place through the use of modes, or the adjectival qualification of a genre. Mode has been described “as a thematic and tonal qualification or ‘colouring’ of the genre.”²⁸ Fowler lists Jane Austen’s Emma as an example of a novel written in comic mode, that is, Emma is a “comic novel.”²⁹ Frow lists other examples: “gothic thriller, pastoral elegy, satirical sitcom.”³⁰ Modes and embedded genres function as ways in which texts can still participate in a genre and yet simultaneously extend the genre. Modern genre theory is not so much concerned with defining genre as it is with recognizing that genre serves as “a frame, as a starting place or an initial orientation” in our approach to reading and understanding literature.³¹ A text’s participation in a genre can best be assessed by making use of prototype theory. Prototype theory highlights the prototype(s) or core member(s) of a genre. A text’s level of participation in the genre is determined by its similarity or likeness to the prototype example(s). The dimensions of form, content, and function are all present in prototype genres, even if the weight of certain dimensions may matter more for some genres.

The Genre of “Apocalypse” The foregoing genre discussion outlines the present state of modern genre theory and will inform the following discussion about the terms “apocalypse”

²⁴ Frow, Genre, 83–4. ²⁵ Fowler, Kinds of Literature, 23–4. ²⁶ Pyrhönen, “Genre,” 118. ²⁷ Frow, Genre, 48–53. ²⁸ Frow, Genre, 71–3. ²⁹ Fowler, Kinds of Literature, 106. ³⁰ Frow, Genre, 71 (emphasis original). ³¹ John M. Swales, “Worlds of Genre—Metaphors of Genre,” in Genre in a Changing World, ed. by Charles Bazerman, Adair Bonini, and Débora de Carvalho Figueiredo (West Lafayette, IN, 2009), 3–16; Pyrhönen, “Genre,” 109–10.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

20     and “apocalyptic” and also my contention that the Gospel of John may be described as gospel in genre but apocalyptic in mode. We will begin by defining “apocalypse” and then “apocalyptic,” since the adjectival use should be connected to the genre from which it derives, or in generic terms, since mode derives from genre.³² An important watershed in the defining of the genre of “apocalypse” is the now forty-year-old Society of Biblical Literature Genre Project definition of “apocalypse” published in Semeia 14 in 1979.³³ The decade preceding the publication of the Semeia 14 definition witnessed a flurry of scholarly endeavor regarding the terms “apocalypse” and “apocalyptic.” Klaus Koch drew attention to the need to clarify terminology and explain what was meant in scholarly discussions of “apocalyptic” and “apocalypse.” Koch listed six characteristics of “apocalyptic” as a literary type—discourse cycles, spiritual turmoils, paraenetic discourses, pseudonymity, symbolic images, and a long literary development. He also listed eight characteristics of “apocalyptic” as a historical movement.³⁴ Koch’s characteristics overlapped with Philipp Vielhauer’s earlier work, in which Vielhauer listed four literary characteristics of “apocalyptic”—pseudonymity, vision accounts, surveys of history, and “forms and combinations of forms,” as well as the apocalyptic “world of ideas.”³⁵ Koch’s and Vielhauer’s lists blur together literary genre, worldview, and social contexts.³⁶ In order to bring some clarity to the terminological confusion, Paul Hanson proposed the following three terms to specify what meaning of “apocalyptic” was intended: “apocalypses” (apocalyptic genre), “apocalypticism” (apocalyptic worldview), and “apocalyptic eschatology” (the eschatology of the worldview evident in most apocalypses).³⁷

³² Fowler, Kinds of Literature, 106–8. Alexander Samely, Profiling Jewish Literature in Antiquity: An Inventory, from Second Temple Texts to the Talmuds (Oxford, 2012), introduces a new approach to comparing ancient Jewish literature on the basis of an “inventory of structurally important literary features.” This approach is extensive in its reference to 560 different features, but the majority of the inventory is in relation to “contemporary scholarly notions of linguistic meaning and textuality” and not genre theory. It is yet to be seen whether this approach will prove useful in the future. ³³ John J. Collins, “Introduction: Toward the Morphology of a Genre,” Semeia, 14 (1979), 1–20. ³⁴ Klaus Koch, The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic, trans. by Margaret Kohl, SBT, Second Series, 22 (London, 1972), 24–7. ³⁵ Philipp Vielhauer, “Introduction,” in New Testament Apocrypha, ed. by Wilhelm Schneemelcher, trans. by R. M. Wilson (London, 1965), , 582–600. ³⁶ Paolo Sacchi, Jewish Apocalyptic and its History, trans. by William J. Short, JSPSup, 20 (Sheffield, 1996), 92–3, notes that Koch’s lists did not even include material from the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 1–36). ³⁷ Paul D. Hanson, “Apocalypse, Genre and Apocalypticism,” IDBSup, 1976, 27–34; David E. Aune, “Understanding Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic,” in Apocalypticism, Prophecy, and Magic in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI, 2008), 1–12.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

, “ , ”     

21

Since definitions of “apocalypticism” and “apocalyptic eschatology” hinge upon their relationship to the literary genre of “apocalypse,” the Semeia 14 definition focused the genre discussion. The definition states that an “apocalypse” is: a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world.³⁸

The definition avoids a list of characteristics like Koch’s and Vielhauer’s, and it highlights the complex, integrated nature of form and content within the genre. The definition is also centered on transcendence, which John Collins describes as the genre’s “inner coherence.”³⁹ A “master-paradigm” of thirteen elements found in typical examples of apocalypses served as the common core of elements underlying the apocalypse definition. The “master-paradigm” was organized according to the framework (or form) and content of revelation. The framework of revelation was subdivided further into the manner of revelation and the concluding elements. The manner of revelation consists of three elements: the medium of revelation (1), the otherworldly mediator (2), and the human recipient (3). The concluding elements include instructions to the recipient (12) and narrative conclusion (13). The content of the revelation includes both temporal and spatial elements. The temporal content includes protology (4), history (5), present salvation (6), eschatological crisis (7), eschatological judgment (8), and eschatological salvation (9). The spatial axis of the content includes otherworldly elements (10). The final common element of apocalypses is paraenesis (11), which awkwardly sits outside the framework and content structure of the “master-paradigm.”⁴⁰ The Semeia 14 definition is a composite of the common elements of the “master-paradigm” from both the framework and content of revelation. Carol Newsom critiqued the Semeia 14 definition in terms of modern genre theory. She contends that the Semeia 14 definition and “master-paradigm” reflect traditional classification models, stating, “The metaphors and images that appear in the description [of the Semeia 14 definition] refer to the ³⁸ Collins, “Morphology,” 9; John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 3rd edn (Grand Rapids, MI, 2016), 5. ³⁹ Collins, “Morphology,” 10. ⁴⁰ See Collins, “Morphology,” 5–8. The numbering of elements follows the “master-paradigm.”

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

22     ‘members’ of the genre, to texts ‘belonging’ to the genre, and to the genre’s ‘boundaries’.”⁴¹ Newsom raises concerns that the “master-paradigm” is using traditional generic classification and is merely another taxonomic list of features. Following Derrida, she prefers to “think of texts as participating in [genres], invoking them, gesturing to them, playing in and out of them, and in so doing, continually changing them.”⁴² However, she admits that the Semeia 14 definition and its “master-paradigm” “anticipated something like the gestalt notion as essential to genre recognition.”⁴³ In other words, she admits that the definition anticipated the prototype model of modern genre theory in which the whole is understood as the sum of its parts rather than ticking the boxes of a checklist of features. Echoing George Lakoff, Newsom argues that a reader’s recognition of genre depends not upon lists of features or “elements,” but “what triggers [genre recognition] is the way in which [the elements] are related to one another in a Gestalt structure that serves as an idealized cognitive model. Thus the elements only make sense in relation to a whole.”⁴⁴ In essence, Newsom is referring to what Frow describes as genre’s “complex constellation” of the three dimensions of form, content, and function. While the apocalypse genre group did not explicitly follow a prototype model (they were putting together the definition just after Eleanor Rosch’s groundbreaking work on cognitive models), they began by examining generally agreed-upon examples of apocalypses (i.e., prototypes): Daniel, 1 Enoch (the Book of the Watchers, Parables of Enoch, the Book of the Luminaries, the Apocalypse of Weeks, and the Animal Apocalypse), 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and the book of Revelation.⁴⁵ Other apocalypses, those less prototypical, were also examined and a table of the “master-paradigm’s” elements was created for each category of apocalypse. For our purposes, John Collins’s table of Jewish apocalypses will be the most important.⁴⁶ Newsom’s concerns are legitimate, since one can view the table and the elements of the “master-paradigm” as a taxonomic checklist. The table is about as close to a pigeonhole as you can get, which is a problem when, as Fowler points out, genres are more like pigeons than pigeonholes.⁴⁷ But the Semeia 14 definition itself reflects the “common core of constant elements” in the ⁴¹ Carol A. Newsom, “Spying out the Land: A Report from Genology,” in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. by Ronald L. Troxel, Kelvin G. Friebel, and Dennis R. Magary (Winona Lake, IN, 2005), 439. ⁴² Newsom, “Spying out the Land,” 439. ⁴³ Newsom, “Spying out the Land,” 444. ⁴⁴ Newsom, “Spying out the Land,” 444. ⁴⁵ Collins, “Morphology,” 3. ⁴⁶ John J. Collins, “The Jewish Apocalypses,” Semeia, 14 (1979), 28. See Appendix A for a replica of the table in Collins’s article, although with more descriptive titles of the 1 Enoch apocalypses. ⁴⁷ Fowler, Kinds of Literature, 36.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

, “ , ”     

23

“master-paradigm” that are evident in apocalypses.⁴⁸ Like prototype theory, there is a hierarchy of features within the “master-paradigm” that is sensitive to the relationship of form and content within the prototypical apocalypses.⁴⁹ Newsom is right to warn against viewing and using the “master-paradigm” as a taxonomy, but if the “master-paradigm” and the definition are understood as a hierarchical and complex constellation of integrated elements of form and content, they may serve as a prototype model of the genre of “apocalypse.” In terms of the three dimensions of form, content, and function, it should be immediately obvious that the Semeia 14 definition and the “master-paradigm” do not define “apocalypse” in terms of function. Only form and content are used. Although the lack of reference to function was intentional,⁵⁰ the first critiques of the definition drew attention to its absence. At the Uppsala conference on apocalypticism, held the same year that the Semeia 14 definition was published, Lars Hartman⁵¹ and others critiqued the lack of reference to the purpose of apocalypses. In the following years, criticisms regarding the role of function in apocalypses also came from David Hellholm⁵² and David Aune.⁵³ Specifically responding to Hellholm’s and Aune’s criticisms, Adela Yarbro Collins defined the role of function in an addendum to the Semeia 14 definition: an apocalypse is: intended to interpret present, earthly circumstances in light of the supernatural world and of the future, and to influence both the understanding and the behavior of the audience by means of divine authority.⁵⁴

This description of function does not specify a context of crisis, which was the view of Hellholm and others, but it refers more broadly to “present, earthly circumstances.” These circumstances may include crisis or challenge, but they do not require it. The addendum to the definition allows for variety of purpose.

⁴⁸ Collins, “Morphology,” 9; Todd R. Hanneken, The Subversion of the Apocalypses in the Book of Jubilees, EJL, 34 (Atlanta, GA, 2012), 17. ⁴⁹ Collins, “Morphology,” 5; John J. Collins, Apocalypse, Prophecy, and Pseudepigraphy: On Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids, MI, 2015), 4. ⁵⁰ Collins, “Morphology,” 1–2, 4. ⁵¹ Lars Hartman, “Survey of the Problem of Apocalyptic Genre,” in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12–17, 1979, ed. by David Hellholm (Tübingen, 1983), 329–43. ⁵² David Hellholm, “The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John,” Semeia, 36 (1986), 13–64. ⁵³ David E. Aune, “The Apocalypse of John and the Problem of Genre,” Semeia, 36 (1986), 65–96. ⁵⁴ Adela Yarbro Collins, “Introduction: Early Christian Apocalypses,” Semeia, 36 (1986), 7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

24     Some scholars go even further and want to privilege function in defining or at least in discussing apocalypses. This approach rightly recognizes the value in historical or diachronic approaches for understanding the relationships between apocalypses, and it derives in significant part from the generic view of Mikhail Bakhtin and others, namely that literature derives from speech genres.⁵⁵ As noted in the previous section, John Swales similarly privileges “communicative purpose” as the primary criterion of genre.⁵⁶ With regard to the genre of apocalypse, Michael Vines has followed Bakhtin and prefers to privilege the “ideological framework” (“apocalypticism”?) rather than formal literary characteristics as determining “apocalyptic” and “apocalypse.”⁵⁷ The irony of this is that this “ideological framework” tends to be defined by certain features within apocalyptic literature. Greg Carey similarly argues that discussing “apocalyptic discourse” allows us to avoid what he sees as the limitations of the distinction between “apocalypse,” “apocalypticism,” and “apocalyptic eschatology.” Carey would prefer to talk about the “rhetorical configuration” found in “recurring themes in discourse and patterns of reasoning” and in a broader range of “apocalyptic literature,” not just the literary genre of apocalypse. In other words, like Vines, Carey prefers to prioritize communicative purpose as a preferable defining feature of “apocalyptic”;⁵⁸ however, Carey defines apocalyptic discourse according to its “topics,” which he lists as eleven features that are found in apocalyptic literature.⁵⁹ The overlap of these eleven features with Vielhauer’s and Koch’s lists is telling.⁶⁰ As Fowler states, “analysis of genre on the basis of language function will not do.”⁶¹ Not only that, social contexts are difficult to delineate from apocalypses,⁶² especially when the apocalypses indicate a diversity of possible functions and social contexts, including the possibility of multiple functions in

⁵⁵ M. M. Bakhtin, “The Problem of Speech Genres,” in Modern Genre Theory, ed. by David Duff (New York, 2000), 82–97. ⁵⁶ Swales, Genre Analysis, 58. ⁵⁷ Michael E. Vines, “The Apocalyptic Chronotype,” Semeia, 63 (2007), 109–17, esp. 110–12. ⁵⁸ Greg Carey, Ultimate Things: An Introduction to Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic Literature (St. Louis, MO, 2005), 4–5. ⁵⁹ Carey, Ultimate Things, 6–10; also Greg Carey, Apocalyptic Literature in the New Testament, CBS (Nashville, TN, 2016), 24–8. ⁶⁰ See a similar critique of Carey by Bennie H. Reynolds, III, Between Symbolism and Realism: The Use of Symbolic and Non-Symbolic Language in Ancient Jewish Apocalypses 333–63 , JAJSup, 8 (Göttingen, 2011), 57 n. 125, 60. ⁶¹ Fowler, Kinds of Literature, 238. ⁶² Carey, Ultimate Things, 4, even admits this: “the various apocalypses address widely diverse social contexts, and they do so for a broad array of social ends.”

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

, “ , ”     

25

a single apocalypse.⁶³ For these reasons, we should be careful not to claim a single, specific function or social context for the genre as a whole⁶⁴ and then to define “apocalyptic” in terms of “apocalyptic discourse,” which is apparently dependent on “apocalyptic language” and derived from a looser group of “apocalyptic literature.”⁶⁵ While Yarbro Collins’s addition to the definition of apocalypse may lack a certain specificity, she correctly recognizes the variety of functions and social contexts evident in apocalypses and the problematic nature of defining the genre primarily according to function. John Collins states, “Genres may be of different kinds. But it seems to me that those features that are explicitly present in the texts, rather than communicative purposes that have to be inferred, provide the safest point for genre recognition.”⁶⁶ Another significant debate concerning the definition of apocalypse is the role of eschatology in the content of apocalypses. The Semeia 14 definition states that apocalypses are revelatory literature that disclose a transcendent reality that is spatial and temporal. The temporal transcendence includes “eschatological salvation.” In an earlier article, Collins describes eschatological salvation as what happens to the wicked and the righteous when they die.⁶⁷ Most assume that end-of-the-world judgment is all that is included by the term “eschatological”; however, this timing is not required. Judgment of the wicked and vindication of the righteous are recognizable aspects of “eschatology,” but the timing of these events is left open. The common understanding of eschatology and the more well-known apocalypses of Daniel and Revelation, which do describe end-of-the-world scenarios, have often led to an assumption that apocalypses are primarily about the end of the world. Eschatology is part of the temporal transcendence in apocalypses, but too often it is emphasized more than spatial transcendence. Christopher Rowland is often noted as a detractor from the Semeia 14 definition of “apocalypse,” particularly regarding the role of eschatology. ⁶³ Anathea E. Portier-Young, Apocalypse against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI, 2011); Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Coping with Alienating Experience: Four Strategies from the Third and Second Centuries ,” in Rejection: God’s Refugees, ed. by Stanley E. Porter, MNTS (Eugene, OR, 2015), 57–83; John J. Collins, “What Is Apocalyptic Literature?,” in The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature, ed. by John J. Collins (Oxford and New York, 2014), 1–16; Collins, Apocalypse, Prophecy, and Pseudepigraphy, 14. ⁶⁴ Anathea E. Portier-Young, “Jewish Apocalyptic Literature as Resistance Literature,” in The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature, ed. by John J. Collins (Oxford, 2014), 145–62 (esp. 154–6); Carol A. Newsom, “The Rhetoric of Jewish Apocalyptic Literature,” in The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature, ed. by John J. Collins (Oxford, 2014), 214: “apocalyptic literature served a variety of functions as it was employed in a wide range of rhetorical situations.” ⁶⁵ Carey, Apocalyptic Literature, 20–2. ⁶⁶ Collins, Apocalypse, Prophecy, and Pseudepigraphy, 14. ⁶⁷ See also John J. Collins, “Apocalyptic Eschatology as the Transcendence of Death,” CBQ, 36/1 (1974), 21–43.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

26     Contrary to what is often claimed or implied of his work,⁶⁸ Rowland does not contend that apocalypses have no eschatology. In fact, he says that eschatology is “an important component of the heavenly mysteries” in apocalypses⁶⁹ but the presence of eschatology in apocalypses “is not their most distinctive feature.”⁷⁰ For Rowland, “Apocalyptic seems essentially to be about the revelation of the divine mysteries through visions or some other form of immediate disclosure of heavenly truths.”⁷¹ As Michael Stone pointed out quite thoroughly, apocalypses reveal a great number of things (e.g., uranology, cosmogony, primordial events, etc.) and not merely eschatology.⁷² Eschatology is an important part of what is revealed, but it is not central to all apocalypses.⁷³ However, what is meant by “eschatology” can often be defined broadly by those arguing for and against its centrality in apocalypses. Todd Hanneken states, “It is true that ‘eschatology’ is a loaded term, and the kind of eschatology varies among the apocalypses.”⁷⁴ He continues, “Nevertheless, a God’seye view of the meaning or resolution of history is a distinctive element of the apocalypses.”⁷⁵ Hanneken’s wording here is helpfully nuanced; “resolution of history” is not the same as “end-time judgment” or the destruction of the wicked and the present world. The “resolution of history” may include those things, and often does, but it is not necessarily central, nor is it all that is revealed in apocalypses. According to the Semeia 14 “master-paradigm,” temporal transcendence also includes cosmogony (4.1), primordial events (4.2), recollections of the past (5.1), ex eventu prophecy (5.2), present salvation (6), persecution (7.1), other eschatological upheavals (7.2), judgment/destruction of the wicked (8.1), of the world (8.2), of other worldly beings (8.3), cosmic transformation (9.1), resurrection (9.2.1), and other forms of afterlife (9.2.2).⁷⁶ I would argue that although some of these elements are temporal, they are not all “eschatological.” Further, the only sub-element that Collins lists as being found in all Jewish apocalypses is “judgment/destruction of the

⁶⁸ Contra Lorenzo DiTommaso, “Apocalypses and Apocalypticism in Antiquity (Part I),” CurBR, 5/ 2 (2007), 243; Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 13. ⁶⁹ Christopher Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (London, 1982), 71. ⁷⁰ Rowland, Open Heaven, 26. ⁷¹ Rowland, Open Heaven, 70. ⁷² 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. by Frank Moore Cross, Werner E. Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller (Garden City, NY, 1976), 414–52. ⁷³ Contra Frederick J. Murphy, Apocalypticism in the Bible and its World: A Comprehensive Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI, 2012), 7; and Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 79, who sees “the eschatological focus” as “constitutive of an apocalypse.” ⁷⁴ Hanneken, Subversion of the Apocalypses, 19. ⁷⁵ Cf. DiTommaso, “Apocalypses (Part I),” 241. ⁷⁶ Collins, “Morphology,” 10.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

, “ , ”     

27

wicked”; ⁷⁷ yet the definition of apocalypse focuses on temporal transcendence “insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation.” The way that Collins discusses this is enlightening: “The content [of apocalypses] always involves both an eschatological salvation[,] which is temporally future[,] and present otherworldly realities.” He continues, “personal afterlife is the most consistent aspect of the eschatology of the apocalypses, and it ensures the definitive and transcendent character of that eschatology.”⁷⁸ Intriguingly, the Semeia 14 definition itself says nothing specific about the judgment of the wicked (8.1), the feature specifically present in all Jewish apocalypses, nor does it mention protology, primordial events, recollection of the past, ex eventu prophecy, present salvation, persecution, or other eschatological upheavals (elements 4–7), but it speaks about “eschatological salvation” (9). It seems that when most scholars read “temporal transcendence” and “eschatological salvation,” they do not hear “personal afterlife” but rather a combination of ex eventu prophecy (5.2), eschatological upheavals and crises (7), eschatological judgment and destruction of the present order (8), and eschatological salvation (9). A quick perusal of the table of Jewish apocalypses⁷⁹ indicates that Collins considers less than half of Jewish apocalypses to contain ex eventu prophecy and only two-thirds to relate eschatological upheavals.⁸⁰ A closer look at each apocalypse challenges Collins’s view of the centrality of temporal transcendence. The Book of the Watchers makes a brief mention of the judgment of the wicked, but mainly when it mentions the places of the dead in 1 Enoch 22. It also contains judgment of the Watchers in 1 Enoch 16, but neither instance is an end-time judgment. The Book of the Luminaries makes only passing reference to judgment of the wicked after focusing centrally on the astronomical calendar and the positions of the sun, moon, and stars for the majority of the apocalypse. The days of the sinners will bring about negative effects upon the earth, such as a shortened rainy season, the changing of the moon’s order, and a distorted understanding of the luminaries, which will end in punishment for the sinners and rejoicing for the righteous (1 En. 80:2–8; 81:19). But according to the Book of the Luminaries, sin is defined as the improper counting of the year (1 En. 82:5–7), or in other words, it is an improper understanding of cosmological reality (i.e., spatial transcendence).⁸¹ The fine details of each apocalypse are reminders that pigeonholes are problematic and that texts are more nuanced than an “X” on a table suggests. ⁷⁷ Collins, “Jewish Apocalypses,” 28. ⁷⁸ Collins, “Morphology,” 9. ⁷⁹ See Appendix A. ⁸⁰ Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 8. ⁸¹ George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 37–82, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN, 2012), 552.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

28     With regard to Jewish apocalypses, the fine details indicate that claims for the centrality of eschatology in apocalypses are not entirely convincing, while Rowland’s contentions concerning eschatology in apocalypses are quite reasonable. He states: Although eschatology is an important component of the heavenly mysteries which are revealed in the apocalypses, it is difficult to justify the selection of this particular element as the basis of the definition of apocalyptic. The consequences of this can lead to an indifference to the fact that apocalyptic is concerned with the revelation of a variety of different matters. Any attempt, therefore, to use the term apocalyptic as a synonym of eschatology must be rejected.⁸²

The reason why end-of-the-world eschatology comes to the fore seems to be a focus on the eschatologies of Daniel and the book of Revelation, which include final judgment and the destruction of evil. This eschatology serves for many as the meaning of “temporal transcendence” and “eschatological salvation” in the Semeia 14 definition.⁸³ However, to describe an apocalypse as transcending time (i.e., as temporally transcendent) in the sense that it reveals the beginnings of the created world, the origin of evil, and the personal salvation of the righteous and the future judgment of the wicked is more to the point.⁸⁴ In more apocalypses than is commonly recognized this temporal transcendence is held together with spatial transcendence. As was just noted above, the Book of the Luminaries focuses on spatial transcendence, and it is the righteous, in fact, who have the proper knowledge of cosmological reality. Likewise, the Book of the Watchers, 2 Enoch, and 3 Baruch, while including revelation regarding the fate of the righteous and wicked, are more concerned with the revelation of cosmological mysteries. More recently on this point, Rowland states: “When one investigates the eschatology of the apocalypses what are often regarded as typical features of apocalypticism (imminent expectation of the end of the world, symbolism, historical determinism and a transcendent hope) are on inspection by no means common.”⁸⁵ Rowland rightly highlights how eschatology, in all that ⁸² Rowland, Open Heaven, 71; also Christopher Rowland and Christopher R. A. Morray-Jones, The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament, CRINT, 12 (Leiden, 2009), 16–17. ⁸³ See most recently, Lorenzo DiTommaso, “Apocalypse,” in T&T Clark Encyclopedia of Second Temple Judaism, ed. by Daniel M. Gurtner and Loren T. Stuckenbruck (London, 2020), , 36–9. ⁸⁴ Collins, “What Is Apocalyptic Literature?,” 7. ⁸⁵ Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, 17; see also Crispin Fletcher-Louis, “Jewish Apocalyptic and Apocalypticism,” in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 4 vols (Leiden, 2011), , 1588–92.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

, “ , ”     

29

the word conjures to the mind, is only part of what is revealed in apocalypses,⁸⁶ and we do well to remember the two parts of the transcendence revealed in apocalypses: temporal and spatial. The second claim made against Rowland sometimes is that he is concerned with form over content.⁸⁷ The above discussion should make it clear that this is a misreading. Rowland’s emphasis is on the revelation of heavenly mysteries. He readily notes the breadth of material in what is revealed; he just does not narrow these mysteries to eschatology. The content of apocalypses is found in numerous other genres of literature. For instance, the judgment of the wicked is clearly found in prophetic literature and the psalms: “Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment . . . the way of the wicked will perish” (Ps 1:5–6). Also, the heavenly world is revealed in Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 1, 1 Kings 22, not to mention the comings and goings of angels throughout the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Gen. 28; 35; Exod. 3). What makes an apocalypse an apocalypse is the complex constellation of the narrative form or manner of revelation, content, and function. As far as genre theory is concerned, the Semeia 14 definition in conjunction with its underlying “master-paradigm” serves as the prototype and the starting point for determining whether a text participates in the genre of apocalypse. Unfortunately, taxonomic lists of features similar to Koch’s still exist. For example, both Frederick Murphy and Greg Carey draw attention to the Semeia 14 definition but still define “apocalyptic” in terms of lists.⁸⁸ These lists of characteristics are presented with no perceived hierarchy of characteristics, as can be seen in Carey’s admission that the topics “simply sketch the rough contours of apocalyptic discourse”⁸⁹ and the way Murphy calls a text “apocalyptic” if it contains some elements from his list.⁹⁰ In what appears to be a functional rejection of Hanson’s terminological clarification and the Semeia 14 definition, Carey “avoids relying on technical distinctions among apocalypses, apocalyptic literature and apocalyptic discourse, apocalyptic eschatology, and apocalypticism” and instead appeals to “apocalyptic discourse,” which he defines in terms of “features in apocalyptic literature.”⁹¹ In both Murphy’s and Carey’s work, their lists of features allow for a looser application of the

⁸⁶ Benjamin E. Reynolds and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Introduction,” in The Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the Shaping of New Testament Thought, ed. by Benjamin E. Reynolds and Loren T. Stuckenbruck (Minneapolis, MN, 2017), 1–12. ⁸⁷ DiTommaso, “Apocalypses (Part I),” 243. ⁸⁸ Murphy, Apocalypticism, 4–14; Carey, Ultimate Things, 2–10; Carey, Apocalyptic Literature, 20–8. ⁸⁹ Carey, Ultimate Things, 6. ⁹⁰ Murphy, Apocalypticism; see Benjamin E. Reynolds, review of Apocalypticism in the Bible and its World by Frederick J. Murphy, TJ, 36/1 (2015), 137–9. ⁹¹ Carey, Apocalyptic Literature, 24; see also 20.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

30     term “apocalyptic” to texts that reflect apocalyptic eschatology, “apocalyptic discourse,” dualism, or some such characteristic. It is of significant interest for the present study that both Murphy and Carey claim that the Gospel of John is not “apocalyptic” because it lacks the features on their lists.⁹² In my opinion, defining “apocalypse” and “apocalyptic” primarily in terms of lists of features only returns us to the ambiguity of the taxonomic lists and the terminological confusion that existed before the Semeia 14 definition. The adjective “apocalyptic” should more appropriately denote the genre of “apocalypse,” especially the complex constellation of form, content, and function that comprises the genre. Collins states: “‘Apocalypticism’ and ‘apocalyptic’ are recognized only by analogy with the apocalypses.”⁹³ The Semeia 14 definition of apocalypse, even with its critics from Uppsala to the present, is recognized as the starting point for discussions about what an apocalypse is and what we may then define as “apocalyptic.”⁹⁴ When paying attention to the definition’s role as a heuristic device and to the relationship of form, content, and function, the Semeia 14 definition of “apocalypse” is a valuable prototype definition for categorizing and comparing texts that are robins, chickens, and penguins, or bats and platypuses.⁹⁵

The Gospel of John among the Apocalypses The Gospel of John, even given its traditional links with the book of Revelation, has rarely been considered “apocalyptic” or similar to Jewish apocalypses. There are two primary reasons for this. First, if “apocalyptic” is understood as equivalent in meaning to eschatology, the Gospel of John’s more realized eschatology and lack of an end-of-the-world, cataclysmic judgment makes it unlikely that the Fourth Gospel would be termed apocalyptic. Second, along with John’s lack of apocalyptic eschatology, John does not contain most of the features headlining the standard taxonomic lists that describe “apocalyptic” or “apocalypticism.”⁹⁶ However, if apocalypses are

⁹² Murphy, Apocalypticism, 275; Carey, Apocalyptic Literature, 104–9. ⁹³ Collins, “What Is Apocalyptic Literature?” 7. ⁹⁴ Leslie Baynes, The Heavenly Book Motif in Judeo-Christian Apocalypses, 200 –200 , JSJSup, 152 (Leiden, 2012), 9, 68–70; Hanneken, Subversion of the Apocalypses, 16–22. See also, Kirsten Marie Hartvigsen, Aseneth’s Transformation, DCLS, 24 (Berlin, 2018). ⁹⁵ Baynes, Heavenly Book Motif, 70; also Elizabeth E. Shively, “Recognizing Penguins: Audience Expectation, Cognitive Genre Theory, and the Ending of Mark’s Gospel,” CBQ, 80 (2018), 273–92. ⁹⁶ Koch, The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic, 24–7; Murphy, Apocalypticism, 275; Carey, Apocalyptic Literature, 104–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

, “ , ”     

31

understood as revelatory literature in which an otherworldly being mediates heavenly mysteries that include temporal and spatial transcendence and if “apocalyptic” is defined in relationship to this revelatory literature of apocalypse, then the Gospel of John is more “apocalyptic” than it first appears. The Johannine Jesus who descends from heaven and reveals the Father reflects aspects of the apocalyptic framework of Jewish apocalypses, especially in light of the centrality of revelation and the acknowledgment of a transcendent reality in the Fourth Gospel. Comparing the Gospel of John with Jewish apocalypses may thus offer an effective way to explain John’s central focus on revelation and its distinctiveness in relation to the Synoptic Gospels. John’s similarity to Jewish apocalypses has not gone entirely unnoticed. There have, from time to time, been scholars who have drawn attention to similarities with Jewish apocalypses or “apocalyptic.” Yet not all of these mentions have understood “apocalyptic” in terms of apocalypses or furthered the discussion. Urban von Wahlde argues for similarities between the Gospel of John and “apocalypticism,” but by “apocalypticism” he means dualism. His examples for this apocalyptic dualism are not drawn from Jewish apocalypses, but oddly, from sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.⁹⁷ J. Louis Martyn contends that the “two-level drama,” which he argues is present in John, “was at home in the thought-world of Jewish apocalypticism,” although by “Jewish apocalypticism,” Martyn means the sort of “apocalyptic” described by the list of features in Vielhauer.⁹⁸ Harold Attridge tantalizingly comments in passing that “there are some useful parallels to be found in . . . Jewish apocalyptic texts” but does not mention any specific examples.⁹⁹ James Dunn notes that there are numerous parallels with Jewish apocalypses and Merkavah mysticism that share concerns with Johannine Christology.¹⁰⁰ C. K. Barrett, as I noted at the end of the Introduction, contends that the Gospel of John bears some relationship to

⁹⁷ Urban C. Von Wahlde, Gnosticism, Docetism, and the Judaisms of the First Century: The Search for the Wider Context of Johannine Literature and Why It Matters, LNTS, 517 (London, 2015), 130–4; Urban C. Von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John, ECC, 3 vols (Grand Rapids, MI, 2010), , 250–92. For a similar critique, see Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer, “The Johannine Literature and Contemporary Jewish Literature,” in The Oxford Handbook of Johannine Studies, ed. by Judith M. Lieu and Martinus C. de Boer (Oxford, 2018), 159. ⁹⁸ J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, NTL, 3rd edn (Louisville, KY, 2003), 130. ⁹⁹ Harold W. Attridge, “Genre Bending in the Fourth Gospel,” JBL, 121/1 (2002), 7. ¹⁰⁰ James D. G. Dunn, “Let John Be John: A Gospel for its Time,” in The Gospel and the Gospels, ed. by Peter Stuhlmacher (Grand Rapids, MI, 1991), 322–5; see also Jey J. Kanagaraj, “Mysticism” in the Gospel of John: An Inquiry into its Background, JSNTSup, 158 (Sheffield, 1998).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

32     Jewish apocalypses, even though initially it may not appear to.¹⁰¹ Closer comparisons are evident in Hugo Odeberg’s examination of John 1:19–12:50. Odeberg compares various parallels between John and Mandean, Hermetic, and rabbinic texts, and on a few occasions, he draws attention to parallels with Jewish apocalypses (e.g., regarding John 3:13).¹⁰² G. Quispel makes a brief comparison between the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse of Abraham.¹⁰³ More promising for a discussion of the Gospel of John and Jewish apocalypses are Judith Kovacs’s comments in the concluding paragraph of her influential article: “The Fourth Evangelist does not write an apocalypse, but he has taken several characteristically apocalyptic themes and recast them in light of his belief that the Son of Man . . . has already appeared on earth.”¹⁰⁴ John Ashton has made the most significant single contribution to the study of the Gospel of John and Jewish apocalypses.¹⁰⁵ In Understanding the Fourth Gospel, John Ashton argues that Bultmann was correct to “stress that revelation is the pivotal idea of the Gospel . . . . But like all other commentators before and since he failed to spot its affinity with apocalyptic (revelatory writing).”¹⁰⁶ Ashton then cites the Semeia 14 definition of apocalypse and states, “Provided we understand eschatological in the sense that Bultmann employs this word (i.e. as referring to what the Gospel calls life) and admits that Jesus really did speak, as he claims to have done, of ‘heavenly things’ (3:12), this [i.e., the Semeia 14 definition] fits the Fourth Gospel to a ‘T’.”¹⁰⁷ However, Ashton does not think that John is an apocalypse because he considers the Semeia 14 definition of “apocalypse” to be too broad, raising four objections to it. His first objection is that eschatology is not always present in apocalypses. Second, he contends that the definition lacks clear separation from prophecy.¹⁰⁸ Third, as with the earliest critiques of the definition, Ashton

¹⁰¹ C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd edn (Philadelphia, PA, 1978), 31. ¹⁰² Hugo Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel: Interpreted in its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World (Uppsala, 1929), 72. ¹⁰³ G. Quispel, “L’Évanglile de Jean et la Gnose,” in L’Évangile de Jean: études et problèmes, RechBib, 3 (Leuven, 1958), 197–208. ¹⁰⁴ Judith L. Kovacs, “ ‘Now Shall the Ruler of This World Be Driven Out’: Jesus’ Death as Cosmic Battle in John 12:20–36,” JBL, 114/2 (1995), 247. ¹⁰⁵ John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 1st edn (Oxford, 1991); John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 2nd edn (Oxford, 2007); John Ashton, “Intimations of Apocalyptic: Looking Back and Looking Forward,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 3–35; John Ashton, The Gospel of John and Christian Origins (Minneapolis, MN, 2014). ¹⁰⁶ Ashton, Understanding, 6 (unless otherwise noted, all citations are from the second edition). ¹⁰⁷ Ashton, Understanding, 7. ¹⁰⁸ See similar critiques by Lester Grabbe in Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak, eds., Knowing the End from the Beginning: The Prophetic, Apocalyptic, and their Relationship, JSPSup, 46 (London, 2003).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

, “ , ”     

33

objects to its lack of reference to a historical or social context. Fourth and finally, he prefers to see some description of the “mode of revelation.”¹⁰⁹ As a result of these objections, Ashton proposes his own revised definition, which leaves no room for confusing the Fourth Gospel with the genre of apocalypse: An apocalypse is a narrative, composed in circumstances of political, religious, or social unrest, in the course of which an angelic being discloses heavenly mysteries, otherwise hidden, to a human seer, either indirectly, by interpreting a dream or vision, or directly, in which case the seer may believe that he has been transported to heaven in order to receive a special revelation.¹¹⁰

For comparison, the Semeia 14 definition reads: a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world.¹¹¹

With regard to Ashton’s objections, there are three points worth noting before we proceed further. The first is that Ashton was interacting primarily with the Semeia 14 definition of apocalypse and not with its “master-paradigm,” which underlies the definition; he appears to have been unaware of the “masterparadigm.”¹¹² Ashton’s reliance solely on the definition results in him missing the details behind the definition. Second, he has rightly noted that a significant difference between John and Jewish apocalypses relates to the manner or mode of revelation; however, as I will argue in Chapter 2 and again in Chapter 5, these differences in manner reflect a more complicated relationship between John and Jewish apocalypses. Third, while Ashton specifies the manner of revelation, he generalizes the description of the content of revelation as “heavenly mysteries.” Ashton is likely attempting to highlight cosmology in ¹⁰⁹ In his first edition, Ashton noted six objections. His original first objection that “the word ‘transcendent’ is misleading” has been entirely removed from the second edition. His fifth objection that the “definition is too broad” remains in the second edition but is shortened and subsumed under his third objection regarding social context. See Ashton, Understanding, 385–7 (1st edn). ¹¹⁰ Ashton, Understanding, 310. ¹¹¹ Collins, “Morphology,” 9; Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 5. ¹¹² Ashton, Understanding, 308, cites from the first edition of Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, which does not mention the “master-paradigm.”

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

34     contrast to the typical eschatological concerns, but by removing the reference to temporal and spatial transcendence, he defines the content too generally. Ashton is correct that the Gospel of John is “decidedly not an apocalypse,”¹¹³ but his attempt at distancing John from Jewish apocalypses need not require amending the Semeia 14 definition. A closer look at the “master-paradigm” quickly indicates that three of his four objections are addressed in the fine print, and I will draw attention to them in Chapters 2–4. What I have always found most intriguing about Ashton’s study is that after revising the definition of “apocalypse” he goes on to argue that John was “apocalyptic” not on the basis of his revised definition but with regard to four features (i.e., a list): “two of these are temporal: two ages (mystery) and two stages (dream or vision); the other two are spatial: insiders/outsiders (riddle) and above/below (correspondence).”¹¹⁴ It quickly becomes clear that Ashton drew from Martyn, who understood “apocalyptic” more like Philipp Vielhauer and Klaus Koch and not in relation to the larger discussion of the genre of apocalypse.¹¹⁵ In light of these four features, Ashton argues that John reflects various affinities with “apocalyptic” but that John is not an apocalypse. Instead, he concludes that “the fourth evangelist conceives of his own work as an apocalypse—in reverse, upside down, inside out.”¹¹⁶ In his most recent book, however, Ashton rejects these four features and says that he was overly influenced by Martyn.¹¹⁷ In my opinion, Ashton has correctly recognized the problematic nature of using these four characteristics to argue for John’s similarity with Jewish apocalyptic tradition. The characteristics, which do reflect temporal and spatial aspects, are primarily content features and do not address the genre dimensions of form and function. By withdrawing from these four features, Ashton may seem to have undercut his primary argument that the Gospel of John may be considered “apocalyptic” (i.e., revelatory), but he states: “I still believe that I was right to detect in the Gospel a fundamental affinity with apocalyptic that had not previously been observed.”¹¹⁸ Even if Ashton’s argument were not properly conceived in terms of genre theory, I agree that he correctly discerned an affinity between the ¹¹³ Ashton, Understanding, 309–10 (emphasis original). ¹¹⁴ Ashton, Understanding, 310–29. ¹¹⁵ Martyn, History and Theology, 130. It should be noted that Martyn’s first edition was published in 1968 and the second in 1979. However, see also J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB, 33A (New York, 1997), 97–105. See the critique of Martyn in J. P. Davies, Paul among the Apocalypses?: An Evaluation of the Apocalyptic Paul in the Context of Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic Literature, LNTS, 562 (London, 2016), 15–17. ¹¹⁶ Ashton, Understanding, 328–9, also 528–9. ¹¹⁷ Ashton, Christian Origins, 97–114. I am convinced that Ashton’s revision was a result of his rethinking in light of the Bangor Colloquium. ¹¹⁸ Ashton, Christian Origins, 114.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

, “ , ”     

35

Gospel of John and Jewish apocalypses. John is a revelatory text that reflects aspects of the apocalypse genre: “Jesus is certainly thought of as an otherworldly being, and his revelations are mediated within a narrative framework.”¹¹⁹ The revelation in the Gospel of John is so central to the Gospel and to Jesus as the revealer that Ashton can ask: “who can read this Gospel without a pervasive sense that somehow or other heavenly things are spoken of on virtually every page?”¹²⁰ John Ashton’s work has influenced a number of scholars, with the most prominent among them being Christopher Rowland. Rowland states: “it may come as more of a surprise to find that the Fourth Gospel . . . should be classed with the apocalyptic and mystical writings of the period.”¹²¹ Rowland has echoed and added further support for Ashton’s view that John is an “apocalypse in reverse.”¹²² The most extensive engagement with Ashton’s work may be found in the volume edited by Catrin Williams and Christopher Rowland, The Gospel of John and Intimations of Apocalyptic.¹²³ The essays by Catrin Williams, Jörg Frey, and Judith Lieu are especially significant contributions to the ongoing discussion.¹²⁴ What follows in the rest of this book is my argument for the close affinity between the Gospel of John and Jewish apocalypses and the implications of that affinity for understanding the Fourth Gospel. Ashton’s instincts were correct that the Fourth Gospel has been shaped and influenced by Jewish apocalyptic tradition and that it has the framework of Jewish apocalypses— in other words it reflects the Semeia 14 definition of “apocalypse” at key points.

¹¹⁹ Ashton, Christian Origins, 115. ¹²⁰ Ashton, Christian Origins, 116. ¹²¹ Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, 123. See also Christopher Rowland, “Apocalyptic, Mysticism, and the New Testament,” in Geschichte—Tradition—Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by Hubert Cancik, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Peter Schäfer, 3 vols (Tübingen, 1996), , 405–30. ¹²² Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, 123–31. ¹²³ Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland, eds., John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic (London, 2013). ¹²⁴ Catrin H. Williams, “Unveiling Revelation: The Spirit-Paraclete and Apocalyptic Disclosure in the Gospel of John,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 104–27; Jörg Frey, “God’s Dwelling on Earth: ‘SHEKHINATheology’ in Revelation 21 and in the Gospel of John,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 79–103; Judith M. Lieu, “Text and Authority in John and Apocalyptic,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 235–53. See also, Benjamin E. Reynolds, The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John, WUNT, II/249 (Tübingen, 2008); Andrei A. Orlov, “Primordial Lights: The Logos and Adoil in the Johannine Prologue and 2 Enoch,” in Revealed Wisdom: Studies in Apocalyptic in Honour of Christopher Rowland, ed. by John Ashton, AJEC, 88 (Leiden, 2014), 99–115; Benjamin E. Reynolds, “Apocalyptic Revelation in the Gospel of John: Revealed Cosmology, the Vision of God, and Visionary Showing,” in The Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the Shaping of New Testament Thought, ed. by Benjamin E. Reynolds and Loren T. Stuckenbruck (Minneapolis, MN, 2017), 109–28.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

36     However, I think that Ashton’s description of the Fourth Gospel as an “apocalypse in reverse” is a misleading description, even if the description was primarily intended as a heuristic device. Ashton’s description of the Gospel of John as an apocalypse “in reverse, upside down, inside out” reflects his understanding that an apocalypse must take place in heaven, which overlooks apocalypses that do not (e.g., 4 Ezra; 2 Baruch; see Chapter 5 for further discussion). Instead, I think John’s revelatory narrative of Jesus’s life is closer to the genre of apocalypse than Ashton allowed. In light of modern genre theory and recent work on the Gospel of John’s genre,¹²⁵ I contend, using Alistair Fowler’s terminology, that the best explanation of the Gospel’s similarity to Jewish apocalypses is to categorize John’s Gospel as a gospel in kind and an apocalypse in mode.¹²⁶ In other words, John is an “apocalyptic” gospel; it is a gospel that has been qualified or colored with regard to the form, content, and function of an apocalypse.¹²⁷ In Chapters 2–4, I will provide a needed full-scale comparison of the Gospel of John and the Semeia 14 definition of the genre of apocalypse, particularly in light of its “master-paradigm.”¹²⁸ Our discussion of genre in the section “Genre Theory” above, however, should warn us against attempting to pigeonhole John or check features off a list in order to make this comparison. Leslie Baynes states, “Genre determination is not a science. One cannot necessarily plug an alleged apocalypse mechanically into Collins’ master-paradigm and expect a quick answer regarding its definition . . . . But such an exercise is a good place to start, as long as it is not also where one ends.”¹²⁹ With that warning, we will begin comparing the Gospel of John to the “masterparadigm” of the definition of “apocalypse.”

¹²⁵ Ruth Sheridan, “John’s Gospel and Modern Genre Theory: The Farewell Discourse (John 13— 17) as a Test Case,” ITQ, 75/3 (2010), 287–99; Kasper Bro Larsen, ed., The Gospel of John as Genre Mosaic, SANt, 3 (Göttingen, 2015); Harold W. Attridge, “Genre,” in How John Works: Storytelling in the Fourth Gospel, ed. by Douglas Estes and Ruth Sheridan (Atlanta, GA, 2016), 7–22. ¹²⁶ See Davies, Paul among the Apocalypses?, 32–4, with regard to Pauline literature. Cf. Shively, “Recognizing Penguins,” 279 n. 24, who uses similar terminology in relation to the Gospel of Mark but with a different sense. See Chapter 5. ¹²⁷ See Torsten Löfstedt, “The Ruler of This World,” SEÅ, 74 (2009), 61, who argues that the Gospel has an “apocalyptic framework”; however, he says that the Gospel does not belong to the genre of apocalypse because “it is not fraught with symbols like true apocalypses” and because of John’s thisworldly focus. ¹²⁸ A somewhat similar approach is taken by Timothy Jay Johnson, Now My Eye Sees You: Unveiling an Apocalyptic Job (Sheffield, 2009), with regard to Job. ¹²⁹ Baynes, Heavenly Book Motif, 70.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

2 The Manner of Revelation in Jewish Apocalypses and John The revelatory framing of the Gospel of John may be explained by the Gospel’s similarity with the genre of apocalypse. While John Ashton has made the strongest case for this affinity between John and Jewish apocalyptic tradition,¹ he argues on the basis of “apocalyptic” themes and not in terms of the standard definition of apocalypse. Since modern genre theory contends that genre recognition relies on cognitive prototypes comprised of the three dimensions of form, content, and function,² the Gospel of John’s affinity with Jewish apocalypses should not be rejected or maintained on the basis of a list of “apocalyptic themes” or features. Instead, comparing the Gospel with the Semeia 14 definition of “apocalypse” and its “master-paradigm” provides methodological consistency for understanding the Fourth Gospel as an “apocalyptic” gospel and for observing “markers within the text for identifying John’s understanding of revelation as a specifically apocalyptic phenomenon.”³ In this chapter and in Chapters 3 and 4, I will compare the Gospel of John with the Semeia 14 definition using its underlying “master-paradigm.”⁴ The paradigm consists of thirteen defining elements that describe the form and content of the revelation in apocalypses: the manner of revelation (1–3), the content of revelation (4–10), paraenesis (11), and concluding elements (12–13).⁵ In this chapter, I will address the manner of revelation (1–3), while the content and function will be addressed in Chapters 3 and 4, respectively. There will inevitably be overlap in describing the framework of revelation (form), what is revealed (content), and why it is revealed (function);

¹ John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 2nd edn (Oxford, 2007), 307–29. ² John Frow, Genre, The New Critical Idiom, 2nd edn (London, 2015), 78–84. ³ Catrin H. Williams, “John’s Gospel and Jewish Apocalyptic: Some Recent Trends and Possibilities” (Presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 2014) (emphasis original). ⁴ For a detailed explanation of the definition, the “master-paradigm,” and my reasons for using them, see Chapter 1. For a similar approach with regard to Job, see Timothy Jay Johnson, Now My Eye Sees You: Unveiling an Apocalyptic Job (Sheffield, 2009). ⁵ John J. Collins, “Introduction: Toward the Morphology of a Genre,” Semeia, 14 (1979), 5–12. John among the Apocalypses: Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the “Apocalyptic” Gospel. Benjamin E. Reynolds, Oxford University Press (2020). © Benjamin E. Reynolds. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198784241.001.0001

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

38     however, I will compare each element of the “master-paradigm” with the Gospel of John in order to highlight the Gospel’s shared definitional framework with Jewish apocalypses. In doing so, I will also provide examples of the “master-paradigm” elements in Jewish apocalypses to highlight similarities with the Fourth Gospel. The Jewish apocalypses used in these examples are those listed by John Collins,⁶ and for the sake of methodological clarity, I will not compare the Gospel of John with “apocalyptic literature,” since the criteria for determining what makes a text “apocalyptic” are what is at issue in my argument.⁷ Too often scholars determine a text to be “apocalyptic” because it contains whatever features they deem to be “apocalyptic.” Rarely are all three genre dimensions of form, content, and function, as they are described in the Semeia 14 definition, considered in such determinations. In the comparison that will follow in this chapter and in Chapters 3 and 4, I will intentionally consider all three dimensions. The Semeia 14 definition of “apocalypse,” including Adela Yarbro Collins’s addition, is reproduced here for convenience. An apocalypse is: a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world;⁸ intended to interpret present, earthly circumstances in light of the supernatural world and of the future, and to influence both the understanding and the behavior of the audience by means of divine authority.⁹

“Revelatory Literature with a Narrative Framework” The first phrase of the Semeia 14 definition defines an apocalypse as “a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework.” Since Jewish apocalypses

⁶ John J. Collins, “The Jewish Apocalypses,” Semeia, 14 (1979), 21–49; John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 3rd edn (Grand Rapids, MI, 2016), 5. I will also, from time to time, mention the book of Revelation, since it was one of the apocalypses used to formulate the “master-paradigm.” ⁷ See John J. Collins, “What Is Apocalyptic Literature?,” in The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature, ed. by John J. Collins (Oxford; New York, 2014), 6–8. ⁸ Collins, “Morphology,” 9; Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 5. ⁹ The portion of the definition that addresses function derives from Adela Yarbro Collins, “Introduction: Early Christian Apocalypses,” Semeia, 36 (1986), 7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

   

39

are narratives that are primarily concerned with revelation, it essentially goes without saying that they may be described this way. The Book of the Watchers, Daniel, the Parables of Enoch, 4 Ezra, and the Apocalypse of Abraham all exemplify this defining characteristic. The Book of the Luminaries and the Book of Dreams are not as obviously narratives, but they are presented as narratives told by Enoch to his son Methuselah after his return (1 En. 72:1; 73:1; 74:1; etc.; 83:1–2; 90:39–42). To state that the apocalypses are revelatory literature with a narrative framework is to state the obvious, even if what they reveal and how the revelation is disclosed may differ.¹⁰ No matter how one understands or describes the Gospel of John’s genre, it is clearly a narrative.¹¹ The Gospel narrates an account of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection. Alan Culpepper, Margaret Davies, Mark Stibbe, and most recently Brian Larsen, have highlighted the literary nature of the Fourth Gospel, and their starting point has been the Gospel as a narrative.¹² The question for the Fourth Gospel is not whether it is a narrative, but can it be considered “revelatory literature with a narrative framework” in the manner of Jewish apocalypses? Adela Yarbro Collins has argued, “The Gospel of John is not an apocalypse because it is not that sort of narrative.”¹³ Her contention is that John contains no visionary experience or heavenly journeys. Yet, as discussed in the Introduction, revelation is central to the message of the Fourth Gospel.¹⁴ Previously unknown things are disclosed by supernatural means.¹⁵ Jesus has come from heaven and has revealed heavenly things (John 3:12–13). In his signs, which are “revelatory in the full sense,”¹⁶ Jesus reveals his glory (2:11; cf. 1:14; 12:38–41). He makes the Father known (1:18), and the Father is seen in the person of Jesus (14:9–10). As the light, Jesus enlightens the world (1:9), and as the truth, he authorizes the revelation that comes from ¹⁰ 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. by Frank Moore Cross, Werner E. Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller (Garden City, NY, 1976), 414–52; John J. Collins, “Genre, Ideology and Social Movements in Jewish Apocalypticism,” in Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism (Leiden, 2001), 29–30. ¹¹ Adele Reinhartz, The Word in the World: The Cosmological Tale in the Fourth Gospel, SBLMS, 45 (Atlanta, GA, 1992), 1. ¹² R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia, PA, 1983), 5; Margaret Davies, Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel, JSNTSup, 69 (Sheffield, 1992); Mark W. G. Stibbe, John as Storyteller: Narrative Criticism and the Fourth Gospel, SNTSMS, 73 (Cambridge, 1992), 1–2; Brian Larsen, Archetypes and the Fourth Gospel: Literature and Theology in Conversation, T&T Clark Biblical Studies (London, 2018), 38–66. See also, Douglas Estes and Ruth Sheridan, eds., How John Works: Storytelling in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta, GA, 2016). ¹³ Adela Yarbro Collins, “Epilogue,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 300–1. ¹⁴ Rudolf Bultmann, “Die Bedeutung der neuerschlossenen mandäischen und manichäischen Quellen für das Verständnis des Johannesevangeliums,” ZNW, 24 (1925), 100–46. ¹⁵ See OED, s.v. “revelation.” ¹⁶ Ashton, Understanding, 496.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

40     his Father in heaven (14:6). John Ashton boldly states: “Every major motif in the Gospel is directly linked to the concept of revelation.”¹⁷ Thus, like Jewish apocalypses, the Gospel of John is revelatory literature with a narrative framework.

The Medium of Revelation (1) in Jewish Apocalypses As revelatory literature, apocalypses disclose mediated revelation. The mediation of revelation to a human recipient by an otherworldly mediator is what comprises the narrative framework of apocalypses.¹⁸ The “master-paradigm” of the Semeia 14 definition, however, describes this framework or form of revelation in terms of three elements: the medium by which the revelation is communicated (1), the otherworldly being or communicator of the revelation (2), and the human recipient or the one receiving the revelation (3).¹⁹ Ashton criticized the Semeia 14 definition for its silence on the medium of revelation in apocalypses (1);²⁰ however, the “master-paradigm” underlying the definition specifies four ways in which revelation may be mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient in apocalypses: visual revelation (1.1), auditory revelation (1.2), otherworldly journeys (1.3), and revelation through writing (1.4). These media are not mutually exclusive since visionary revelation and its auditory interpretation are often found in the context of otherworldly journeys, which may or may not include heavenly books.

Visual Revelation (1.1) Visual revelation refers to revelation that is seen by the human recipient. Along with auditory (1.2) revelation, visual revelation is the most common medium in Jewish apocalypses, and it can take one of two forms, either visions

¹⁷ Ashton, Understanding, 491–2 (emphasis original). See also Gail R. O’Day, Revelation in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Mode and Theological Claim (Philadelphia, PA, 1986), 113; Saeed HamidKhani, Revelation and Concealment of Christ: Theological Inquiry into the Elusive Language of the Fourth Gospel, WUNT, II/120 (Tübingen, 2000), 344–5; Philippe van den Heede, Der Exeget Gottes. Eine Studie zur johanneischen Offenbarungstheologie, HBibSt, 88 (Freiburg, 2017), 52; and the discussion in the Introduction. ¹⁸ Collins, “Morphology,” 9. ¹⁹ Collins, “Morphology,” 6. The numbering here and throughout Chapters 3 and 4 follows the numbering of the “master-paradigm.” ²⁰ Ashton, Understanding, 310. See also, Christopher Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (London, 1982), 52–8, 70–1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

   

41

(1.1.1) or epiphanies (1.1.2). In John Collins’s table of Jewish apocalypses, every Jewish apocalypse apart from the “borderline” case of Jubilees is listed as containing visions (1.1.1); on the other hand, Daniel is the only Jewish apocalypse considered to include an epiphany.²¹ Visions (1.1.1) in Jewish apocalypses take various forms. Some recipients never leave earth and experience their visions through dreams or trance-like experiences. Daniel’s vision of four beasts and the “one like a son of man” occurs in a “dream and visions of his head as he lay on his bed” (Dan. 7:1; also a “vision of the night,” Dan. 7:2). In Dan. 8:1–14, Daniel sees another vision, which appears to take place while he is awake (cf. 10:5–14). In 2 Baruch 53, Baruch sees a vision from which he awakes, which implies that it was a dream (2 Bar. 53:12). Ezra experiences seven visions. Some are dreams (4 Ezra 3:1; 11:1; 13:1; cf. Dan. 7:1, 28), and others occur while he is awake (4 Ezra 9:38, “I lifted up my eyes”; 14:1–2). One of Ezra’s visions can be called a “revelatory dialogue” (e.g., 4 Ezra 6:35–6; 9:27–8).²² In the Book of Dreams, Enoch has two dreams (1 En. 83:1; 85:1–2), the second of which he describes as a “vision on my bed” (1 En. 85:3). In Jewish apocalypses that narrate heavenly ascents, on the other hand, visions (1.1.1) encompass what is visibly revealed to human recipients, often on otherworldly journeys (1.3). In the Book of the Watchers, Enoch is taken up by the “winds of his vision” and enters heaven (1 En. 14:8–25), where he sees angels, God’s throne, and the contents of heaven.²³ Later, on Enoch’s earthly tour, he is “shown” or “sees,” which implies the visionary nature of what is revealed to him (21:1–2; 21:7; 22:1; 23:1–2; 24:2; 26:1; 28:1; 29:1–2; 30:1; 31:1, 2; 32:1, 3; 33:1; 34:1; 35:1; 36:1, 2).²⁴ There is nothing necessarily spectacular about Enoch’s seeing of the vision itself, apart from Enoch’s heavenly and earthy travels and his angelic mediatorial guides. Similarly, in the Parables of Enoch, Enoch is snatched up to heaven by a whirlwind (1 En. 39:3),²⁵ and he sees the throne room of the Lord of Spirits, the Chosen One, and the angels (39:3–40:10) and continues to see vision after vision (“And I saw,” 39:4, 6, 7; 40:1; 41:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7; 43:1; 44:1; 46:1; etc.). Enoch’s vision, in 2 Enoch, and Baruch’s, in 3 Baruch, consist of what they see on their tours of ²¹ Collins, “Jewish Apocalypses,” 28. See Appendix A. ²² Michael E. Stone, Ancient Judaism: New Visions and Views (Grand Rapids, MI, 2011), 97. ²³ Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York, 1993), 14–20. ²⁴ Unless otherwise noted, all translations of 1 Enoch are from George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation (Minneapolis, MN, 2012). ²⁵ George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 37–82, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN, 2012).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

42     the heavens (2 En. 3–22; 3 Bar. 2–17). The Testament of Levi, similarly, depicts Levi entering heaven and seeing three levels of heaven and their contents (T. Levi 2:6–5:7). Abraham’s vision in the Apocalypse of Abraham includes being taken up to heaven by the angel Yahoel and seeing the contents of the heavens (Apoc. Ab. 17–19) and of the earth (Apoc. Ab. 20–9). A feature of the narrative framework in Jewish apocalypses that sometimes occurs prior to visual revelation is the opening of heaven. The open heaven commences the revelation and indicates that what is seen is “otherworldly.”²⁶ The opening of heaven makes possible a human recipient’s vision of heavenly mysteries, whether the seer ascends to heaven or remains on earth. Ezekiel’s visionary experience, which begins with the opening of heaven, is generally understood as the basis of the motif of heaven opening in Jewish apocalypses (Ezek. 1:1; cf. Isa. 63:19 LXX).²⁷ In the Apocalypse of Abraham, Abraham obeys God’s command to look at the expanses under the firmament (Apoc. Ab. 19:1–3); then heaven opens, allowing Abraham to see what was being revealed (19:4). In the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, heaven opens and Zephaniah can see the sea and the wicked sinking to Hades after the second trumpet is blown (Apoc. Zeph. 10:2–11:6). In the Testament of Levi, Levi is able to enter heaven and to see what is there only after heaven opens (T. Levi 2:6; cf. 5:1). In the Testament of Abraham, Isaac has a vision of heaven opening and a man surrounded in light coming down from heaven (T. Ab. A 7:3). In the book of Revelation, John the seer enters heaven through a door that opens in heaven (Rev. 4:1), and according to Rev. 19:11, heaven opens allowing him to see the vision of a rider on a white horse. These examples of the opening of heaven show that this motif typically introduces visual revelation (cf. 2 Bar. 22:1), which makes it a distinctive feature of the medium of revelation in Jewish apocalypses. While visions (1.1.1) are the more common form of visual revelation (1.1) in apocalypses, epiphanies (1.1.2) are another. According to the “masterparadigm,” epiphanies contain a description of the “apparition of the mediator.”²⁸ Daniel 7–12 is the only Jewish apocalypse listed by Collins as

²⁶ Fritzleo Lentzen-Deis, “Das Motiv der ‘Himmelsöffnung’ in verschiedenen Gattungen der Umweltliteratur des Neuen Testaments,” Bib, 50 (1969), 301–27. Non-Jewish texts with the opening of heaven motif include the Apocryphon of John, the Apocalypse of Peter, Epistula Apostolorum, Pistis Sophia, etc. See Cornelis van Unnik, “Die ‘geöffneten Himmel’ in der Offenbarungsvision des Apokryphons des Johannes,” in Apophoreta: Festschrift für Ernst Haenchen zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag am 10. Dezember 1964, ed. by W. Eltester and F. H. Ketller (Berlin, 1964), 269–80. ²⁷ See Lentzen-Deis, “Motiv der ‘Himmelsöffnung’,” 309; Rowland, Open Heaven, 78, 199. ²⁸ Collins, “Morphology,” 6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

   

43

containing an epiphany.²⁹ Following Daniel’s vision in 8:1–14, the angel Gabriel appears to Daniel and his appearance is briefly described before he interprets Daniel’s vision (8:15–17). Later, Daniel has a vision of a man appearing before him, who is likely to be Gabriel again (cf. 8:16; 9:21).³⁰ An extensive physical description of this figure is given, as well as Daniel’s response (10:2–17). Following this epiphanic appearance, the angel proceeds to disclose revelatory content to Daniel (10:18–12:4). The revelation that follows the angel’s appearance is what Collins refers to as auditory revelation (1.2) that “typically occurs after an epiphany.” Epiphanies are rare in Jewish apocalypses; visions are more common. The evidence from these examples indicates that visual revelation in Jewish apocalypses takes place through dreams, waking visions, and tours of heaven and earth, sometimes after heaven has opened. There is often nothing spectacular about the act of seeing itself. The human recipient merely sees what is shown or what is made visible. The recipient’s position in relation to the content of what is being shown, whether heaven opens or the recipient has a vision or dream, is what makes possible the visual revelation of otherworldly places and beings.

Auditory Revelation (1.2) Auditory revelation (1.2) is the second medium of revelation in apocalypses. Collins describes auditory revelation as that which “usually clarifies the visual,” and it takes two forms: “(1.2.1) discourse, uninterrupted speech by the mediator, or (1.2.2) dialogue, where there is conversation between the mediator and recipient, often in the form of question and answer.”³¹ Collins categorizes all Jewish apocalypses except for the Animal Apocalypse as containing either discourse or dialogue. Only Daniel and 2 Enoch are listed as containing both.³² Since auditory revelation commonly explains what the recipient has seen, the two media of revelation are closely related.³³ In the Hebrew Bible, prophetic oracles can sometimes be called visions (e.g., Isa. 1:1; Ezek. 1:1; Amos ²⁹ Collins, “Jewish Apocalypses,” 28. In the early Christian and gnostic apocalypses, epiphanies occur more frequently. See Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Early Christian Apocalypses,” Semeia, 14 (1979), 104–5; Francis T. Fallon, “The Gnostic Apocalypses,” Semeia, 14 (1979), 148. ³⁰ John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN, 1993), 373. ³¹ Collins, “Morphology,” 6 (emphasis original). ³² Collins, “Jewish Apocalypses,” 28. ³³ Susan Niditch, “The Visionary,” in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms, ed. by George W. E. Nickelsburg and John J. Collins, SCS, 12 (Chico, CA, 1980), 153–79.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

44     1:1; Obad. 1; Mic. 1:1; Nah. 1:1; Zech. 1:7–8). In Dan. 10:5–6, discourse follows the epiphany of Gabriel. Once Daniel has recovered himself (Dan. 10:10–11), Gabriel proceeds into an extended, uninterrupted discourse (Dan. 10:19–12:4). The angel shows Daniel “the truth” (11:2a, ‫; ְו ַעָּתה ֱא ֶמת ַאִּג יד ָלְך‬ καὶ νῦν ἦλθον τὴν ἀλήθειαν ὑποδεῖξαί σοι [LXX]³⁴), which derives from the “book of truth” (10:21) and describes kingdoms, wars, and the resurrection of the dead.³⁵ Discourse is also evident in 2 Enoch when Enoch listens to Vrevoil speak for thirty days and thirty nights without stopping (2 En. 23:1–3). Similarly, God gives a long discourse about creation and humanity’s sin (2 En. 24:2–36:3). In the Book of the Luminaries, Enoch recounts what he was shown by Uriel, but in 1 En. 80:1–8, Uriel gives an uninterrupted discourse that is not sparked by a question. While discourse is evident in these Jewish apocalypses, auditory revelation through dialogue (1.2.2) is more common. Dialogue often takes place because inquisitive seers ask their angelic mediators for explanations about their visions. For example, at the end of Remiel’s interpretation of Baruch’s vision (2 Bar. 55:4–74:4), Baruch asks questions and Remiel answers them (75:1–8; 76:1–5). After his vision of the night, Daniel asks an angel about the vision (Dan. 7:16). Likewise, the Parables of Enoch recounts the angel’s response to Enoch’s question about the four figures around the Lord of Spirits (1 En. 40:2–10). The dialogue that takes place between Abraham and Yahoel includes questions and answers and also commands to Abraham (Apoc. Ab. 11:4–17:7; cf. 2 Bar. 55–76). One of the most well-known dialogues in Jewish apocalypses takes place in 4 Ezra between Ezra and Uriel. Ezra’s first three “visions” have the form of a dialogue (4 Ezra 3:28–5:20; 5:21–6:34; 6:35–9:25). In the fourth, fifth, and sixth visions, Ezra and Uriel’s dialogue involves Ezra’s questions about his visions and Uriel’s explanations (4 Ezra 10:37–40; 12:7–10; 13:14–15, 21; 13:51–3). There are a few notable features of Ezra’s dialogues with Uriel. First, Ezra is bold in his questions and complaints.³⁶ He pushes back against the otherworldly mediator unlike other human recipients of revelation. For example, when Ezra is told that he cannot understand the Lord’s ways, he says, “Why then was I born? Or why did not my mother’s womb become my grave?” (4 Ezra 5:35). Second, Ezra’s dialogues are similar to the wisdom dialogues in Job (cf. Job 3:11; 10:18–19).³⁷ ³⁴ Dan 11:2a Θ: καὶ νῦν ἀλήθειαν ἀναγγελῶ σοι. ³⁵ Collins, Daniel, 376. ³⁶ Karina Martin Hogan, Theologies in Conflict in 4 Ezra: Wisdom, Debate, and Apocalyptic Solution, JSJSup, 130 (Leiden, 2008), 103–11. ³⁷ Michael A. Knibb, “Apocalyptic and Wisdom in 4 Ezra,” in Essays on the Book of Enoch and Other Early Jewish Texts and Traditions, SVTP, 22 (Leiden, 2009), 271–88.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

   

45

In 4 Ezra 4:1–12, Uriel challenges Ezra: And [Uriel] said to me [Ezra], “Go weigh for me the weight of fire, or measure for me a measure of wind, or call back for me the day that is past.” I answered and said, “Who of those that have been born can do this, that you ask me concerning these things?” And he said to me, “If I had asked you, ‘How many dwellings are in the heart of the sea, or how many springs are at the source of the deep, or how many ways are above the firmament, or which are the exits of hell, or which are the entrances of paradise?’ perhaps you would have said to me, ‘I never went down into the deep, nor as yet did I descend into hell, nor did I ever ascend into heaven, nor did I enter paradise.’ But now I have asked you only about fire and wind and the day, things through which you have passed and without which you cannot exist, and you have given me no answer about them!” And he said to me, “You cannot understand the things with which you have grown up; how then can your vessel comprehend the way of the Most High? For the way of the Most High is created immeasurable.” (4 Ezra 4:5–11a; see also 5:36–40; cf. Job 37:14–39:30)³⁸

Although Ezra expects to understand the Most High’s ways (4 Ezra 4:2–3, 12), Uriel points out that Ezra cannot even grasp the things of earth. The use of examples from nature draws attention to Ezra’s inability to fully comprehend God without heavenly revelation (4:22–5; 6:31–55).³⁹ In all of these examples drawn from Jewish apocalypses, we see that auditory revelation occurs both in uninterrupted discourse by the mediator and in dialogue between recipient and mediator. In addition, auditory revelation is often combined with visual revelation when the mediator explains what is seen.

Otherworldly Journeys (1.3) and Writing (1.4) The medium of revelation (1) in apocalypses also includes otherworldly journeys (1.3), which are the primary means of revelation in ascent apocalypses. Enoch’s ascents to heaven in the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 14:8), the Parables of Enoch (1 En. 39:3; 52:1), the Book of the Luminaries (cf. 1 En. 81:5), and 2 Enoch (2 En. 3:1) make possible visual revelation of the contents ³⁸ Unless otherwise noted, all translations of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch are from Michael E. Stone and Matthias Henze, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: Translations, Introductions, and Notes (Minneapolis, MN, 2014). ³⁹ Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN, 1990), 84–5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

46     of heaven. The same is true of the tours that Baruch (3 Bar. 2:1), Levi (T. Levi 2–5), Abraham (Apoc. Ab. 15:4), and others receive as they are led by otherworldly mediators. The fourth medium of revelation is revelation through writing (1.4). The writing is often found in heavenly books or on heavenly tablets that are read by the human recipient.⁴⁰ Enoch in the Apocalypse of Weeks speaks of reading the heavenly tablets (1 En. 93:2), and in the Book of the Luminaries, Uriel tells Enoch to read the heavenly tablets (1 En. 81:1–2). The angelic mediator shows Daniel what is in the book of truth (Dan. 10:21). Another significant example of revelation through heavenly books is found in Jubilees, where the angel of the presence recounts to Moses the history of creation and God’s people from the heavenly tablets (Jub. 1:27–8). These four media of revelation—visual, auditory, otherworldly journey, and writing—are found throughout Jewish apocalypses. No apocalypse has all four of these media and their sub-elements, although Daniel comes close; however, each Jewish apocalypse has some form of visual or auditory revelation through which the revelation is mediated. Having examined the medium of revelation as defined by the Semeia 14 “master-paradigm” and as exemplified in Jewish apocalypses, I will examine the medium of revelation in the Gospel of John in the next section.

The Medium of Revelation in John’s Gospel Visual Revelation (1.1) in John Like Jewish apocalypses, revelation in John is primarily mediated through visual and auditory revelation, through the Gospel’s emphasis on Jesus’s signs and words.⁴¹ Noticeably, the Gospel does not contain visions (1.1.1) like the dreams, waking visions, and seeing that take place on otherworldly journeys in Jewish apocalypses; however, the Gospel places a significant emphasis on revelation that can be seen.⁴² Visual revelation (1.1) as a medium of revelation ⁴⁰ See Leslie Baynes, The Heavenly Book Motif in Judeo-Christian Apocalypses, 200 –200 , JSJSup, 152 (Leiden, 2012), 109–24; see also Judith M. Lieu, “Text and Authority in John and Apocalyptic,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 243–4. ⁴¹ See Lieu, “Text and Authority,” 249. ⁴² Jey J. Kanagaraj, “Mysticism” in the Gospel of John: An Inquiry into its Background, JSNTSup, 158 (Sheffield, 1998), 214–19; Christopher Rowland and Christopher R. A. Morray-Jones, The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament, CRINT, 12 (Leiden, 2009). Cf. April D. DeConick,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

   

47

(1) is arguably present in the Fourth Gospel, yet, as we will see in this section, not with the same sort of visions and epiphanies as in Jewish apocalypses. The opening of heaven, which introduces Jesus’s signs and words, is one of the most striking examples of apocalyptic visual revelation in the Gospel of John. Jesus declares to Nathanael, “You will see greater things than these. You will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man” (John 1:50–1). While this statement is often overlooked in Johannine scholarship,⁴³ the opening of heaven in John 1:51 frames the Gospel as visual revelation and makes heavenly revelation possible.⁴⁴ Part of Jesus’s statement is a citation from Jacob’s dream of a ladder to heaven in Gen. 28:12 (“the angels of God were ascending and descending on it”), but the words “you will see” and “opened” (ὄψεσθε τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνεῳγνότα, John 1:51) are not part of the Genesis text. These words, rather, reflect John’s affinity with Jewish apocalypses that use the motif of “heaven opened” as an introduction to visual revelation.⁴⁵ The idea that the mediator will disclose “greater things” is also noticeable in Jewish apocalypses. In 3 Bar. 1:6, the angelic mediator tells Baruch, “I will show you other mysteries greater than these” (ὑποδείξω σοι ἄλλα μυστήρια τούτων μείζονα). The wording is similar to Jesus’s statement, “You will see greater things than these” (μείζω τούτων ὄψῃ, John 1:50). “Greater things” are also the subject of revelation in 4 Ezra. Ezra’s first and second visions end with Uriel telling Ezra that “greater things” will be revealed to him (4 Ezra 5:13; 6:31). In the second instance, Uriel tells Ezra, “I will again declare to you greater things than these” (4 Ezra 6:31). Uriel continues, “Therefore [the Mighty One] sent me to show you all these things, and to say to you: ‘Believe and do not be afraid!’” (6:33). Like the Johannine Jesus, Uriel was sent (4 Ezra 4:1), he promises revelation of greater things, and he commands Ezra to believe. The opening of heaven and the promise of seeing greater things are two themes closely related to the medium of visual revelation in

Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the Gospels of John and Thomas and Other Ancient Christian Literature, JSNTSup, 157 (Sheffield, 2001), 68–85, who argues that the Gospel polemicizes against sight and visions. ⁴³ Gary T. Manning, Echoes of a Prophet: The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John and in Literature of the Second Temple Period, JSNTSup, 270 (London, 2004), 150–60. ⁴⁴ Siegfried Schulz, Untersuchungen zur Menschensohn-Christologie im Johannesevangelium Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Methodengeschichte der Auslegung des 4. Evangeliums (Göttingen, 1957), 99–103; Michèle Morgen, “La Promesse de Jésus à Nathanaël (Jn 1,51) éclairée par la haggadah de Jacob-Israël,” RSR, 67 (1993), 3–21. ⁴⁵ Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary, trans. by John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI, 1997), 93; van den Heede, Der Exeget Gottes, 211–13.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

48     Jewish apocalypses and John. The placement of the opening of heaven at the beginning of the Gospel reveals the apocalyptic nature of the revelation to be disclosed.⁴⁶ Jesus’s signs are revelatory and reflect revelation that is seen. In Jesus’s first sign, which directly follows the opening of heaven, Jesus changes water into wine, and the evangelist declares that in this sign Jesus “revealed his glory” (ἐφανέρωσεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, John 2:11). Jesus’s disciples saw the sign, and his glory was revealed. The emphasis on visual revelation is also evident in Jesus’s healing of the man born blind. After the man receives his sight, Jesus discloses his identity as the Son of Man when he tells the man born blind, “you have seen him” (ἑώρακας αὐτὸν, 9:37). After Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead, many of the Ἰουδαῖοι⁴⁷ believed in Jesus once they saw what he had done (11:45, θεασάμενοι ἃ ἐποίησεν ἐπίστευσαν). At the summation of Jesus’s public work and speech, the Gospel declares that Jesus did many signs before the people but not all believed (12:37). The Isaiah texts that are cited in the following verses draw attention to the visual revelation of Jesus’s signs (Isa. 53:1 in John 12:38; Isa. 6:10 in John 12:39). In the first citation and the only use of the verb ἀποκαλύπτω in the Gospel of John, John 12:38 reads, “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (κύριε, τίς ἐπίστευσεν τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν; καὶ ὁ βραχίων κυρίου τίνι ἀπεκαλύφθη;). The implication is that Jesus’s signs reveal the arm of the Lord, highlighting the visionary revelation of God’s glory in Jesus (John 12:41).⁴⁸ The implicit claim that seeing Jesus’s signs is equivalent to seeing the arm of the Lord is little different from the explicit claim in John 14:8–9 when Jesus says that if the disciples have seen him, they have seen the Father. To see Jesus is to see the Father (12:45).⁴⁹ While I will draw further attention to Jesus as the vision of God in Chapter 3 on the content of revelation, the point here is that these instances are examples of visual revelation in John. Further evidence of visual revelation in the Fourth Gospel may be seen in its emphasis on sight (βλέπω, θεάομαι, ὁράω) in which the identity of Jesus is ⁴⁶ Cf. Hugo Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel: Interpreted in its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World (Uppsala, 1929), 36–8. ⁴⁷ Considering the debates concerning translation of the word Ἰουδαῖοι, I retain the Greek term throughout this book. See the discussion in Timothy Michael Law and Charles Halton, eds., Jew and Judean: A MARGINALIA Forum on Politics and Historiography in the Translation of Ancient Texts (Los Angeles, 2014), http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/jew-judean-forum/, accessed April 6, 2020. ⁴⁸ Catrin H. Williams, “Johannine Christology and Prophetic Traditions: The Case of Isaiah,” in Reading the Gospel of John’s Christology as Jewish Messianism: Royal, Prophetic, and Divine Messiahs, ed. by Benjamin E. Reynolds and Gabriele Boccaccini, AJEC, 106 (Leiden, 2018), 107–8. ⁴⁹ 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 Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar, ed. by Gilbert Van Belle, J. G. van der Watt, and P. Maritz, BETL, 184 (Leuven, 2005), 117–33.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

   

49

made known.⁵⁰ The Gospel notes that the only one who has seen the Father is Jesus, the one who has come from the Father and reveals the Father (1:18; 5:37; 6:46). The glory of Jesus the Word is seen: “we have seen his glory” (ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, 1:14), which echoes Moses’s vision of the glory of God (Exod. 33:18–20) and the descent of the cloud on the tabernacle (Exod. 40:34–5). In John 1:29–34, John the Baptist testifies that he has seen the spirit descend on Jesus (ἑώρακα, John 1:33–43). His experience may be described as visual revelation of a cosmologically transcendent reality. Sight is also noticeably significant in Jesus’s response to Andrew and the unnamed disciple’s question: “where do you remain?” Jesus responds with the words “come and see” (ἔρχεσθε καὶ ὄψεσθε, 1:39; cf. 1:46), which may suggest a deeper significance concerning what may be revealed.⁵¹ Soon after, Philip makes a similar statement when Nathanael questions whether anything good can come from Nazareth (“come and see,” ἔρχου καὶ ἴδε, 1:46). Once Nathanael meets Jesus, Jesus speaks of seeing the heavens open (1:51). In the Gospel of John, as with Jewish apocalypses, epiphanies (1.2) are not typical. We do not necessarily find epiphanies of the mediator such as the angelic appearance to Daniel. The three closest instances to an epiphany in the Fourth Gospel include Jesus’s walking on water and his appearances to the disciples following the resurrection, when they are behind locked doors (John 6:16–21; 20:19–23, 26–9). Following the feeding of the 5,000, the disciples are rowing in a strong wind and rough water, when they see Jesus walking on the sea (θεωροῦσιν τὸν Ἰησοῦν περιπατοῦντα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης, 6:19). While there are recognizable theophany-like characteristics to Jesus’s walking on sea (Job 9:8 LXX; Ps. 76:17–20 [77:16–19] LXX; Hab. 3:15),⁵² there are some subtle differences from epiphanies as described by the “masterparadigm.” Jesus’s physical appearance is not mentioned apart from the disciples seeing him, and the only auditory revelation Jesus gives is his statement “I am, do not fear” (ἐγώ εἰμι· μὴ φοβεῖσθε, John 6:20). In Jesus’s post-resurrection appearances to his disciples, Jesus appears and gives auditory revelation, saying: “Peace to you” (20:19, 21, 26). In his first appearance,

⁵⁰ See Arthur J. Dewey, “The Eyewitnesses of History: Visionary Consciousness in the Fourth Gospel,” in Jesus in Johannine Tradition, ed. by Robert T. Fortna and Tom Thatcher (Louisville, 2001), 59–70. ⁵¹ Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel according to Saint John, BNTC (London; New York, 2005), 117; cf. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd edn (Philadelphia, PA, 1978), 181. ⁵² Catrin H. Williams, I Am He: The Interpretation of ‘Anî Hû‘ in Jewish and Early Christian Literature, WUNT, II/113 (Tübingen, 2000), 214–28; Johannes Beutler, A Commentary on the Gospel of John, trans. by Michael Tait (Grand Rapids, MI, 2017), 176–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

50     Jesus tells the disciples that he is sending them as the Father has sent him, and after breathing on them, he tells them to receive the Spirit and that they will be able to forgive sins (20:22–3). On his second post-resurrection appearance, following Thomas’s exclamation “My Lord and my God,” Jesus says, “Blessed are the ones not seeing and yet believing” (20:29). These three appearances may arguably fit the general pattern of an epiphany (cf. John 20:14–17; 21:4–7⁵³), but they lack a physical description of the mediator and are not followed by extensive auditory revelation (cf. Dan. 10:2–17; 10:18–12:4). While epiphanies are not as clearly evident in the Gospel of John, visual revelation similar to visions (1.1.1) is. The Gospel’s strongest claim to visionary revelation as defined by the “master-paradigm” is the opening of heaven (John 1:51). As in Jewish apocalypses, the heavens open and make visual revelation possible and “greater things” seen. Jesus reveals his glory, his signs are seen, and he makes the Father known through these visible revelations of what he does.⁵⁴ This sight is revelatory vision that is like and unlike visions (1.1) in Jewish apocalypses. Granted, this visual revelation does not take place in dreams, waking visions, or guided tours;⁵⁵ however, the opening of heaven and the visual emphasis in John’s Gospel cannot be passed over lightly, even though as far as the Gospel is concerned, seeing is not everything (John 4:48; 20:29).⁵⁶

Auditory Revelation (1.2) in John Since believing in Jesus without seeing is considered a blessing (John 20:29), auditory revelation is just as important as visual revelation, if not more so, in the Gospel of John.⁵⁷ In Jewish apocalypses, auditory revelation (1.2) takes the form of discourses (1.2.1, “uninterrupted speech of the mediator”) and dialogue (1.2.2, conversation between mediator and recipient), and there is evidence of both in the Gospel of John. The Johannine Jesus converses in ⁵³ On these, see Kasper Bro Larsen, Recognizing the Stranger: Recognition Scenes in the Gospel of John, BIS, 93 (Leiden, 2008), 192–208. ⁵⁴ See Marianne Meye Thompson, “Jesus: ‘The One Who Sees God’,” in Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity, ed. by David B. Capes, April D. DeConick, and Helen K. Bond (Waco, TX, 2007), 215–26. ⁵⁵ Ashton, Understanding, 310; Yarbro Collins, “Epilogue,” 300–7. ⁵⁶ Craig R. Koester, “Hearing, Seeing, and Believing in the Gospel of John,” Bib, 70/3 (1989), 327–48. ⁵⁷ Thompson, “Jesus: ‘The One Who Sees God’,” 217–21, argues for the primacy of seeing in John; Jörg Frey, The Glory of the Crucified One: Christology and Theology in the Gospel of John, trans. by Wayne Coppins and Christoph Heilig, BMSEC (Waco, TX, 2018), contends that the seeing of Jesus takes place through the Gospel narrative.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

   

51

dialogues, and his dialogues often transition into uninterrupted discourses⁵⁸ (i.e., monologues).⁵⁹ Jesus’s uninterrupted discourses typically clarify the visible revelation of his signs in a manner similar to the way auditory revelation clarifies the visual in Jewish apocalypses. In John 5, we see an example of this movement from dialogue to discourse. Following Jesus’s healing of the lame man on the Sabbath (John 5:1–15), Jesus has a brief dialogical interchange with the Ἰουδαῖοι (5:16–18) before he answers (ἀπεκρίνατο) them in a lengthy three-part discourse (5:19–47).⁶⁰ At the beginning of this discourse, Jesus reveals his close relationship with the Father and declares that the actions he does are those that were shown to him by the Father (5:19–23). While numerous scholars have identified a parable of a father teaching his son or an example of apprenticeship in the background,⁶¹ the sort of visionary showing that Jesus speaks about fits well within the context of Jewish apocalyptic tradition. Even the vocabulary (δείκνυμι, 5:20) that Jesus uses evidences similarity with the disclosing of heavenly mysteries in Jewish apocalypses (e.g., 1 En. 1:2; 14:4; T. Levi 3:1; 3 Bar. 2:2). As the mediator, Jesus is shown what he is to do and say before his descent and revelation to human recipients.⁶² In the rest of Jesus’s discourse in John 5, he reveals that like Daniel’s son of man God has given him the authority to judge (John 5:27; cf. Dan. 7:13; 1 En. 69:27), that the dead will be resurrected (John 5:28–9; Dan. 12:2), that he does not testify to himself (John 5:30–40), and that the Torah and Moses testify about him (5:46; cf. 5:39–40). The farewell discourse also begins with dialogue (John 13–14) before transitioning to a largely uninterrupted discourse (15:1–16:28; cf. 16:17–18).⁶³ While these chapters have been likened to testamentary literature in which a figure gives a last will and testament,⁶⁴ Jesus reveals through the imagery of the

⁵⁸ The Semeia 14 definition uses the term “discourse” to speak of monologues, while Johannine scholarship typically uses the term to refer to narrative sections of the Gospel. ⁵⁹ C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1953), 303; David E. Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, LEC, 8 (Philadelphia, PA, 1987), 51–2. ⁶⁰ Dorothy A. Lee, The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel: The Interplay of Form and Meaning, JSNTSup, 95 (Sheffield, 1994), 100–4. ⁶¹ C. H. Dodd, More New Testament Studies (Grand Rapids, MI, 1968), 30–40; Hartwig Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, HNT, 6 (Tübingen, 2005), 311; Ernst Haenchen, John: A Commentary on the Gospel of John, trans. by Robert Walter Funk, Hermeneia, 2 vols (Philadelphia, PA, 1984), 250. ⁶² See Benjamin E. Reynolds, “Apocalyptic Revelation in the Gospel of John: Revealed Cosmology, the Vision of God, and Visionary Showing,” in Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the Shaping of New Testament Thought, ed. by Benjamin E. Reynolds and Loren T. Stuckenbruck (Minneapolis, MN, 2017), 109–28. ⁶³ Dodd, Interpretation, 403–16; Johnson Thomaskutty, Dialogue in the Book of Signs: A Polyvalent Analysis of John 1:19–12:50, BIS, 136 (Leiden, 2015), 482. ⁶⁴ George L. Parsenios, Departure and Consolation: The Johannine Farewell Discourses in Light of Greco-Roman Literature, NovTSup, 117 (Leiden, 2005).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

52     vine the interrelatedness between Jesus, the Father, and believers (15:1–25). He speaks about the coming of the Paraclete, who like himself will be sent by the Father (15:26), of coming conflict (15:18–21; 16:1–4), and of his return to his Father and coming glorification (16:5–16:28). Like a mediator speaking of heavenly things unimaginable to a human recipient, Jesus says that he speaks to his disciples now in παροιμίαις (“riddles,” 16:25).⁶⁵ The heavenly things do not presently make sense, but in the future, when the hour comes, they will be understood (16:12; 16:25–7; 16:29).⁶⁶ Thus, Jesus engages in auditory revelation in the form of discourse throughout the Gospel, and these discourses are usually connected to the visual revelation of Jesus’s actions. Auditory revelation in Jewish apocalypses takes place through both discourse (1.2.1) and dialogue (1.2.2), with dialogue between mediator and recipient being the most common. In John, although dialogue can at times appear as a pretense for Jesus to begin another discourse, there are instances of standalone dialogues in which the question and answer format that is absent from the discourses forms the primary structure of the dialogues. The prevalence of dialogue throughout the Gospel has led Johnson Thomaskutty to describe the entire book of signs (John 1:19–12:50) as a form of dialogue with revelatory content.⁶⁷ The revelatory nature is evident in the conversations that Jesus the mediator, who has been sent from the Father, has with human recipients. In his dialogue with Pilate (John 18:33–8; 19:8–11), almost every word Pilate speaks is a question: “You are the king of the Ἰουδαῖοι?” (18:33), “What is truth?” (John 18:38), “Where are you from?” (19:9). In Jesus’s answers to Pilate’s questions, Jesus reveals that his kingdom is not of this world (18:36), testifies to “the truth” (18:37, τῇ ἀληθείᾳ), and declares that Pilate’s authority has been given from above (19:11). “Truth” that Jesus testifies to can, as in Jewish apocalypses, refer to the mediated revelation of heavenly mysteries (1 En. 13:10; 14:10; 15:1; Dan. 10:21; 11:2).⁶⁸ The apocalyptic connotations of this auditory revelation are heightened because Jesus explains that his coming into the world allows him to make the truth known. This revelation of “truth,” as Ignace de La Potterie argued, suggests that John’s understanding of truth derives from Jewish apocalyptic tradition.⁶⁹ ⁶⁵ On riddles, see Tom Thatcher, The Riddles of Jesus in John: A Study in Tradition and Folklore, SBLMS, 53 (Atlanta, GA, 2000); Ashton, Understanding, 318–24. ⁶⁶ Ashton, Understanding, 322–3. ⁶⁷ Thomaskutty, Dialogue in the Book of Signs, esp. 453–6. ⁶⁸ George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN, 2001), 298. ⁶⁹ Ignace deLa Potterie, “The Truth in Saint John,” in The Interpretation of John, ed. by John Ashton, IRT, 9 (London, 1986), 53–66; also Severino Pancaro, The Law in the Fourth Gospel: The Torah and the Gospel, Moses and Jesus, Judaism and Christianity according to John, NovTSup, 42 (Leiden, 1975), 205.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

   

53

Jesus’s dialogue with the Samaritan woman has been called a “highly wrought dramatic dialogue” (John 4:1–26).⁷⁰ As in numerous Jewish apocalypses, the human recipient of revelation asks multiple questions. The woman responds to Jesus’s request by asking how it is that a Ἰουδαῖος would ask a Samaritan for a drink (4:9). Jesus responds by saying that if she knew who he was, she would ask him for a drink and he would give her living water (4:10). She then asks how he could do this, since the well is deep and he does not have a bucket. The woman then asks if Jesus is greater than Jacob who dug the well (4:11–12). When the subject shifts to the woman’s life and she recognizes Jesus as a prophet, she raises the concern about where proper worship is to take place (4:19–20).⁷¹ Throughout the dialogue, Jesus’s answers reveal his identity as the giver of living water for eternal life (cf. 6:27, 58) and that proper worship takes place in spirit and truth (4:24).⁷² Intriguingly, when she mentions the Messiah, Jesus identifies himself as the Messiah with reference to his speech and by implication what the woman hears: ἐγώ εἰμι, ὁ λαλῶν σοι (“I am, the one speaking to you,” 4:26; cf. 9:38). Jesus also has an extensive dialogue with Nicodemus (3:1–21), who instigates this encounter by coming to Jesus at night and acknowledging Jesus’s signs as deriving from God (3:2). Jesus responds to Nicodemus’s opening comment with an apparently unrelated statement: “Unless you are born ἄνωθεν, you are unable to see the kingdom of God” (3:3). Nicodemus asks, not unlike the Samaritan woman’s asking about the bucket and deep well, “How is a person to be born when the person is old?” (3:4). When Jesus speaks of the Spirit or wind blowing wherever it wishes (3:6–8), Nicodemus responds with a second question: “How can these things be?” (3:9). Jesus then asks his own question: “You are the teacher of Israel and you do not know these things?” (3:10). Jesus then makes his third “Amen, amen” statement of the dialogue (3:3, 5, 10) and declares that he reveals what is made known to him (cf. 5:19–20), and yet his testimony is not received. He challenges Nicodemus with another question: “If I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe, how [will you believe] if I speak to you of heavenly things?” (3:12). While there is debate about the content of the earthly and heavenly things,⁷³

⁷⁰ Dodd, Interpretation, 311. ⁷¹ Thatcher, Riddles, 219–21, calls this a “neck-riddle,” as in “saving your neck.” ⁷² See Jo-Ann A. Brant, John, Paideia (Grand Rapids, MI, 2011), 83–9, for the dramatic details of the dialogue. ⁷³ Barrett, Gospel, 212; Udo Schnelle, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, THKNT, 4 (Leipzig, 2004), 72.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

54     the revelatory dialogue relates Jesus’s ability to disclose heavenly revelation and Nicodemus’s inability to understand even earthly things.⁷⁴ Jesus connects his revelatory ability to his heavenly origin in his next statement about the descent of the Son of Man (3:13). Jesus’s dialogue with Nicodemus is similar to the angel Uriel’s dialogues with Ezra (4 Ezra 4:1–11; 5:31–40).⁷⁵ Both Ezra and Nicodemus expect to understand what is revealed to them, but they are unable to, even when earthly examples are given. Ezra cannot weigh fire, measure wind, or bring back yesterday. Nicodemus fails to understand what Jesus says about birth and wind, and both Ezra and Nicodemus respond with exasperated questions about how these things are possible (4 Ezra 4:6; John 3:9). Uriel and Jesus argue that Ezra’s and Nicodemus’s inability to comprehend these earthly things exemplifies their inability to comprehend heavenly things (4 Ezra 4:10, 21; John 3:10–12). In 4 Ezra, Ezra responds by falling on his face and exclaiming in a Job-like manner that it would be better not to be here than suffer and not understand (4 Ezra 4:12). In John, however, we do not read of Nicodemus’s response to Jesus’s challenge because Jesus begins an uninterrupted discourse (John 3:10–21);⁷⁶ however, in a way that is not unlike Ezra’s change after the vision of the woman who is Jerusalem (4 Ezra 10:25–59; 14),⁷⁷ Nicodemus later defends Jesus’s right to be heard to his fellow Pharisees (John 7:50–1) and also makes an expensive contribution to Jesus’s burial (19:39–41). Auditory revelation similar to that in Jewish apocalypses is thus evident in the Gospel of John, including both forms of auditory revelation noted by the “master-paradigm,” discourse and dialogue. John’s discourses and dialogues reveal Jesus’s identity and his heavenly origin with the Father. This revelatory nature reflects John’s affinity with Jewish apocalypses regarding the auditory medium of revelation. In addition, the Gospel of John, particularly in view of the notable similarity between the dialogues in John 3 and 4 Ezra 4, again shows its affinity with Jewish apocalypses.

⁷⁴ Thomaskutty, Dialogue in the Book of Signs, 116–18. ⁷⁵ Wayne A. Meeks, “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,” JBL, 91/1 (1972), 53: “perhaps the closest parallels to the present dialogue are to found in the dialogues between the seer and the angelus interpres in apocalypses and in the gnostic revelations.” ⁷⁶ Although there is significant debate as to where Jesus’s words end, the narrative implies that Jesus continues speaking. Note how 3:22 begins, “After these things, Jesus and his disciples came . . . .” ⁷⁷ Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Ezra’s Vision of the Lady: The Form and Function of a Turning Point,” in Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction after the Fall, ed. by Matthias Henze and Gabriele Boccaccini, JSJSup, 164 (Leiden, 2013), 137–50.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

   

55

Otherworldly Journeys (3) and Writing (4) in John The Gospel of John, obviously, does not present revelation through otherworldly journeys (1.3) or writing (1.4); however, not every element of the “master-paradigm” is necessary for a text to be considered an apocalypse. John’s lack of otherworldly journey could be argued as a reason to discount the Gospel’s inclusion in the genre of apocalypse, but half of the Jewish apocalypses do not contain heavenly journeys. In some instances, the heavenly mediator meets the human recipient on earth (e.g., Remiel in 2 Bar. 55:3; Michael in T. Ab. 1:4; 2:1; and Uriel in 4 Ezra 4:1). In a similar way, the mediation of visual and auditory revelation in the Gospel of John takes place on earth and not in heaven. Not unlike 4 Ezra 4:8, the Gospel appears to reject heavenly revelation apart from what can be seen and known through Jesus (John 1:18; 3:13; 6:46). Regarding revelation through writing (1.4), the Gospel of John, like the majority of Jewish apocalypses, recounts no heavenly book from which revelation is disclosed. Of the four media of apocalyptic revelation, the Gospel of John’s revelation includes visionary and auditory revelation. The visual revelation is recognizable in the Gospel’s emphasis on seeing, in Jesus’s signs, the vision of God in Jesus, and the motif of the opening of heaven; however, the Gospel’s visual revelation does not include visions or epiphanies as defined by the Semeia 14 “master-paradigm.” The Johannine auditory revelation is recognizable in Jesus’s discourses and his dialogues with other characters, especially in the close similarity between Jesus’s dialogue with Nicodemus and Ezra’s dialogues with Uriel. In Jewish apocalypses, auditory revelation typically clarifies the visionary revelation. Even in Jubilees, which has no visual revelation, the discourse of the angel of the presence describes the content of the heavenly tablets. In John, Jesus’s discourses often explain or add meaning to the revelation accomplished through his signs, and his dialogues explain heavenly mysteries often with cosmological and eschatological content (i.e., spatial and temporal transcendence).

Revelation Mediated by an Otherworldly Mediator (2) in Jewish Apocalypses The second element of the Semeia 14 definition’s “master-paradigm” is the otherworldly mediator (2), which is also the second element of the manner of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

56     revelation. As the mediator, the otherworldly mediator “communicates the revelation,” using one or more of the media of revelation—visual revelation, auditory revelation, otherworldly journey, and writing.⁷⁸ The otherworldly mediator in Jewish apocalypses is almost always an angel, and if named, often Michael, Gabriel, or Uriel. The otherworldly mediators are not the focus of apocalypses, but they explain, interpret, and direct the attention of the recipient to what is being revealed.⁷⁹ In the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 1–36), there are at least seven angels who function as mediators. Uriel, Raphael, Ragouel, Michael, Sariel, Gabriel, and Remiel (1 En. 20:1–8)⁸⁰ guide Enoch and answer his questions (1 En. 21–36). In the book of Daniel, Gabriel appears and gives auditory revelation (Dan. 8:15–17). In Jubilees, the angel of the presence dictates to Moses from the heavenly tablets (Jub. 2:1). The angel Yahoel in the Apocalypse of Abraham is an intriguing otherworldly mediator. Yahoel is sent by God to Abraham (Apoc. Ab. 10:4, 8, 13) and is described as having the ineffable name (10:3, 8), which is also later said to be God’s name (Apoc. Ab. 17:13). The angel describes himself in terms of all of his deeds and responsibilities and uses the phrase “I am” in at least eight instances (10:6–16). Because his name reflects the divine name, some have suggested that Yahoel is an exalted angel.⁸¹ However, after he guides Abraham to heaven, Yahoel worships the Lord alongside Abraham (17–18) and then is not mentioned again. In 4 Ezra, Uriel appears abruptly, and there is no physical description of the figure, apart from his name and that he was sent by God (4 Ezra 4:1).⁸² Uriel departs and returns to Ezra a number of times throughout the apocalypse (4 Ezra 5:19; 5:31; 7:1; 10:28–9; 12:10; 12:39; 13:20b), and he acts as the mediator between the Lord and Ezra. Since Uriel speaks for the Lord, it is difficult at times to tell who is speaking, not unlike the angel of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible (Gen. 16; 18; 21; 31:11–13; Judg. 6; 13).⁸³ This oscillation is especially evident when Ezra directs his questions to “the sovereign Lord” or “the Most High” (4 Ezra 5:38; 7:17, 45; 12:7–9; 13:14; cf. 8:36). Some of the

⁷⁸ Collins, “Morphology,” 6. ⁷⁹ For this section, see Benjamin E. Reynolds, “The Otherworldly Mediators in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: A Comparison with Angelic Mediators in Ascent Apocalypses and in Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah,” in Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction after the Fall, ed. by Matthias Henze and Gabriele Boccaccini (Leiden, 2013), 175–93. ⁸⁰ Note that the naming of Remiel in 1 En. 20:8 is unclear in the manuscript tradition, especially since he is the only angel not named a second time in 1 En. 21–36. See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 338–9. ⁸¹ Rowland, Open Heaven, 101–3. ⁸² Stone, Fourth Ezra, 82. ⁸³ See Ashton, Understanding, 284–6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

   

57

responses to Ezra’s statements to the Lord include first-person phrases such as “my judgment” (5:43), “I planned these things” (6:6), “I made the world” (7:1, 11), “my benefits,” “my law” (9:10–11), and “my son” (13:32, 37).⁸⁴ However, there are other occasions where the speaker, either Uriel or the Lord, refers to “the Most High” in the third person (7:19; 13:29, 44, 47) or speaks as the angel in the first person with phrases such as “Therefore he sent me to show you all these things” (6:33). Despite this inconsistency, the most likely explanation of this phenomenon is that Uriel speaks for the Lord, and Ezra speaks to the Lord through Uriel.⁸⁵ The emphasis is not on Uriel, but on what Uriel reveals as the otherworldly mediator. After Ezra’s sixth vision, Uriel fades from the narrative (cf. Remiel in 2 Bar. 55:3).

God as Otherworldly Mediator Angelic mediation in Jewish apocalypses represents an increased reflection on God’s transcendence in comparison with the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Jub. 1:29–2:1; cf. Gal. 3:19),⁸⁶ but there are occasions when the Lord speaks directly to the human recipients as he does with Hebrew prophets (e.g., Ezek. 2:1; Isa. 6:8–13; 4 Ezra 14:42; 2 Bar. 1:1). God speaks directly with Baruch on a number of occasions (2 Bar. 13:1–20:6), including the first two of Baruch’s three revelatory experiences (22:1–35:4; 36–40; 53–74). God’s first response is preceded by the opening of heaven (22:1).⁸⁷ Only when Baruch asks for an interpretation of his final vision does the angel Remiel appear to interpret the vision (2 Bar. 55:3; 56:1). Ezra, on the other hand, dialogues with Uriel in 4 Ezra 4:1–12:39, but in 4 Ezra 14 the Lord speaks directly to Ezra from the bush in a manner reminiscent of Moses’s experience (14:1–3; cf. Exod. 3:4). In the Apocalypse of Abraham, after Yahoel has escorted Abraham to heaven and to the Lord’s presence, it is God who leads Abraham on the remainder of his heavenly journey (Apoc. Abr. 19:1–3; 20:1). The Book of the Watchers also presents God, the Great Glory, speaking directly with Enoch (1 En. 14:24–16:3), even though Enoch has angelic guides for most of the apocalypse. ⁸⁴ Also 5:45 and 6:11, where Ezra speaks of “your creation” and of himself as “your servant,” although this last example need not require speech to the Lord. ⁸⁵ Stone, Fourth Ezra, 199. ⁸⁶ Karin Schöpflin, “God’s Interpreter: The Interpreting Angel in Post-Exilic Prophetic Visions of the Old Testament,” in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings—Origins, Developments and Reception, ed. by Friedrich V. Reiterer, Tobias Nicklas, and Karin Schöpflin, DCLY, 2007 (Berlin, 2007), 189–203. ⁸⁷ See Rowland, Open Heaven, 78.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

58    

Revelation Mediated by an Otherworldly Mediator in John One of the most significant differences between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John is the presentation of Jesus as a “man from heaven” or “stranger from heaven.”⁸⁸ In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, there is little to no information about Jesus prior to the beginning of his ministry apart from the birth narratives and his baptism. In the Gospel of John, however, the Logos was with God in the beginning (John 1:1–2) and participated in the creation of the world (1:3–4), and Jesus had glory with God before the foundation of the world (17:5). Jesus descended from heaven (3:13; 6:32–5), he is from above (3:31; 8:23), from God (6:46; 9:33; 17:8), has been sent from the Father into the world (3:17; 10:36; 12:45; 17:18, 21; cf. 9:39), and will return to the Father in heaven (13:33; 14:1–3; 16:5, 10, 28; 20:17), where he was before (6:62). The Johannine Jesus is an otherworldly being who has come from heaven and will return to heaven. The background or reason for this depiction of Jesus has long puzzled interpreters. Since Bultmann’s gnostic Redeemer myth has long been found wanting,⁸⁹ numerous suggestions have been given. These suggestions have tended to concern prophets, angels, and Jewish agency and to center on the sending of the Son.⁹⁰ Peder Borgen has argued that the best explanation for the language concerning Jesus’s heavenly origin derives from Jewish agency texts combined with Merkabah mysticism. Jewish agency, as described in rabbinic texts, explains the agent as one who is sent on behalf of the sender, represents the sender, and acts on behalf of the sender. For Borgen, Jesus is God’s heavenly agent and the “closest parallel to this heavenly figure is the idea of the heavenly Israel, ‘he who sees God’” in Philo (Conf. 146; Leg. 1.14 [1.43]).⁹¹ In support of this view, Borgen argues that Philo’s etymological interpretation of Israel—“he who sees God”—can be connected to the allusion to Jacob’s vision in John 1:51 and that the Son of Man reference “probably presupposes the idea of the heavenly model of Jacob/Israel.”⁹² A major challenge to this association between the heavenly Israel who sees God and Jesus as heavenly revealer is that Nathanael is the one associated with Jacob/Israel and not Jesus. Just as Jacob sees angels on the ladder (Gen. 28:12), Nathanael “will

⁸⁸ Meeks, “Man from Heaven,” 44–72; Marinus de Jonge, Jesus: Stranger from Heaven and Son of God: Jesus Christ and the Christians in Johannine Perspective, trans. by John E. Steely, SBLSBS (Missoula, MT, 1977). ⁸⁹ Meeks, “Man from Heaven,” 45. ⁹⁰ Van den Heede, Der Exeget Gottes, 14–16. ⁹¹ Peder Borgen, “God’s Agent in the Fourth Gospel,” in Philo, John, and Paul: New Perspectives on Judaism and Early Christianity, BJS, 131 (Atlanta, GA, 1987), 171–84. ⁹² Borgen, “God’s Agent,” 178.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

   

59

see” the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man (καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ . . . ὄψεσθε, John 1:50–1). In contrast to Jacob who is “with deceit” (μετὰ δόλου, Gen. 27:35; cf. 34:13), Nathanael is “without deceit,” and therefore, Nathanael is truly an Israelite (ἀληθῶς Ἰσραηλίτης ἐν ᾧ δόλος οὐκ ἔστιν, John 1:47). The Gospel of John does not portray Jesus as a heavenly Israel but as the vision of what a renewed Israel sees (1:49, 50; 14:9). William Loader presents a somewhat different solution in the “RevealerEnvoy Model.” Loader understands the central structure of the Gospel to comprise the Father’s sending of the Son, the Son’s origin from the Father, and the Son’s making the Father known.⁹³ These themes coalesce in the “Revealer-Envoy Model,” which goes beyond mere agency and explains the heavenly sending motif; however, Loader contends that a modification has occurred in the model so that the emphasis is on an encounter with the revealer rather than the content of the message.⁹⁴ In other words, “information-revelation has been transformed into a model of revelationencounter.”⁹⁵ According to Loader, Jesus’s heavenly origin, his being sent by the Father, and making the Father known are dependent on cosmic dualism that merged with “a developed Son of Man tradition,” along with other influences. Loader contends that this confluence of ideas is “compatible with early gnostic influence.”⁹⁶ Although he appears to return to Bultmann’s gnostic background with this statement, Loader rightly highlights the blending of sending and descent–ascent themes in the Fourth Gospel. Borgen’s and Loader’s approaches showcase the combination of themes commonly understood to be necessary to explain Jesus’s heavenly origin and sending in the Gospel of John, whether Jewish agency and heavenly Israel or cosmic dualism and the Son of Man.⁹⁷ In my view, Jesus’s heavenly origin, being sent by the Father, and revelation of heavenly things may be more simply explained by comparison with otherworldly mediators in Jewish apocalypses.⁹⁸ Uriel, Remiel, and Yahoel are sent from God (4 Ezra 4:1; 2 Bar. 55:3; Apoc. Ab. 10:4, 6, 13), as is the Johannine Jesus (John 3:17; 10:36; 12:45; 17:18, 21). Yahoel ⁹³ William R. G. Loader, Jesus in John’s Gospel: Structure and Issues in Johannine Christology (Grand Rapids, MI, 2017), 24–7, 41–71, 121–44; for his original argument, see William R. G. Loader, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Structure and Issues, BBET, 23 (Frankfurt am Main, 1989). ⁹⁴ Loader, Jesus in John’s Gospel, 424. ⁹⁵ Loader, Jesus in John’s Gospel, 23. ⁹⁶ Loader, Jesus in John’s Gospel, 454–5. ⁹⁷ See Jan-Adolf Bühner, Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4. Evangelium: die kultur- und religionsgeschichtlichen Grundlagen der johanneischen Sendungschristologie sowie ihre traditionsgeschichtliche Entwicklung, WUNT, II/2 (Tübingen, 1977), 375–84. Also 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, who argues for a Mosaic prophet typology. ⁹⁸ Cf. Ashton, Understanding, 290–1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

60     has the ineffable name of God and seems to share it with God (Apoc. Ab. 10:3, 8; 17:13), and in John, Jesus receives the name of the Father (John 17:11–12; cf. 5:43–4; 10:25; 12:28).⁹⁹ And as with all otherworldly mediators, as is especially notable in 4 Ezra, Jesus only speaks the words of the Father. In John 8:26, Jesus says: “What I have heard from him, I speak these things to the world.” He continues, “just as the Father teaches me, I speak these things” (8:28; cf. 3:32). The Father has given Jesus the words (τὰ ῥήματα) that he speaks (12:49–50; 17:8; cf. 7:16–17; 14:24), and Jesus speaks about the Father (7:17; 12:49; 14:10). In the words of C. K. Barrett, “Jesus does not speak of himself, but reveals what he has seen in the Father’s presence.”¹⁰⁰ The otherworldly mediators to which the Johannine Jesus is most similar are those in the non-ascent apocalypses of 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, the Apocalypse of Abraham, and Jubilees, where the mediator comes from heaven and meets the recipient on earth. Fourth Ezra’s apparent rejection of heavenly ascent and portrayal of human inability to comprehend heavenly mysteries (4 Ezra 4:7–11) is not unlike the Gospel’s negation of the visionary experiences of Jacob, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, and possibly Enoch (John 1:18; 3:13; 6:46). Jesus’s claim to be one with the Father (John 10:30; also 5:17–18) suggests some generic bending, but the Gospel of John is not alone in bringing together an otherworldly mediator, salvation, the Son of Man, and what Loader describes as a shift to revelation-encounter from information-revelation.¹⁰¹ In the book of Revelation, a Christian apocalypse contemporary with the non-ascent apocalypses of 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and the Apocalypse of Abraham, the human recipient has a visionary encounter with Jesus that shares some striking similarities with the Gospel of John. In Revelation, Jesus is depicted as Daniel’s son of man (Rev. 1:7, 13), yet also described like the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7:9) and the angelic mediator of Daniel 10:5–6 (Rev. 1:13–15). As the holder of the keys of Death and Hades, he indicates his salvific role (Rev. 1:18). As the “alpha and omega” and “the living one,” he indicates his shared identity with God (Rev. 1:8, 18; 22:13), and his claim to be “the first and the last” implies his preexistence (Rev. 1:17). Then, like an angelic mediator, Jesus commands John to write, and he interprets the vision that John sees (Rev. 1:19–20). In Chapter 5, I will address some of the tensions and generic blending present in the Gospel of John’s presentation of Jesus as an otherworldly ⁹⁹ Charles A. Gieschen, “The Divine Name That the Son Shares with the Father in the Gospel of John,” in Reading the Gospel of John’s Christology as Jewish Messianism: Royal, Prophetic, and Divine Messiahs, ed. by Benjamin E. Reynolds and Gabriele Boccaccini, AJEC, 106 (Leiden, 2018), 387–410. ¹⁰⁰ Barrett, Gospel, 346. ¹⁰¹ Loader, Jesus in John’s Gospel, 422–36.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

   

61

mediator, particularly in relation to Ashton’s claim that in the Johannine Jesus the mediator and recipient merge,¹⁰² but, for now, it is worth noting that in the book of Revelation, as in the Gospel of John, the glorified and risen Jesus, the Son of Man tradition, the cosmological perspective of heaven and earth, and revelation-encounter come together in the figure of Jesus, who is portrayed as an otherworldly mediator. This combination of features in Revelation indicates that the Gospel of John was not alone in portraying Jesus as an otherworldly mediator, and it implies that the Fourth Gospel may just be “that sort” of revelatory, apocalyptic narrative.¹⁰³ On another note, John Ashton¹⁰⁴ and Catrin Williams¹⁰⁵ have both argued that the Gospel of John portrays the Spirit as an otherworldly mediator. Like Jesus, the Spirit comes from the Father and mediates heavenly mysteries (John 14:16–17, 26; 16:13). Once Jesus, the heavenly mediator, returns to the Father, the Paraclete arrives and may be understood to function as another mediator of revelation.¹⁰⁶ While this is possible, there are two aspects of the Spirit’s revelation that weigh against understanding the Spirit as an otherworldly mediator as defined by the Semeia 14 “master-paradigm.” First, the mediation by the Paraclete does not take place within the narrative of the Gospel. The Gospel speaks of a later time, after Jesus returns to the Father, when the Spirit will function in this role (John 15:26; 16:13). The otherworldly mediators portrayed in Jewish apocalypses act as mediators within the narrative. The revelation that is mediated to the human recipient tends to be depicted as complete, although the written record of that revelation may be passed on (1 En. 81–2). The human recipient, however, acts as the keeper of and testifier to that revelation. The Spirit in the Fourth Gospel may function as a guide or mediator of the revelation in the future, but the Gospel does not narrate this mediation in its narrative. And secondly, the heavenly things that are disclosed by the Spirit appear to be the revelation previously given by Jesus (14:26; 16:14–15).¹⁰⁷ Although it may be argued that, as the interpreter of revelation,

¹⁰² Ashton, Understanding, 259. ¹⁰³ Contra Yarbro Collins, “Epilogue,” 300–1. This similarity between Jesus in John and Revelation also draws attention to the close relationship between John and the book of Revelation. See Chapter 7. ¹⁰⁴ Ashton, Understanding, 343–8. ¹⁰⁵ Catrin H. Williams, “Unveiling Revelation: The Spirit-Paraclete and Apocalyptic Disclosure in the Gospel of John,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 104–27. ¹⁰⁶ Ashton, Understanding, 346–7. ¹⁰⁷ Ridderbos, The Gospel of John, 15: “The Spirit has nothing new to offer, nothing that Jesus has not brought. The Spirit will only enable the disciples to witness to Jesus as he really was, the one with whom they have been from the beginning (cf. 15:27).” Cf. Jörg Frey, Die johanneische Eschatologie, WUNT, 97, 110, 117, 3 vols (Tübingen, 1997), , 190–204.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

62     the Spirit still acts as mediator,¹⁰⁸ the Spirit’s role is primarily as witness to Jesus’s revelation. The disciples are also to be witnesses of what Jesus has revealed (20:21–3).¹⁰⁹ The role of witness to previously recorded revelation is the responsibility of the human recipients of revelation in Jewish apocalypses.

Revelation Mediated to a Human Recipient (3) The third element in the Semeia 14 “master-paradigm” of apocalypse, and also the third of the manner of revelation, is the human recipient (3), to whom the otherworldly mediator mediates the revelation. Human recipients are typically heroes of Israel’s past, such as Enoch, Abraham, Ezra, Baruch, and Levi. While the Semeia 14 definition of “apocalypse” merely refers to “a human recipient,” the “master-paradigm” specifies three sub-elements related to the human recipient: pseudonymity (3.1), the disposition of the recipient (3.2), and the reaction of the recipient (3.3).¹¹⁰ Of these three sub-elements, pseudonymity is the most common among Jewish apocalypses. Almost all apocalypses are pseudonymous and are typically first-person narratives that retell the revelatory experiences of these heroic figures, although the book of Revelation is generally understood to be an exception to pseudonymity (Rev. 1:9).¹¹¹ The reason for the pseudonymity of Jewish apocalypses, in all likelihood, is to lend authority to the revelation.¹¹² The “master-paradigm” also indicates that apocalypses may indicate the disposition (3.2) of the recipient, namely “the circumstance and emotional state in which the revelation is received.”¹¹³ In Jewish apocalypses, the mental state of the recipients often initiates the revelation. Abraham’s “heart was disturbed” and his “mind distracted” because of his father’s idol making (Apoc. Ab. 3:1–3).¹¹⁴ Daniel mourned and fasted for three weeks prior to Gabriel’s appearance (Dan. 10:2–3). Baruch and Ezra are troubled by the destruction of Jerusalem and the prosperity of Babylon (2 Bar. 3:2; 3 Bar. ¹⁰⁸ Ashton, Understanding, 347; Williams, “Unveiling Revelation,” 108–15. ¹⁰⁹ Loader, Jesus in John’s Gospel, 423. ¹¹⁰ Collins, “Morphology,” 6. ¹¹¹ G. B. Caird, A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine, BNTC, 2nd edn (London, 1984), 3–5; cf. Jörg Frey, “Erwägungen zum Verhältnis der Johannesapokalypse zu den übrigen Schriften des Corpus Joanneum,” in Die johanneische Frage: Ein Lösungsversuch, mit einem Beitrag zur Apokalypse von Jörg Frey, by Martin Hengel, WUNT, 67 (Tübingen, 1993), 326–429. ¹¹² Rowland, Open Heaven, 61–70; Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids, MI, 2010), 154–6. ¹¹³ Collins, “Morphology,” 6. ¹¹⁴ Translation from R. Rubinkiewicz, “The Apocalypse of Abraham,” in OTP, ed. by James H. Charlesworth (New York, 1983), , 681–705.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

   

63

1:1–3; 4 Ezra 3:1b–3). Enoch weeps and is in distress upon his bed, although he does not know why (2 En. 1:2–3). Levi grieves over humanity and prays for deliverance (T. Levi 2:4). In these instances, the recipients are distressed, and the descriptions of their dispositions are soon followed by the disclosure of revelation. Closely related to the recipients’ dispositions is their reaction (3.3) to the revelation, which “usually describes the awe and/or perplexity of the recipient confronted with the revelation.”¹¹⁵ The reaction can include physical or bodily responses such as turning pale, trembling, being exhausted, or falling down, or it can involve emotional responses like fear, weeping, prayer, or blessing the Lord. For example, Daniel becomes pale, is terrified, trembles, and falls to the ground at Gabriel’s appearance (Dan. 8:17; 10:8–10; cf. Rev 1:17; Apoc. Zeph. 6:4–7, 9–10; Apoc. Ab. 10:2). Enoch falls to the ground when he sees God (1 En. 14:24; 71:11; 2 En. 22:4). Amusingly, Abraham wants to fall down before God but because he is in heaven there is no ground on which to fall (Apoc. Ab. 17:2–5). Fear is not the only reaction to revelation; it can also cause a recipient to weep and lament. In the Book of Dreams, Enoch weeps following his first dream (1 En. 83:5–6). Ezra weeps and fasts in response to the revelation (e.g., 4 Ezra 5:13, 20; 6:35), but Enoch marvels (1 En. 26:6), Baruch is “amazed and astonished” (2 Bar. 55:1–2), and Enoch reacts by blessing the Lord (1 En. 36:4; 71:11b; 81:10; 83:11; 84:1–6). Blessing, praising, and prayer are common reactions of recipients in Jewish apocalypses (2 Bar. 35:1–5; 3 Bar. 17:3; T. Levi 5:7). Human recipients of revelation are a key aspect of the manner of revelation in apocalypses and are typically pseudonymous. Reactions to revelation are more common than the indication of a recipient’s disposition prior to the revelation. At least three Jewish apocalypses do not record either the disposition or a reaction of the recipient.¹¹⁶ These factors indicate at least some fluidity in the presentation of human recipients.

Revelation Mediated to Human Recipients in John In the Gospel of John, when it comes to the human recipient (3) of the revelation, there is no hero from Israel’s past who receives the revelation from the mediator (cf. John 8:56–7; 12:41). Instead, the beloved disciple ¹¹⁵ Collins, “Morphology,” 6. ¹¹⁶ See Collins, “Morphology,” 6: Apoc. Zeph.; Jubilees; Apoc. Weeks.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

64     functions as the primary recipient of revelation. The Gospel itself is described as the testimony of one figure, the disciple whom Jesus loved (John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20, 24). He has seen Jesus’s glory (1:14; cf. 12:37–43), testifies to the events of Jesus’s passion and resurrection (19:35; 20:8), and writes down what he has seen (21:24; cf. 19:35; 20:30–1). The beloved disciple functions as the privileged recipient of Jesus’s revelation. He is the one who reclines on Jesus’s chest and asks questions of the mediator (13:23–6), the one who believes when he sees the empty tomb (20:8), and the one who recognizes Jesus when others do not (21:7). He has seen and testified, and his testimony is true (ὁ ἑωρακὼς μεμαρτύρηκεν, καὶ ἀληθινὴ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία, 19:35). Like recipients of Jewish apocalypses, he has written a record of his revelatory experiences (21:24).¹¹⁷ The Fourth Gospel presents the beloved disciple’s testimony as first-person experience on more than one occasion. The author is included in the firstperson plural statement: ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτου (“we have seen his glory,” John 1:14).¹¹⁸ The concluding verse of the Gospel as we have it makes a first-person statement beginning with “I suppose” (οἶμαι, 21:25). In addition to these first-person statements by the author, the references to the author’s testimony in John 19:35 and 21:24 also imply that the beloved disciple experienced these things and reported them.¹¹⁹ Some second-person statements directed to the audience also point to the author’s passing on of the revelation he has experienced: “These things have been written that you might believe” (John 20:31; also 19:35). When it comes to human recipients in John, however, the beloved disciple is not the only one. For instance, Jesus comes to “his own” (John 1:11), and the first person plural of John 1:14 may imply that the beloved disciple is not alone in seeing Jesus’s glory. When Jesus speaks to Nathanael about seeing greater things (1:50), Jesus shifts to second person plurals (ὐμῖν, ὄψεσθε, 1:51), which may signify an interpolation,¹²⁰ but, in their present context, they suggest that Nathanael is not the sole recipient of this revelation, especially in light of his minor role in the rest of the Gospel (21:2). At the wedding in Cana, Jesus’s disciples see his revealed glory (2:11), and his later signs have larger audiences (4:46–54; 5:1–9; 6:1–15; 7:21; 11:45; 12:37–40). Many saw Jesus’s signs and ¹¹⁷ Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd edn (Grand Rapids, MI, 2017), 393–409. ¹¹⁸ Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 380–1. ¹¹⁹ Andrew T. Lincoln, “The Beloved Disciple as Eyewitness and the Fourth Gospel as Witness,” JSNT, 24/3 (2002), 3–26, argues that these are literary devices highlighting witness. ¹²⁰ Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (I-XII): Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 29 (Garden City, NY, 1966), 88–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

   

65

heard his words that were revealed to them (ἀπεκαλύφθη, John 12:37–8). In addition, Jesus tells Thomas in 14:7: καὶ ἀπ’ ἄρτι γινώσκετε αὐτὸν καὶ ἑωράκατε αὐτόν (“and from now on you [pl.] know [the Father] and you [pl.] have seen him”). In addition, there are numerous characters other than Jesus’s disciples or the general crowds who may also be understood as recipients of revelation: Nicodemus (3:1–12), the Samaritan woman (4:1–26), the lame man (5:6–9, 14), the man born blind (9:5–38), the Pharisees (9:39–10:21), and Martha (11:21–7). While the beloved disciple is the primary and privileged recipient and witness of revelation, there are numerous recipients of revelation in the Gospel of John. Concerning the disposition (3.2) of the human recipient, there is little to no evidence of the disposition of the beloved disciple prior to receiving revelation.¹²¹ The lack of any prior disposition may reflect the Gospel’s postglorification perspective (John 2:22; 12:16).¹²² With regard to the recipient’s reaction to the revelation (3.3), the Gospel is only a little less silent. The beloved disciple’s belief at seeing Jesus’s tomb empty (20:8) and his statement “It is the Lord” (ὁ κύριός ἐστιν, 21:7) after the miraculous catch of fish are the only indications of his reaction to what he has seen; however, the beloved disciple’s testimony to the crucifixion (19:34–5) and even the writing of the Gospel (21:24) may be considered as reactions (cf. 1:14). There are references to the reactions of other recipients. As in the case of Baruch’s amazement (2 Bar. 55:2), Nicodemus is amazed at Jesus’s teaching (John 3:7), as are the Ἰουδαῖοι (7:15). Like perplexed recipients in Jewish apocalypses, the disciples are unable to understand what Jesus tells them in the farewell discourse (16:18). They respond to his teaching full of sorrow (16:6; cf. 16:22) and with troubled hearts (14:1). Three individuals respond to Jesus’s revelation with exclamations. After Jesus tells Nathanael that he saw him under the fig tree, Nathanael declares, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the king of Israel!” (1:49). Once Jesus utters Mary Magdalene’s name, revealing his identity, she exclaims, “Rabbouni!” (20:16). And the climactic reaction of the Gospel is Thomas’s: “My Lord and my God!” (20:28). The beloved disciple is the privileged recipient of revelation and the one who passes it on in written form,¹²³ but others also receive revelation from Jesus.¹²⁴

¹²¹ See Edwyn C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, ed. by Francis Noel Davey (London, 1947), 19. ¹²² See Frey, Glory of the Crucified One. ¹²³ See Lieu, “Text and Authority,” 251–2. ¹²⁴ Note T. Ab. 7:8–12, where Isaac, Abraham, and possibly Sarah receive the interpretation of Isaac’s dream from the archangel Michael; however, Abraham is the only recipient taken on a tour of heaven.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

66    

Conclusion The Semeia 14 definition begins by describing the framework of apocalypses and defines it as “revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly mediator to a human recipient.” The manner of revelation is important because it frames the disclosure of the content of revelation, and it is the content that too often defines the use of the term “apocalyptic.” The “master-paradigm’s” three elements that make up the manner of revelation are the medium of revelation, the otherworldly meditator, and the human recipient. While no single apocalypse contains all of the subelements, all Jewish apocalypses contain these three elements of form. In comparing the Gospel of John to the Semeia 14 definition and the “master-paradigm,” the Gospel reflects the visual and auditory media of revelation in apocalypses. John’s visual revelation does not, however, contain visions or dreams, but the auditory revelation of discourse and dialogue is notably similar. Jesus, as the one coming from heaven and sent from the Father, is similar to an otherworldly mediator. Viewing Jesus like an otherworldly mediator in Jewish apocalypses serves as a plausible explanation of Bultmann’s puzzle concerning the heavenly origin of the Revealer—Jesus’s descent and ascent, his making known of the Father, and his being sent into the world from heaven. With regard to the human recipient of revelation, the beloved disciple is the privileged recipient of revelation (esp. John 13:23–6). He is named, yet not named, and a character within the narrative, who at times speaks in the first person. These features, I suggest, present the Fourth Gospel’s authorship as a blending of the authorship of the apocalypse genre with that of the gospel genre.¹²⁵ Further qualification of the gospel genre in terms of the genre of apocalypses is recognizable in that the beloved disciple is not the only recipient of Jesus’s revelation in the Fourth Gospel. The framework of Jewish apocalypses is evident in John’s Gospel. There are notable differences, but not all apocalypses contain every sub-element of the “master-paradigm.” In Chapter 5, we will return to the question of how “snugly” John fits the “master-paradigm” or if it stretches the genre “to breaking point,”¹²⁶ but first, we will continue our comparison of John with the “master-paradigm” by comparing the content of Jewish apocalypses and the Gospel of John.

¹²⁵ Lincoln, “Beloved Disciple,” 19, notes the similarity in eyewitness elements between John and Jewish apocalypses. ¹²⁶ Ashton, Understanding, 7, 309.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

3 The Content of Revelation in Jewish Apocalypses and John In Chapter 2, we have seen how the Gospel of John shares affinities with Jewish apocalypses regarding the form or manner of revelation—an otherworldly mediator discloses a revelation to a human recipient in a narrative. The second half of the Semeia 14 definition of “apocalypse,” which includes elements 4–10 of the “master-paradigm,” describes the content of the revelation as a transcendent reality that is temporal and spatial. Transcendence is the “key word in the definition” because the content of apocalypses reveals a supernatural world and individual judgment or salvation that transcend the present human existence.¹ The content of Jewish apocalypses is often disproportionately emphasized as the primary defining feature of apocalypses or more specifically what is meant by the adjective “apocalyptic.” In addition, the temporal content receives greater attention than the spatial.² The added attention is evident in the “master-paradigm,” which lists six temporal elements (4–9) and one spatial element (10). However, the Semeia 14 definition states that the revelation narrated in the apocalypses discloses “a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world.”³ Thus, spatial transcendence is an important part of apocalypses and should not be neglected, but the Gospel of John’s perceived lack of certain sorts of temporal transcendence, particularly eschatology, often prevents many from considering the Gospel “apocalyptic.”⁴ In what follows, I will argue that, in addition to the form elements discussed in

¹ John J. Collins, “Introduction: Toward the Morphology of a Genre,” Semeia, 14 (1979), 10. ² Only the temporal content elements of the “master-paradigm” (4–9) are listed by John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 3rd edn (Grand Rapids, MI, 2016), 8. ³ Collins, “Morphology,” 9 (emphasis mine); also, Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 5. ⁴ Frederick J. Murphy, Apocalypticism in the Bible and its World: A Comprehensive Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI, 2012), 275; Greg Carey, Apocalyptic Literature in the New Testament, CBS (Nashville, TN, 2016), 104–9. John among the Apocalypses: Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the “Apocalyptic” Gospel. Benjamin E. Reynolds, Oxford University Press (2020). © Benjamin E. Reynolds. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198784241.001.0001

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

68     Chapter 2, the Gospel contains core temporal and spatial content elements listed in the “master-paradigm.”

Content: A Transcendent Reality that is Temporal The temporally transcendent reality of apocalypses is too often assumed to be the primary or defining feature of “apocalyptic” or “apocalypticism.” The endof-the-world scenarios of the canonical apocalypses Daniel and Revelation have helped to create this impression; however, the “master-paradigm” of the Semeia 14 definition indicates that temporal transcendence includes more than merely eschatological characteristics. In apocalypses, temporal transcendence includes protology (4), review of history (5), present salvation through knowledge (6), eschatological crisis (7), eschatological judgment and/or destruction (8), and eschatological salvation (9).⁵ In the following sections, I will discuss each of these elements of the “master-paradigm” in relation to Jewish apocalypses and the Gospel of John.

Protology (4) The first element of the temporally transcendent reality in the “masterparadigm” is protology (4), which includes cosmogony or “the origin of the world” (4.1)⁶ and primordial events (4.2). Regarding cosmogony (4.1), Collins notes that among Jewish apocalypses only 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and 2 Enoch provide any information about the origin of the world.⁷ In 2 Baruch, we see a brief glimpse of cosmogony at the beginning of Remiel’s interpretation of the dark and bright waters: As for the great cloud that you saw that ascended from the sea and went and covered the earth: it is the duration of the world [or: age] which the Mighty One has made, when he resolved to make the world. When the word had gone out from before him, the duration of the world was standing as something small, and it was established according to the abundance of the understanding of him who had sent it. (2 Bar. 56:3–4; see also 21:4–7; 48:7–8)⁸

⁵ The numbering listed is that of the “master-paradigm.” Collins, “Morphology,” 6–7. ⁶ Element 4.1 also includes “theogony,” which is found in gnostic texts and concerns the Pleroma’s origin. ⁷ John J. Collins, “The Jewish Apocalypses,” Semeia, 14 (1979), 34. ⁸ Unless otherwise noted, all translations of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch are from Michael E. Stone and Matthias Henze, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: Translations, Introductions, and Notes (Minneapolis, MN, 2014).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

   

69

Fourth Ezra begins with a reference to creation: O sovereign Lord, didst thou not speak at the beginning when thou didst form the earth—and that without help—and didst command the dust and it gave thee Adam, a lifeless body? (4 Ezra 3:4)

And again, Ezra recounts God’s work in the six days of creation according to Genesis (4 Ezra 6:38–54). I said, “O Lord, thou didst speak at the beginning of creation, and didst say on the first day, ‘Let heaven and earth be made,’ and thy word accomplished the work.” (4 Ezra 6:38)⁹

In a lengthy description in 2 Enoch, God explains to Enoch how he created the world (2 En. 24:2–33:4 J; 47:2b–48:5).¹⁰ While the Apocalypse of Abraham does not specifically retell the story of the world’s creation, Abraham is shown Eden with glimpses of Adam and Eve (23:4–11; cf. 21:6; 1 En. 28:1–32:6).¹¹ In the “master-paradigm,” “primordial events” (4.2) appears to function as a catch-all for events at or near the creation of the world that have lasting influence on human history. The first instance of sin and related primordial events and their relationship to the present circumstances of the readers is noticeable in numerous places. In the Book of the Watchers, the Watchers bring about sin on earth by teaching human beings things, such as the making of weapons and jewelry, spells, and signs of the heavens (1 En. 6–8). The Book of Dreams recounts protological events of Abel’s death, the birth of Seth, and the corruption of the Watchers (1 En. 85–6). Second Baruch likewise notes the way in which Adam’s sin brings punishment upon human beings: As for that which you saw first on top of the cloud, the black waters that descended first on the earth: it is the transgression wherewith Adam, the first human, transgressed. For when he transgressed, death [for those] not of his time came into being, mourning was named, sorrow was prepared, pain was created, labor was completed, pride began to be established, and Sheol sought to be renewed in blood, and the conception of children came into

⁹ Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN, 1990), 67–9, 184–8. ¹⁰ Grant Macaskill, Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, JSJSup, 115 (Leiden, 2007), 209–10, notes the important role of creation in 2 Enoch. ¹¹ Andrei A. Orlov, Dark Mirrors: Azazel and Satanael in Early Jewish Demonology (Albany, NY, 2011), 21.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

70     being, the fervor of parents was made, and the greatness of humanity was humiliated and goodness withered. (2 Bar. 56:5–6; cf. 1 En. 32:6; 4 Ezra 7:21–22a)

While many more examples could be given, these few are evidence of the protology that comprises part of the temporally transcendent reality revealed in Jewish apocalypses. The Gospel of John also reveals a temporally transcendent reality and begins with a protological perspective. The opening words of John visibly echo the opening of the creation story in Genesis (ἐν ἀρχῇ; cf. Gen. 1:1 LXX).¹² As in the cosmogonies of 2 Bar. 21:4; 4 Ezra 3:4; 6:38; and 2 En. 24:4 A, John’s Gospel mentions “the beginning” with regard to God’s act of creation.¹³ Not only was the Word with God in the beginning (i.e., before the world was created), but all creation came into being through the Word (John 1:1–3; cf. 4 Ezra 6:38).¹⁴ In addition, the themes of life and light add further evidence to the Gospel’s connections to the creation narrative in Genesis 1 and thus John’s cosmogony (John 1:4–5; cf. 2 Bar. 48:8; 4 Ezra 3:3–5; 6:40; 2 En. 24:4 A; 47–8).¹⁵ In another sense, a protological reality is implied in Jesus’s request that he be glorified with the glory that he had with the Father before the foundation of the world (John 17:5, 24).¹⁶ John’s Gospel also hints at primordial events, particularly with regard to the origin of sin and the devil’s role in those events. We do not find specific references to Adam and Eve, but the Gospel describes the devil as ἀνθρωποκτόνος (“murderer” or “human killer”) from the beginning (John 8:44), implying that his murdering began with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Also in 8:44, the references to the devil as a ψεύστης (“liar”) and ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ (“the father of it,” that is of the lie or of the liar¹⁷) underline his primordial act of deceiving Adam ¹² Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2 vols (Grand Rapids, MI, 2003), 365. ¹³ Masanobu Endo, Creation and Christology: A Study on the Johannine Prologue in the Light of Early Jewish Creation Accounts, WUNT, II/149 (Tübingen, 2002), 206–7. ¹⁴ John Ashton, The Gospel of John and Christian Origins (Minneapolis, MN, 2014), 145–55, argues that John 1:3 does not refer to creation. ¹⁵ Endo, Creation and Christology, 216–19; also Jan A. du Rand, “The Creation Motif in the Fourth Gospel: Perspectives on its Narratological Function within a Judaistic Background,” in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar, ed. by Gilbert Van Belle, J. G. van der Watt, and P. Maritz, BETL, 184 (Leuven, 2005), 21–46 (at 26); Mary L. Coloe, “Creation in the Gospel of John,” in Creation Is Groaning: Biblical and Theological Perspectives, ed. by Mary L. Coloe (Collegeville, MN, 2013), 71–90. ¹⁶ See Carlos Raúl Sosa Siliezar, Creation Imagery in the Gospel of John, LNTS, 546 (London, 2015), 56–67. ¹⁷ Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (I–XII): Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 29 (Garden City, NY, 1966), 358; cf. April D. DeConick, “Why Are the Heavens Closed? The Johannine Revelation of the Father in the Catholic-Gnostic Debate,” in The Gospel of John and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 147–79.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

   

71

and Eve.¹⁸ These references to protological events in the Gospel of John show that the Fourth Gospel shares protological concerns with Jewish apocalypses.

Reviews of History (5) The fifth element of the “master-paradigm” and the second content element is reviews of history, which may take the form of “explicit recollection of the past” (5.1) or “ex eventu prophecy where past history is disguised as future and so associated with the eschatological prophecies” (5.2).¹⁹ Reviews of history are typical in the historical apocalypses and not as much in ascent apocalypses, although the Apocalypse of Abraham contains both.²⁰ Examples of these sorts of reviews of history include Daniel’s vision of the four kingdoms (Dan. 7; cf. Dan. 2; 4 Ezra 12; 2 Bar. 39) and the rise of nations in Daniel 8. The Apocalypse of Weeks (1 En. 93:1–10; 91:11–17), the Book of Dreams (1 En. 83–90), and 2 Baruch 53–74 also offers recollections of the past and prophecy written as future events. Enoch’s prophecy about impending judgment through the flood is another excellent example (1 En. 10–11). The Gospel of John does not contain this feature of apocalypse. There are no reviews of history, especially recollections of the past (5.1). John does refer to heroes of Israel’s past such as Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and Isaiah but only in order to compare Jesus with them, not to retell their lives (John 1:17, 47; 4:12; 5:46; 8:56–8; 12:41). When it comes to ex eventu prophecy (5.2), the Fourth Gospel does not contain examples; however, J. Louis Martyn’s two-level reading of the Gospel, which he based upon this temporal understanding of “apocalyptic,”²¹ approaches this element. The farewell discourse has been considered to represent the time of the Gospel’s audience rather than that of Jesus. Particularly, Jesus’s statement about his followers being cast out of the synagogue is singled out as a later event in the life of the Gospel’s audience placed in the context of Jesus’s life (16:2; cf. 9:22; 12:42).²² If Martyn’s reading is correct, which Adele Reinhartz has seriously questioned,²³ Jesus’s prediction

¹⁸ Michael Theobald, Das Evangelium nach Johannes. Kapitel 1–12, RNT (Regensburg, 2009), 605. ¹⁹ Collins, “Morphology,” 7. ²⁰ Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 280–1. ²¹ J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, NTL, 3rd edn (Louisville, KY, 2003). ²² Martyn, History and Theology, 46–9. ²³ Adele Reinhartz, Cast out of the Covenant: Jews and Anti-Judaism in the Gospel of John (Lanham, MD, 2018), 111–30. See also the recent assessment by Jörg Frey, The Glory of the Crucified One: Christology and Theology in the Gospel of John, trans. by Wayne Coppins and Christoph Heilig, BMSEC (Waco, TX, 2018), 39–72.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

72     of the casting out of the synagogue could possibly be viewed as ex eventu prophecy, but even so, Jesus’s comments are not the same as the ex eventu prophecy in Jewish apocalypses. The promise of future persecution in the ἀποσυνάγωγος passages does not match the scope and scale of the reviews of history in Jewish apocalypses, which typically end with future judgment. For this reason, although it is worth noting this possible similarity, the Gospel does not contain reviews of history, something it shares with more than half of Jewish apocalypses.

Present Salvation through Knowledge (6) The “master-paradigm” includes a reference to “present salvation through knowledge” (6), which is something distinctive of gnostic apocalypses²⁴ and may be “a defining characteristic of the gnostic apocalypse.”²⁵ No Jewish apocalypse contains this feature, but it may be argued that the Gospel of John’s salvation through belief is just such a knowledge-based salvation, since those who believe receive eternal life (John 3:16; 20:30–1). In addition, Jesus prays to the Father, “This is eternal life, that they may know [γινώσκωσιν] you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (17:3). Considering that connections have long been made between John and Gnosticism, present salvation through knowledge/belief may indicate a similarity with gnostic apocalypses on this topic.²⁶ However, John Collins argues that gnostic understandings of salvation are markedly different from that of Jewish apocalypses. He states, “the revelation conveyed by all the apocalypses is presumed to be conducive to salvation for those who accept it. There is a great difference in degree between the Gnostic salvation through knowledge and the understanding and hope to which revelation gives rise in other apocalypses.”²⁷ The same may be said of salvation in the Gospel of John.

²⁴ Collins, “Morphology,” 7. ²⁵ Francis T. Fallon, “The Gnostic Apocalypses,” Semeia, 14 (1979), 125. ²⁶ Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. by G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia, PA, 1971); Pheme Perkins, Gnosticism and the New Testament (Minneapolis, MN, 1993), 109–42; John D. Turner, “Sethian Gnosticism and Johannine Christianity,” in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar, ed. by Gilbert Van Belle, J. G. van der Watt, and P. J. Maritz, BETL, 184 (Leuven, 2005), 399–433. ²⁷ Collins, “Morphology,” 11.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

   

73

Eternal life does not come primarily through the reception of knowledge, but through “understanding and hope” that result from Jesus’s revelation and his making the Father known. Belief and acceptance are not equivalent to knowledge that leads to salvation (3:15; 5:24).²⁸ John is thus more similar to the understanding of salvation in Jewish apocalypses than in Gnosticism (see the section “Eschatological Salvation (9)” below).

Eschatological Crisis (7) The third element of temporal transcendence in the Semeia 14 “masterparadigm” of apocalypse is eschatological crisis (7), which can include persecution of the righteous (7.1) or “other eschatological upheavals which disturb the order of nature or history” (7.2). This latter sub-element is exemplified in a number of Jewish apocalypses and refers to cataclysmic events, such as Sheol opening its mouth to swallow sinners (1 En. 56:8) and stones splitting and creation being distraught (T. Levi 4:1). Persecution of the righteous (7.1), although less prevalent in Jewish apocalypses, is closely related to these eschatological upheavals. Each of these crises occurs in the context of judgment or impending judgment. In Daniel, persecution takes place when the horn wages war against the holy ones (Dan. 7:21, 25). We also find it in the Apocalypse of Abraham with the destruction of the temple and the murder and capture of the righteous (Apoc. Ab. 27:1–5). In the Animal Apocalypse, persecution can be seen in the actions of the shepherds who kill more sheep (i.e., God’s people) than they are commanded and abandon the sheep, allowing the leopards, lions, and wild boars to devour the sheep (1 En. 84:59–68). The sheep again suffer destruction by the birds of the air and the dogs (1 En. 90:2–4, 6–19). John’s Gospel does not contain eschatological upheavals, but there is evidence of persecution or at least reference to coming persecution. The clearest example comes in Jesus’s statement: “If they persecuted [ἐδίωξαν] me, they will persecute [διώξουσιν] you” (John 15:20b). In this saying, there is an expectation that Jesus’s disciples will experience future persecution, which will cause them to remember his words (15:20a). Jesus mentions persecution again a little later when he speaks of a coming hour (ἔρχεται ὥρα) when his disciples will be cast from the synagogue and killing them will be considered service

²⁸ Judith M. Lieu, “Gnosticism and the Gospel of John,” ExpT, 90/8 (1979), 234–5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

74     (λατρείαν) to God (16:2).²⁹ Although the crisis has not yet come, the persecution has been foreshadowed with the casting out of the man born blind from the synagogue (9:34; cf. 9:22; 12:42), and Jesus warns the disciples that in the world they will have θλῖψιν (“trouble and suffering, . . . persecution,”³⁰ 16:33). Jesus’s prayer to his Father that his disciples be kept from the evil one also implies coming persecution (17:15; cf. 17:11, 12).³¹ The eschatological crisis of persecution may not be as extreme in the Fourth Gospel as in some Jewish apocalypses, but John’s audience faces some form of eschatological crisis.

Eschatological Judgment (8) Both eschatological judgment (8) and salvation (9) are central elements of the temporally transcendent reality revealed in Jewish apocalypses. According to Collins, every Jewish apocalypse contains eschatological judgment of the wicked (8.1) and at least some form of eschatological salvation (9);³² however, judgment and salvation are not always concerned with the end of the world but more specifically with the personal eschatology of the wicked and the righteous (e.g., 1 En. 22; 81:4, 7–9).³³ Eschatological judgment may include judgment against the wicked (8.1), the natural world (8.2), or otherworldly beings (8.3). Judgment of the natural world is not as common, but the judgment of the wicked is evident, for example, in the Parables of Enoch, when the kings of the earth are judged by the Son of Man (1 En. 62–3), in the Apocalypse of Weeks, when the righteous judge the wicked (1 En. 91:12), and in 2 Enoch, when Enoch recounts seeing the place where the wicked are punished (2 En. 40:12–42:2; also 2 En. 10). The judgment of otherworldly beings is evident in the punishment of the Watchers or rebellious angels, which is mentioned in numerous apocalypses (1 En. 10; 18:10–19:3; 64:1–2; 91:15; 2 En. 7).³⁴

²⁹ See C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd edn (Philadelphia, PA, 1978), 483–5. ³⁰ J. P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2 vols (New York, 1988), , 22.2. ³¹ Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Evil in Johannine and Apocalyptic Perspective: Petition for Protection in John 17,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 208–9. ³² Collins, “Jewish Apocalypses,” 28; Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 7. ³³ John J. Collins, “Apocalyptic Eschatology as the Transcendence of Death,” CBQ, 36/1 (1974), 21–43; cf. Collins, “Morphology,” 17. ³⁴ Annette Yoshiko Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature (Cambridge, 2005), 102–4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

   

75

The Gospel of John also contains eschatological judgment (8) even if the nature and timing of that judgment are not typical of Jewish apocalypses. John’s Gospel clearly discloses information about the judgment of the wicked (8.1) similar to what is found in Jewish apocalypses.³⁵ In John, those who do not believe are judged (John 3:18; cf. 3:16). The ones who disobey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on them (3:36). God’s wrath is clearly a reference to a final judgment. The Father has given all judgment to the Son (5:22), and the Son of Man has the authority to judge (5:27). In one of the clearest examples of eschatological judgment in John, Jesus says that those who practice evil will be raised to a resurrection of judgment (5:29).³⁶ In John, Jesus has come into the world for judgment (9:39), and those who do not believe are judged because he has come into the world (3:19; cf. 12:48; 15:22–4). On the last day, Jesus’s word which he has spoken will condemn those who do not believe (12:48), and even the Paraclete will play a role in judgment (16:7–11). The Fourth Gospel also reveals the judgment of an otherworldly being (8.3). The ruler of this world (ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου) is cast out as the hour of Jesus’s lifting up begins (John 12:30–2), and the Paraclete has already judged the ruler of this world (κέκριται, 16:11).³⁷ As in Jewish apocalypses, John’s Gospel depicts eschatological judgment as the fate that the wicked will suffer, although it is Jesus’s presence in the world that brings about eschatological judgment in John.³⁸

Eschatological Salvation (9) The final element of temporal transcendence in the Semeia 14 “masterparadigm” is eschatological salvation, which is the only specific content element to be mentioned in the Semeia 14 definition of an apocalypse. In Jewish apocalypses, eschatological salvation (9) frequently goes hand in hand with eschatological judgment (8). It can include cosmic transformation (9.1) or personal salvation (9.2), whether resurrection (9.2.1) or another form of ³⁵ Stuckenbruck, “Evil in Johannine and Apocalyptic Perspective,” 201–2. ³⁶ See Josef Blank, Krisis: Untersuchungen zur johanneischen Christologie und Eschatologie (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1964), 172–82. ³⁷ Judith L. Kovacs, “ ‘Now Shall the Ruler of This World Be Driven Out’: Jesus” Death as Cosmic Battle in John 12:20–36,” JBL, 114/2 (1995), 227–47. ³⁸ Jan G. van der Watt, “Eschatology in John: A Continuous Process of Realizing Events,” in Eschatology of the New Testament and Some Related Documents, ed. by Jan G. van der Watt, WUNT, II/315 (Tübingen, 2011), 120–1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

76     afterlife (9.2.2). In 2 Baruch, both eschatological judgment and eschatological salvation take place following the Messiah’s final appearing (2 Bar. 70:9). The nations are judged by the Anointed One, and the righteous live in messianic peace and plenty (2 Bar. 72:2–3; 73:1–74:4). The earth and humanity are restored to a pre-curse state of creation where the lion lies down with the lamb, beasts serve humanity, and women no longer suffer pain in childbirth (2 Bar. 73:6–7; cf. Isa. 11:6–9). This restoration of the created order in 2 Baruch is an example of cosmic transformation (9.1) (cf. Rev. 21:1–4).³⁹ We find resurrection (9.2.1), and even double resurrection (the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked), in Daniel, the Parables of Enoch (1 En. 37–71), 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch.⁴⁰ In Daniel 12:2, some who sleep in the earth are raised to eternal life (ζωὴν αἰώνιον) and others to reproach and eternal shame. Jon Levenson argues that Dan. 12:2 was the first example of double resurrection in the Hebrew Bible, although “the idea was already present in apocalyptic circles” (cf. Dan. 2:44).⁴¹ After the resurrection of the dead in the Parables of Enoch, the righteous are chosen from among those given back by the earth, which implies that the wicked are also raised (1 En. 51:1–5).⁴² In 4 Ezra 7:32, in language very similar to Dan. 12:2, the earth and dust will give up those who sleep, and judgment follows this event (4 Ezra 7:33–6). Likewise, in 2 Bar. 42:8, resurrection of the dead is evident when the dust will hear: “Give back that which does not belong to you and raise up all that you have kept until its own time.” Second Baruch 50:2–51:5 also speaks about a resurrection that will be followed by judgment (2 Bar. 50:4). In the judgment, those who act wickedly are condemned, and the righteous will be glorified (51:1–3), which suggests a double resurrection.⁴³ Another example of a double resurrection may be found in the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 22).⁴⁴ Two well-known examples of the “other forms of afterlife” (9.2.2) include Levi’s heavenly investiture as a priest (T. Levi 5)⁴⁵ and Enoch’s angelic transformation in 2 Enoch 22.⁴⁶ Andrei Orlov argues for the priestly transformation of ³⁹ See further Matthias Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism in Late First Century Israel: Reading Second Baruch in Context, TSAJ, 142 (Tübingen, 2011), 281–5. ⁴⁰ George W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity, HTS, 56, 2nd edn (Cambridge, MA, 2006). ⁴¹ Jon D. Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life (New Haven, CT, 2006), 187, 197 n. 44. ⁴² George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 37–82, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN, 2012), 183. ⁴³ See Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism, 307–17, for a thorough discussion of resurrection in 2 Baruch. Henze warns against too quickly reading a double resurrection in 50:1–51:5. ⁴⁴ Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 169–71. ⁴⁵ Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York, 1993), 30–7. ⁴⁶ Reed, Fallen Angels, 246.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

   

77

Abraham in the Apocalypse of Abraham and more specifically that Abraham takes on the garments of the fallen angel Azazel (Apoc. Ab. 13:7, 14).⁴⁷ Collins states: “The forms of salvation are diverse, exaltation to the heavens or renewal of the earth, but in all cases they involve a radically different type of human existence, in which all the constraints of the human condition, including death, are transcended.”⁴⁸ Transcendence is again highlighted as key to the form and content of apocalypses. The eschatological salvation (9) evident in the Fourth Gospel is not cosmic transformation (9.1) but personal salvation (9.2). The Fourth Gospel’s personal salvation (9.2) is most often referred to as eternal life (ζωὴν αἰώνιον, John 3:16, 36; 5:24; 11:25; 20:31) and also includes resurrection (9.2.1). Numerous times in John 6, Jesus says that the righteous will be raised up “on the last day” (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54),⁴⁹ emphasizing the fate of the dead. Resurrection as a hope for those who believe is revealed again in John 11, where Jesus proclaims himself as the resurrection and the life and that all who believe in him will not die (11:25–6). Jesus’s resurrection of Lazarus (11:43–4) serves as what Jörg Frey calls “a narrative visualization, or even physical representation of the promise that those who are ‘in the tombs will hear his voice and . . . come forth to the resurrection of life’ (Jn 5.28).” Frey continues by stating that the resurrection of Lazarus functions “as a visualization of the promise, given to everyone who believes, that Jesus ‘will raise’ him or her ‘on the last day’ (Jn 6.39, 40, 44, 54).”⁵⁰ But not only does John’s Gospel share an expectation of personal eschatological salvation in the form of resurrection, but John, like a number of Jewish apocalypses, also speaks of a double resurrection in which the wicked and the righteous are raised. In John 5:28–9, Jesus says that “an hour comes when those in the tombs who hear his voice will come out, those doing good to a resurrection of life and those practicing evil to a resurrection of judgment” (5:28–9). There are three similarities between Dan. 12:2 and John 5:28–9 that are especially relevant to the Gospel’s relationship to Jewish apocalypses.⁵¹ First, the righteous are raised to life. As noted earlier in this section, in Dan. ⁴⁷ Andrei A. Orlov, Heavenly Priesthood in the Apocalypse of Abraham (Cambridge, 2013), 138–41. ⁴⁸ Collins, “Morphology,” 10. ⁴⁹ Jörg Frey, Die johanneische Eschatologie, WUNT, 97, 110, 117, 3 vols (Tübingen, 1997), , 391–7. As is well-known, Bultmann, Gospel of John, 219–20, argued that these statements were added by the Ecclesiastical Redactor. ⁵⁰ Jörg Frey, “Eschatology in the Johannine Circle,” in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar, ed. by Gilbert Van Belle, J. G. van der Watt, and P. Maritz, BETL, 184 (Leuven, 2005), 81. ⁵¹ See Benjamin E. Reynolds, The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John, WUNT, II/249 (Tübingen, 2008), 140–1, for further similarities.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

78     12:2 (OG and Θ), some are “raised to eternal life” (ἀναστήσονται . . . εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον), while in John 5:29, those who do good will come out of the tombs “to a resurrection of life” (εἰς ἀνάστασιν ζωῆς). Second, double resurrections within Jewish apocalypses are set within the context of eschatological judgment, and in John 5, 4 Ezra 7:32–6, 2 Baruch 50–1, and, by implication, the Parables of Enoch (1 En. 51:1–5), resurrection precedes the judgment. Third, in each of these instances of double resurrection the Messiah, Son of Man plays some role in judgment (John 5:27; 4 Ezra 13; 2 Bar. 72:2–73:1; 1 En. 61:8–9; 62:1–12). It may also be argued that the Gospel of John has some other form of afterlife (9.2.2). For instance, Jesus prays that his followers become one with him as he is one with the Father (John 17:26), and he tells his disciples that they can come live with him (John 14:3, 26).⁵² Relatedly, the references to becoming children of God might also exemplify “another form of afterlife” (1:12–13), such as a type of theosis or heavenly glorification similar to Enoch’s experience of becoming like the angels (2 En. 22:8–10; cf. 1 En. 71:14; also Apoc. Ab. 13:15);⁵³ however, the Fourth Gospel provides too few details to argue for personal salvation other than resurrection.

John, Eschatology, and Time Some may object that the eschatological judgment and salvation in the Gospel of John are present (or realized), and therefore they are decidedly different from those of Jewish apocalypses, in which case the Gospel of John cannot be “apocalyptic.” There are two responses to this objection. First, while there is a present reality to the salvation and judgment in John, the Gospel also contains future expectation of salvation and judgment. Jörg Frey notes the expectation of the “wrath of God” for those who do not believe (John 3:36; cf. 8:51–2), the lack of destruction for those who do believe (3:16), Jesus’s claim that his opponents will die in their sins, and the burning of the pruned branches (15:6) as indications of future expectation in John (cf. 12:47–8).⁵⁴ Frey argues that there are even hints of expectation of Jesus’s return or parousia (a feature popularly considered “apocalyptic”). In John 14:1–3, Jesus says that he will go and prepare a place in heaven for his disciples and return to take them with

⁵² Andrew J. Byers, Ecclesiology and Theosis in the Gospel of John, SNTSMS, 166 (Cambridge, 2017), chapters 6 and 7. ⁵³ Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 40–1. ⁵⁴ Frey, Eschatologie, , 242–321.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

   

79

him so that they may be with him where he is. This reading suggests that the expectation of Jesus’s coming in John 21:22 is not an isolated concept within Johannine thought.⁵⁵ Therefore, although the eschatology of the Gospel of John is often considered distinct from the sort of future eschatology in the Synoptic Gospels and Jewish apocalypses, John’s Gospel also reflects future eschatological expectations. A second response to the cry of “non-apocalyptic present eschatology!” is that this objection mistakenly assumes that future or end-of-the-world eschatology is the only kind of eschatology in Jewish apocalypses. John Collins argues that the “transcendence of death,” which is not the same as resurrection, could be understood within Jewish apocalyptic thought as a present reality (e.g., Dan 7–12; 1QH XI.19–23; XIX.3–14). He concludes: “[The future hope of late post-exilic Judaism] cannot be understood as the expectation of a purely future event, and . . . it is not primarily concerned with the end of anything.”⁵⁶ More recently, Matthias Henze has similarly argued that 2 Baruch does not present an obvious contrast between present and future eschatology. In his discussion of 2 Baruch’s eschatology, he states, “2Bar is uncompromising in its insistence that paradisiacal time already exists, not merely in the form of the promise to the righteous but as a preexistent reality, even though it is now hidden from view and cannot be experienced.”⁵⁷ Thus, although the eschaton may not be experienced in the present in 2 Baruch, it has already begun and currently exists.⁵⁸ Loren Stuckenbruck states: “we would not be mistaken to think that there were pious Jews who understood themselves as living in an eschatological tension, inspired by confidence of concrete moments of divine activity in the past.”⁵⁹ Such an interweaving of present and future eschatologies in Jewish apocalypses suggests that John’s mix of realized and future eschatology may be more similar to Jewish apocalyptic thought than distinct from it.⁶⁰

Summary In the preceding sections, we have seen that the temporally transcendent reality revealed in Jewish apocalypses consists of a number of different ⁵⁵ Frey, Eschatologie, , 162–4. ⁵⁶ Collins, “Apocalyptic Eschatology,” 43, also 35–7. ⁵⁷ Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism, 292, also 318–19. ⁵⁸ Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism, 319. ⁵⁹ Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Overlapping Ages at Qumran and ‘Apocalyptic’ in Pauline Theology,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature, ed. by J.-S. Rey, STDJ, 102 (Leiden, 2014), 324. ⁶⁰ See a somewhat similar description of John’s eschatology in Troels Engberg-Pedersen, John and Philosophy: A New Reading of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford, 2017), 357–65.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

80     elements: protology (4), history (5), eschatological crisis (7), eschatological judgment (8), and eschatological salvation (9). Most of these features consist of sub-elements that provide further detail regarding the content revealed by an otherworldly mediator to a human recipient. The Gospel of John’s revelatory narrative contains protology, eschatological crisis (i.e., persecution), eschatological judgment of the wicked and the ruler of this world, and eschatological salvation (i.e., resurrection, including double resurrection). Like all Jewish apocalypses, John does not contain every element of the Semeia 14 “masterparadigm,” but, significantly, the two content elements found in every Jewish apocalypse—eschatological judgment and salvation—are found in the Fourth Gospel.

Content: A Transcendent Reality That Is Spatial The transcendent reality that is disclosed within apocalypses is not only temporal; it is also defined in the Semeia 14 definition as “spatial insofar as it envisages another supernatural world.” Yet only one element is listed under the spatial axis of content in apocalypses: “otherworldly elements” (10). Otherworldly elements “may be either personal or impersonal and either good or bad,” and they include two sub-elements: otherworldly regions (10.1) and otherworldly beings (10.2).⁶¹ Although otherworldly elements are most obvious in apocalypses with otherworldly journeys (1.3), all Jewish apocalypses reveal spatially transcendent content.

Otherworldly Elements (10) In Jewish apocalypses, the revelation of otherworldly regions (10.1) may include detailed descriptions of these regions, but it may merely disclose their existence. In the Book of the Watchers, Enoch enters into heaven (1 En. 14:8) and sees various aspects of the heavenly temple (14:9–12). Enoch later sees various regions of the earth (1 En. 17–19; 21–34).⁶² In the Book of the Luminaries (1 En. 72–82), Enoch recounts what the angel Uriel has revealed to him concerning the movements of the sun, moon, and stars.

⁶¹ Collins, “Morphology,” 7. ⁶² See Kelley Coblentz Bautch, A Study of the Geography of 1 Enoch 17–19: “No One Has Seen What I Have Seen,” JSJSup, 81 (Leiden, 2003).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

   

81

In the Apocalypse of Abraham, the supernatural world is disclosed through the descent of Yahoel and his escorting of Abraham to heaven. Once in heaven, the Lord himself shows Abraham the heavens, earth, the abyss, and many other things (Apoc. Ab. 17–29). The Testament of Abraham tells of the multiple descents of Michael the archangel from heaven and of Abraham’s ascent and tour of heaven and earth. Baruch is led through five levels of heaven by Phanuel (3 Bar. 3–16). Likewise, in 2 Enoch, Enoch is shown the seven levels of heaven with all that they contain (2 En. 3–22). These Jewish apocalypses declare the reality of otherworldly regions and orient human existence in relation to this spatially transcendent reality. In the depictions of heavenly ascent within Jewish apocalypses, scholars have noted the way in which heaven is often described as a heavenly temple.⁶³ The background for most of these descriptions derives from Ezekiel’s vision of the temple in Ezekiel 40–8, as well as Ezekiel’s vision of the four living creatures, the throne, and the one seated on the throne (Ezek. 1). In the Book of the Watchers, Enoch ascends to heaven on the winds of his vision (1 En. 14:8). He comes to a wall of hailstones (14:9), and after entering through the wall, he comes to a great house built of hailstones (14:10–13). Although the walls and floor are made of snow, they are encircled with fire and the doors blaze with fire. The juxtaposition of ice and fire highlights the otherworldly nature of the vision and is likely derived from Ezekiel’s vision of the fire in the midst of the four living creatures and the ice over their heads (Ezek. 1:13–14, 22 LXX).⁶⁴ Enoch then sees a door in that house which opens to a greater house built of fire (1 En. 14:15). In this third structure Enoch sees the Great Glory seated upon the throne (1 En. 14:18–20). Scholars generally agree that the earthly temple serves as a model for the two houses of Enoch’s vision. The first house corresponds to the main room of the temple ( ‫היכל‬: 1 Kgs 6:5; Ezek. 41:1), and the second greater house corresponds to the holy of holies (‫דביר‬: 1Kgs 6:5).⁶⁵ Martha Himmelfarb has noted that the “wall” that Enoch first encounters (1 En. 14:9) is called a building in the Greek version, and she suggests that it may refer to the vestibule (‫אולם‬: 1 Kgs 6:3; Ezek. 40:48), or third part of the temple.⁶⁶ Considering that Solomon builds a “house” to the Lord (1 Kgs 6:2) and that ⁶³ Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, esp. 14–46. ⁶⁴ George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN, 2001), 259. ⁶⁵ Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 262–3; Kelley Coblentz Bautch, “The Heavenly Temple, the Prison in the Void and the Uninhabited Paradise: Otherworldly Sites in the Book of the Watchers,” in Other Worlds and their Relation to This World: Early Jewish and Ancient Christian Traditions, ed. by Tobias Nicklas and others, JSJSup, 143 (Leiden, 2010), 39. ⁶⁶ Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 15.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

82     Enoch sees and enters these houses in heaven, and that the Great Glory is seated on a throne in the final room (1 En. 14:20; also T. Levi 3:4), there is ample evidence that temple imagery is used to describe heaven in the Book of the Watchers. The use of priestly imagery in other Jewish apocalypses also draws attention to the depiction of heaven as the heavenly temple and God’s dwelling (T. Levi 5; 2 En. 22:8–10; Apoc. Zeph. 5:1–6; 1 En. 71; Apoc. Ab. 15:1–7). Otherworldly elements of the “master-paradigm” also include the revelation of otherworldly beings (10.2). These beings, who may be good or bad, “angelic or demonic,” do not have the mediating role of the otherworldly mediator (2).⁶⁷ The existence of otherworldly beings in Jewish apocalypses is quite common. In the Book of the Watchers, the archangels play an important role carrying out punishment against the Watchers (1 En. 9–11). In the Parables of Enoch, Enoch sees multitudes of angels before the throne of the Lord of Spirits (39:12–14; 40:1), a tradition likely dependent on Daniel’s vision of a multitude of angels before the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7:9–10). Enoch also sees the four archangels, Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, and Phanuel (1 En. 40:2–10; 71:9). In 2 Enoch, he sees many otherworldly beings, such as the two hundred angels who govern the stars, those who guard the houses storing snow and ice, and the three hundred angels guarding Paradise (2 En. 4:1 J; 5:1; 8:8.). One example of angels that Baruch sees in 3 Baruch are the four angels who take the sun’s crown to heaven and cleanse its rays (3 Bar. 8:3). The book of Revelation also has various angels appearing at different moments, like the four living creatures (Rev. 4:6–8), the seven angels who stand before the throne and blow the trumpets (Rev. 8:2–9:13; 11:15), and various other angels (14:6; 15:1). The revelation of otherworldly beings also includes the revelation of evil figures, such as fallen angels and demonic figures. Fallen angels, or more specifically the Watchers, are one of the most common evil beings found in Jewish apocalypses (see the section “Eschatological Judgment” for that of otherworldly beings). Drawing on Gen. 6:1–4, the Book of the Watchers presents the Watchers as leading humans to sin.⁶⁸ Shemihazah is called the chief of the Watchers (1 En. 6:3; cf. 6:7; 8:3; 9:7; 10:11), and he encourages two hundred other angels to descend from heaven for the purpose of procreating with women (1 En. 6:1–7:8; cf. 19:1–2). Asael, likewise, has a leading role among the Watchers and teaches humans to make weapons, jewelry, and

⁶⁷ Collins, “Morphology,” 7. ⁶⁸ See Ryan E. Stokes, The Satan: How God’s Executioner Became the Enemy (Grand Rapids, MI, 2019), 61–74.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

   

83

cosmetics, which leads to godlessness among humanity (1 En. 8:1–2; cf. 9:6; 10:4). Seven other Watchers are also named along with their sinful teaching (1 En. 8:3–4; see 1 En. 69:2–12).⁶⁹ Second Enoch describes the Watchers as “imprisoned in great darkness” in the second heaven (2 En. 18:3–6; cf. 7:1–5). Throughout Jewish apocalypses, there are numerous leaders of evil otherworldly beings. Shemihazah and Asael, as just noted, serve as leaders of the Watchers in the Book of the Watchers.⁷⁰ In Jubilees, the Prince of Mastema is the leader of the giants or evil spirits who remain after the flood (Jub. 10:8–13).⁷¹ The Parables of Enoch speaks of the chains prepared for Azazel (1 En. 54:5; 55:4; cf. 10:4–6) and seems to equate him with Satan (53:3; 54:6).⁷² In the Apocalypse of Abraham, Abraham and Yahoel’s primary adversary is Azazel, whose name most likely reflects the Yom Kippur tradition (Lev. 16).⁷³ In 2 Enoch, the leader of the Watchers is named Satanail (2 En. 18:4 J).⁷⁴ These examples show that Jewish apocalypses do not present a standard Satan figure typical of later Judaism and Christianity,⁷⁵ but evil figures are revealed in apocalypses and are still responsible for the deception and leading astray of human beings, whether Adam and Eve or Noah or humankind more generally.⁷⁶ Another otherworldly being found in four Jewish apocalypses is Daniel’s “one like a son of man,” whom Daniel sees in a vision coming with the clouds of heaven (Dan. 7:13).⁷⁷ The Parables of Enoch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch all depict this figure.⁷⁸ In the Parables of Enoch, the Son of Man is a heavenly figure who is Messiah (“Anointed One”), is seated on the throne of glory by the Lord of Spirits (1 En. 38; 46; 62), and was hidden from the foundation of the

⁶⁹ Reed, Fallen Angels, traces the reception of the Book of the Watchers and the Watchers tradition. ⁷⁰ Although Belial and Beliar are common names for the evil figure(s) at Qumran, they are not as common in the Jewish apocalypses and will not be discussed here. Cf. T. Levi 3:3. ⁷¹ Stokes, The Satan, 75–119; Todd R. Hanneken, The Subversion of the Apocalypses in the Book of Jubilees, EJL, 34 (Atlanta, GA, 2012), 70–82, argues that Mastema, while meaning “hostility” and similar in root to Satan, was not intended to be understood as the evil counterpart of God. He views the name “Satan” in Jub. 10:11 as a later addition. ⁷² Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 203. ⁷³ Orlov, Heavenly Priesthood, 126–41; Orlov, Dark Mirrors, 27–46. ⁷⁴ Orlov, Dark Mirrors, 86, contends that the name Satanail is an attempt to bring the Adam and Eve tradition into contact with the Enoch tradition. ⁷⁵ See Stokes, The Satan, 221–5. ⁷⁶ Chad T. Pierce, “Satan and Related Figures,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids, MI, 2010), 1196–200. ⁷⁷ See Jörg Frey, “Die Apokalyptik als Herausforderung der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft. zum Problem: Jesus und die Apokalyptik,” in Apokalyptik als Herausforderung neutestamentlicher Theologie, ed. by Michael Becker and Markus Öhler, WUNT, II/214 (Tübingen, 2006), 80–3. ⁷⁸ 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. by Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Gabriele Boccaccini, EJL, 44 (Atlanta, GA, 2016), 169–97.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

84     world (1 En. 48:6; 67:2). In 4 Ezra, the man from the sea is Daniel’s “one like a son of man” (4 Ezra 11–13). The figure takes on a primarily messianic role, acts in judgment (4 Ezra 13:37; also 12:32–4), and is often depicted as God’s son or servant (13:37, 52; also 7:28–9; 12:31–2). His preexistence is implied in the Most High’s keeping of him for many ages (13:26; also 12:32).⁷⁹ Similarly, 2 Baruch presents the Danielic figure as Anointed One (2 Bar. 29:3; 30:1; 39:7; 40:1–3; 70:9), judge (40:1–3; 72:2), and preexistent (30:1). The presence of this figure in these four Jewish apocalypses⁸⁰ adds to the cast of otherworldly beings revealing a spatially transcendent reality. While good and bad angels, leaders of fallen angels, and Daniel’s son of man are representative examples of otherworldly beings in Jewish apocalypses, visions of the God of Israel are also part of the revelation of otherworldly beings. Jewish apocalyptic visions of God have their origin in the Hebrew Bible. Moses sees God on Mount Sinai (Exod. 24) and is shown God’s glory (Exod. 33:18). Elijah, also on Mount Sinai, has an experience of meeting the Lord (1 Kgs 19:9–18). Neither one of them sees God’s face, since Elijah wraps his face in his mantle before going out to speak with the Lord (1 Kgs 19:13) and Moses sees the Lord’s back. Micaiah prophesies that he sees the divine council (1 Kgs 22). But Isaiah’s vision of the Lord in the temple (Isa. 6) and Ezekiel’s vision of the Lord seated on the chariot throne (Ezek. 1) became the most influential visions for shaping the depictions of heavenly ascents and visions of God in Jewish apocalypses.⁸¹ In the Book of the Watchers, Enoch takes the plea of the Watchers to the Lord in heaven. Like Moses, Enoch does not see God’s face (1 En. 14:19), but he describes the throne and the Great Glory sitting upon it (14:18–20). Enoch’s ascent to heaven makes possible his vision of God (14:21).⁸² Similarly, Enoch has a vision of God in the Parables of Enoch (1 En. 46–8, 62, 71) and also in 2 Enoch 22. Levi also sees “the Holy Most High” seated on a throne (T. Levi 5:1), as does Daniel, who sees the Ancient of Days take his seat (Dan. 7:9–10). In the Apocalypse of Abraham, Abraham has a vision of the heavenly throne and the fire encircling it (Apoc. Ab. 18), but his angelic guide Yahoel tells him: “You will not look at him himself” (16:3).⁸³ Baruch is told that he will see the glory of ⁷⁹ See Stone, Fourth Ezra, 209, 368, on the preexistence and precreation of the Messiah. ⁸⁰ See John J. Collins, “The Danielic Son of Man,” in The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2nd edn (Grand Rapids, MI, 2010), 191–214. ⁸¹ Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 9–28; Christopher Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (London, 1982), 78–80. ⁸² Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 265. ⁸³ Orlov, Heavenly Priesthood, 46–53, has highlighted the “anti-anthropomorphic tendencies” of the Apocalypse of Abraham.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

   

85

God (3 Bar. 4:2 Slavonic; 6:12; 7:2; 11:2; 16:6 Slavonic), but he is turned back when he reaches fifth heaven (17:1; 17:1–4).⁸⁴ Not to mention John the seer, who has a vision of the Lord on his throne in Revelation 4.⁸⁵ A significant part of the content of Jewish apocalypses includes the spatially transcendent reality through the revelation of otherworldly elements, namely otherworldly regions and otherworldly beings. While this element of the “master-paradigm” is often neglected at the expense of temporal transcendence, the spatial or cosmological realities of Jewish apocalypses are arguably central to Jewish apocalyptic tradition.⁸⁶ The Gospel of John, like Jewish apocalypses, reveals a spatially transcendent reality, including the existence of otherworldly regions (10.1) and otherworldly beings (10.2). The Gospel is full of language reflecting the existence of this otherworldly reality. God the Father is in heaven, and Jesus the Word was with him in heaven (John 1:1–2). The Father sent the Son into the world (3:17), and the true light has come into the world (1:9), which implies the existence of another realm outside the world. In John 1:32, John the Baptist states that he has seen the Spirit descending out of heaven (ἐξ οὐρανοῦ) like a dove. And again, as mentioned in Chapter 2, Jesus tells Nathanael that he will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man (1:51). Because Jesus’s “true home is in heaven,”⁸⁷ he is able to reveal the things of heaven (John 3:12), indicating the cosmological reality of heaven and earth and the existence of “earthly things” (τὰ ἐπίγεια) and “heavenly things” (τὰ ἐπουράνια) (3:12). John 3:31–6 summarizes the mission of Jesus, the one who comes from “above” (ἄνωθεν) and is “above all” (ἐπάνω πάντων, 3:31). The phrase ἐκ τῆς γῆς (“from the earth”), which is repeated three times in 3:31, sharply contrasts with Jesus’s origin from heaven (ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐρχόμενος). Jesus’s use of above and below language heightens the Gospel’s spatially transcendent reality. He says in 8:23: “You are from below [ἐκ τῶν κάτω], and I am from above [ἐκ τῶν ἄνω]. You are from this world, and I am not from this world [ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμι ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου]” (also 8:42; 9:33). The

⁸⁴ Alexander Kulik, 3 Baruch: Greek-Slavonic Apocalypse of Baruch, CEJL (Berlin; New York, 2010), 179, notes that the “glory of God” may refer not to God specifically but “to a disclosure of his works,” which is of interest considering Jesus’s revelation of the Father’s works and glory in the Gospel of John. ⁸⁵ Cf. 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, which have no vision of God. Fourth Ezra 8:20–1 seems to reject heavenly speculation. ⁸⁶ Christopher Rowland and Christopher R. A. Morray-Jones, The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament, CRINT, 12 (Leiden, 2009), 18. ⁸⁷ Martyn, History and Theology, 131–2; John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 2nd edn (Oxford, 2007), 240.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

86     revelation of a spatially transcendent reality is also evident in Jesus’s claims about coming from the Father (16:27–30; 17:8), returning to the Father in heaven (7:33; 8:14, 21–2; 13:3, 33, 36; 14:4–5; 14:28; 16:5, 10, 17; cf. 3:8 of the Spirit), going to his Father’s house (14:2–4), and in his statement to Pilate that his kingdom is not of this world (ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, 18:36). The Ἰουδαῖοι and Jesus’s own disciples’ lack of knowledge about where he is from (πόθεν) contrasts his heavenly origin with those from this world (7:27–8; 8:14, 22; 9:29–30; 14:5; 19:9).⁸⁸ By acknowledging heaven’s existence, John’s Gospel reveals a spatially transcendent reality with regard to otherworldly regions, but the Fourth Gospel reflects a further similarity with Jewish apocalypses regarding otherworldly regions. In John 14:2–3, Jesus tells his disciples that he is going to his Father’s house. His Father’s house has many “dwellings” (μοναὶ), and Jesus will prepare a place for them there.⁸⁹ The use of the phrase “my Father’s house” (τῇ οἰκίᾳ τοῦ πατρός μου) may refer to the heavenly temple, since earlier Jesus uses the phrase to speak of the earthly temple (τὸν οἶκον τοῦ πατρός μου, John 2:15),⁹⁰ and here, in the farewell discourse, the disciples cannot go to Jesus’s Father’s house (14:12; 16:28; cf. 8:21–4).⁹¹ The dwellings that Jesus will prepare for them also indicate similarities to heavenly temples in Jewish apocalypses.⁹² In Jewish apocalypses, the righteous will dwell in the heavenly temple with God.⁹³ This theme is quite extensive in the Parables of Enoch: And there I saw another vision—the dwellings of the holy ones, and the resting places of the righteous. There my eyes saw their dwellings with his righteous angels and their resting places with the holy ones. (1 En. 39:4–5) There I saw the dwelling places of the chosen and the dwelling places of the holy ones. (1 En. 41:2)

⁸⁸ Ashton, Understanding, 493, comments that πόθεν has an important revelatory function in the Gospel. ⁸⁹ Adela Yarbro Collins, “Epilogue,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 305, says this passage has “a somewhat more typical apocalyptic theme.” ⁹⁰ Mary L. Coloe, God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville, MN, 2001), 160. Alan Kerr, The Temple of Jesus’ Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John, JSNTSup, 220 (London, 2002), 277, also notes the similar contexts of the passages: nearness of the Passover (John 2:13; 13:1) and Jesus’s going to Jerusalem (2:13; 11:55–6; 12:20). ⁹¹ Coloe, God Dwells with Us, 160–1. See Robert H. Gundry, “In My Father’s House Are Many Monai (John 14:2),” ZNW, 58/1–2 (1967), 68–72. ⁹² See Frey, Eschatologie, , 138–43. ⁹³ Of the following examples, Gundry, “In My Father’s House,” 71, lists 1 En. 39:4f; 41:2; 45:3; and 2 En. 61:2; Frey, Eschatologie, , 142, lists 1 En. 39:3–4, 5, 7; 41:2; 45:3; 71:16; 2 En. 8:1–8; 9:1; 61:1–2; 65:9–10.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

   

87

On that day, my Chosen One will sit on the throne of glory, and he will their works, and their dwelling place(s) will be innumerable. (1 En. 45:3) with you will be their dwelling and with you, their lot, and from you they will not be separated forever and forever and ever. (1 En. 71:16; cf. 62:13–16)⁹⁴

Further indications of heavenly dwellings are notable in 2 Enoch: But they will have a great light for eternity . . . and they will have a great paradise, the shelter of an eternal residence. (2 En. 65:10 J; also 65:10 A) in the great age many shelters have been prepared for people, very good houses . . . . Happy is he who enters in to the blessed dwellings. (2 En. 61:1–2 [J and A])⁹⁵

Another example of heavenly dwelling may be seen in 3 Bar. 9:5 after Baruch enters the fourth heaven: This plain which surrounds the lake, and in which are other mysteries, is the place where the souls of the righteous come when they assemble, living together choir by choir.⁹⁶

Jesus’s preparation of a dwelling with his Father for those who believe is compellingly similar to these examples of heavenly dwelling of the righteous in Jewish apocalypses. Bringing together the heavenly temple and the dwelling of God with his people further indicates the Gospel of John’s alignment with the “master-paradigm,” and specifically the revelation of otherworldly regions (10.1). In the Gospel of John, we also see the disclosure of spatially transcendent reality in the depiction of otherworldly beings (10.2). The Gospel mentions angels on two occasions. First, Jesus speaks of the angels of God (τοὺς ἀγγέλους τοῦ θεοῦ) ascending and descending on the Son of Man (John 1:51), and, second, Mary Magdalene sees two angels in Jesus’s tomb (20:12–13). The two

⁹⁴ Translation from George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation (Minneapolis, MN, 2012). ⁹⁵ Translation from F. I. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in OTP, ed. by James H. Charlesworth, 2 vols (New York, 1983), , 91–221. Frey, Eschatologie, , 142, notes that this passage is the closest parallel to John 14:2. ⁹⁶ Translation from H. E. Gaylord, Jr., “3 (Greek Apocalypse of) Baruch,” in OTP, ed. by James H. Charlesworth, 2 vols (New York, 1983), , 653–79.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

88     angels are only described as wearing white and sitting where Jesus’s body had lain. John’s Gospel does not disclose the existence of evil angels, such as the Watchers, but a single, evil otherworldly being is disclosed. The Gospel uses four different terms for this figure: Satan (ὁ σατανᾶς, John 13:27), the devil (ὁ διάβολος, 8:44; 13:2), the evil one (ὁ πονηρός, 17:15), and “the ruler of this world” (ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τουτοῦ, 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). Most scholars assume these terms refer to the same figure,⁹⁷ but Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer has argued this point persuasively.⁹⁸ In the first reference to this evil figure, the devil (ὁ διάβολος) is called a liar and murderer from the beginning (8:44), and Jesus declares that his opponents are from their father the devil (ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστὲ, 8:44).⁹⁹ The devil’s (Satan’s) role in deception is obvious in Judas’s betrayal of Jesus (13:2; ὁ σατανᾶς, 13:27; cf. 6:70). However, the Johannine term which receives the most discussion is the “the ruler of (this) world” (cf. Eph. 2:2; 2 Cor. 4:4).¹⁰⁰ The “ruler of this world” is judged now, and is cast out now (John 12:31). He is coming (ἔρχεται γὰρ ὁ κόσμου ἄρχων, 14:30) and “has been judged” (16:7–8, 11). In Jesus’s prayer, he requests that his disciples be kept from the evil one (ὁ πονηρός) and that they not be taken from the world (17:15).¹⁰¹ The presence and revelation of this evil otherworldly being and his work of deception are part of the disclosure of spatially transcendent reality in the Gospel of John. The Fourth Gospel also reveals the otherworldly being of the Son of Man. As in the Parables of Enoch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch, the Son of Man is portrayed as being preexistent and from heaven (John 3:13; 6:62). The Son of Man is the Messiah (12:34; cf. 1:41, 45), and he has the authority to judge because he is the Son of Man (5:27; cf. 9:35–9). One striking similarity of the Johannine Son of

⁹⁷ Brown, Gospel, 468. ⁹⁸ Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer, “The Ruler of the World, Antichrists and Pseudo-Prophets: Johannine Variations on an Apocalyptic Theme,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 180–99. ⁹⁹ DeConick, “Heavens Closed,” 147–79, argues that 8:44 refers to the father of the devil, but the phrase “your father” in the following line seems to suggest otherwise. ¹⁰⁰ Kovacs, “Ruler of This World,” 227–47; Ronald A. Piper, “Satan, Demons and the Absence of Exorcisms in the Fourth Gospel,” in Christology, Controversy, and Community: New Testament Essays in Honour of David R. Catchpole, ed. by David Horrell and C. M. Tuckett, NovTSup, 99 (Leiden, 2000), 253–78; Torsten Löfstedt, “The Ruler of This World,” SEÅ, 74 (2009), 55–79; Christopher W. Skinner, “Overcoming Satan, Overcoming the World: Exploring the Cosmologies of Mark and John,” in Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. by Christopher Keith and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, WUNT, II/417 (Tübingen, 2016), 101–21. ¹⁰¹ Stuckenbruck, “Evil in Johannine and Apocalyptic Perspective,” 228, argues that “prayers of deliverance” from demonic powers were “based on a twinfold assumption that (a) the present age is under the dominion of evil . . . and (b) the powers which hold sway are essentially defeated and await certain eschatological destruction.”

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

   

89

Man with Jewish apocalyptic tradition is the phrase “the whole judgment,” which is given to the Son of Man in John 5:22, 27 and 1 En. 69:27.¹⁰² The Gospel of John, along with angels, Satan, and the Son of Man, reveals God as another otherworldly being. The revelation of the Father in the Fourth Gospel adds to the Johannine disclosure of spatially transcendent reality. In John 12:28, Jesus says, “Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice from heaven (φωνὴ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανου) says: “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.” Some from the crowd say the voice or sound was thunder, but others say that angels have spoken to Jesus (12:29). The voice of God points to the Fourth’s Gospel’s revelation of otherworldly beings. God the Father as an otherworldly being is also notable in the depiction of his presence in heaven. Like Jewish apocalypses, yet from a distinctly Johannine perspective, the Gospel presents the vision of God (John 1:18; 3:13; 6:46; 12:45). Christopher Rowland states, “The vision of God, the heart of the calling experiences of Isaiah and Ezekiel and the goal of the heavenly ascents of the apocalyptic seers and rabbinic mystics, is in the Fourth Gospel related to the revelation of God in Jesus.”¹⁰³ Visions of God may be possible in Jewish apocalypses through ascents to heaven (i.e., otherworldly journeys) with the guidance and interpretation of an otherworldly mediator, but in the Gospel of John, Jesus, an otherworldly being who has descended from heaven, is the vision of God.¹⁰⁴ One of the most significant passages regarding visionary experience in the Gospel of John is the reference to Isaiah’s vision. In John 12:41, in the transition from the narration of Jesus’s life to his passion, the Gospel states that Isaiah did not see the Lord’s glory but Jesus’s glory. This statement follows right on the heels of two citations of Isaiah: Isa. 53:1 in John 12:38 and Isa. 6:10 in John 12:40. The latter citation comes from the Lord’s speech to Isaiah during his visionary calling, when Isaiah saw the Lord seated on his throne and the six-winged angels surrounding the throne (Isa. 6:1–5). The Gospel declares that Isaiah saw Jesus’s glory and not the Lord’s; yet the Gospel claims that the vision of God is possible in the life of Jesus. The former citation in John 12:38 of Isa. 53:1, with the only use of ἀποκαλύπτω in John’s Gospel, asks: “To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed (ἀπεκαλύφθη)?” The implied answer to ¹⁰² R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1912), 140–1; 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. by J. Mrazek and J. Roskovec (London, 2004), 233–4. ¹⁰³ Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, 124–5; Rowland, Open Heaven, 84. ¹⁰⁴ Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, 128, 131; Jey J. Kanagaraj, “Mysticism” in the Gospel of John: An Inquiry into its Background, JSNTSup, 158 (Sheffield, 1998), 214–47.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

90     that question is that all who have seen the works and signs of Jesus have had the Lord revealed to them, just as Isaiah did (John 12:37; cf. 1:14; 2:11; 12:23).¹⁰⁵ The vision of God which is the heart of Jewish apocalyptic ascent is visible in the person of Jesus, who has come from the Father.¹⁰⁶ John 14:6–9 makes this claim even more explicit. In response to Jesus’s statement to be the only way to the Father, Philip asks Jesus to show the disciples the Father. Jesus says that if the disciples have seen him, they have seen the Father (14:8–9). To see Jesus is to see the Father (see 12:45; cf. 5:19–30; 8:23–30; 17:6–8).¹⁰⁷ There is no need for heavenly ascent because the revelation or vision of God has taken place on earth. It is this inversion which is one of the primary reasons Ashton has claimed that the Gospel of John is “an apocalypse—in reverse, upside down, inside out.”¹⁰⁸ All that Jesus as the otherworldly mediator speaks, does, and makes known reveals the Father. Rudolf Bultmann noted that the Gospel does not relate esoteric knowledge or mysteries that are communicated in this revelation of otherworldly regions and beings,¹⁰⁹ which is why he claimed that the Fourth Gospel’s revelation indicates only that Jesus is the Revealer and no more.¹¹⁰ Bultmann is correct that there is no list of revealed things or esoteric visions in John’s Gospel, but, as Saeed Hamid-Khani argues, there is content to the revelation, namely, someone is revealed.¹¹¹ The heavens open and God’s glory is made visible but in the human being Jesus. As in Jewish apocalypses, the recipient of revelation is able to see God and his dwelling, but in the Fourth Gospel, that takes place in the person of Jesus. “Heavenly visions are not what is on offer in ¹⁰⁵ Catrin H. Williams, “Seeing the Glory: The Reception of Isaiah’s Call-Vision in Jn 12.41,” in Judaism, Jewish Identity and Gospel Tradition, ed. by James G. Crossley (London, 2010), 198; also Catrin H. Williams, “Johannine Christology and Prophetic Traditions: The Case of Isaiah,” in Reading the Gospel of John’s Christology as Jewish Messianism: Royal, Prophetic, and Divine Messiahs, ed. by Benjamin E. Reynolds and Gabriele Boccaccini, AJEC, 106 (Leiden, 2018), 92–123. ¹⁰⁶ Both Philippe van den Heede, Der Exeget Gottes. Eine Studie zur johanneischen Offenbarungstheologie, HBibSt, 88 (Freiburg, 2017), 340–4, and Frey, Glory of the Crucified One, 303–12, argue that Jesus’s revelation of the Father reveals God as love. ¹⁰⁷ 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 Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar, ed. by Gilbert Van Belle, J. G. van der Watt, and P. Maritz, BETL, 184 (Leuven, 2005), 117–33. ¹⁰⁸ Ashton, Understanding, 328–9. ¹⁰⁹ Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. by Kendrick Grobel, 2 vols (New York, 1951), , 62; Bultmann, Gospel of John, 254. ¹¹⁰ Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, , 66. ¹¹¹ Saeed Hamid-Khani, Revelation and Concealment of Christ: Theological Inquiry into the Elusive Language of the Fourth Gospel, WUNT, II/120 (Tübingen, 2000), 351–2; also Sjef van Tilborg, “Cosmological Implications of Johannine Christology,” in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar, ed. by Gilbert Van Belle, Jan G. van der Watt, and P. Maritz, BETL, 184 (Leuven, 2005), 483–502. See Ashton, Understanding, 528–9; cf. Gail R. O’Day, Revelation in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Mode and Theological Claim (Philadelphia, PA, 1986), 92.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

   

91

the Fourth Gospel, for claims to see God must be regarded as claims to see Jesus.”¹¹² As in Jewish apocalypses, the vision of God is possible in the Fourth Gospel, even if the Gospel’s tendency to skew generic conventions makes itself starkly evident here.

Conclusion In this chapter, I have argued that the Gospel of John reveals core content elements of the genre of apocalypse as listed in the Semeia 14 “masterparadigm.” John, like all apocalypses, does not include every element, but I have shown that it contains the following content elements: protology (4), eschatological crisis (7), eschatological judgment (8), eschatological salvation (9), and otherworldly elements (10). Among Jewish apocalypses the most common content elements are eschatological judgment of sinners (8.1), some form of eschatological salvation (9), and the disclosure of otherworldly regions (10.1) and otherworldly beings (10.2). The Fourth Gospel obviously includes references to the judgment of unbelievers (8.1) and the granting of eternal life and the hope of a future resurrection to those who believe (9.2.1). John also makes evident the existence of heaven (10.1), angels, Satan, the Son of Man, and God the Father (10.2). In addition, John contains information about the beginning of the world (cosmogony, 4.1, and primordial events, 4.2) and eschatological crisis in the form of persecution (7.1). Temporally transcendent reality is present in John even if the Gospel’s timing is focused more on the present than the future. Recent studies of time and eschatology in Jewish apocalypses have noted a similar mixed present and future eschatology. John’s spatially transcendent reality also highlights significant similarities with Jewish apocalypses. Some have questioned whether John’s cosmology may be called “apocalyptic,” but the comparison of John’s spatially transcendent nature with that in Jewish apocalypses should indicate that John is worthy of being considered “apocalyptic” when that adjective is linked to the genre of apocalypse. Although the discussion in this chapter has merely scratched the surface of the temporally and spatially transcendent reality revealed in John’s Gospel, it is clear that the Gospel of John unveils a transcendent reality similar to that defined by the Semeia 14 definition of “apocalypse.” When John’s content similarities are considered with the form similarities discussed in Chapter 2, ¹¹² Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, 131.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

92     the case is stronger for calling John an “apocalyptic” gospel. The Fourth Gospel’s temporal and spatial transcendence, blended with the gospel genre, offers a better explanation for its differences from the Synoptics and its similarities with Jewish apocalypses.¹¹³ In Chapter 4, I will address the final generic dimension of apocalypses, namely their function.

¹¹³ See Francis J. Moloney, “The Parables of Enoch and the Johannine Son of Man,” in Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift, ed. by Darrell L. Bock and James H. Charlesworth, Jewish and Christian Texts, 11 (London; New York, 2013), 293 n. 87; Stuckenbruck, “Evil in Johannine and Apocalyptic Perspective,” 206 n. 16.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

4 The Function of Revelation in Jewish Apocalypses and John Introduction In Chapters 2 and 3, I have compared the Gospel of John’s manner and content of revelation with the Semeia 14 “master-paradigm” of an apocalypse. The Gospel of John has been shown to share the generic framework of an apocalypse in that the Gospel’s revelation is mediated by an otherworldly figure to a human recipient and reflects the spatially and temporally transcendent reality disclosed in apocalypses. In this chapter, I will compare the function of apocalypses in relation to that of the Gospel of John. In recent scholarship, the function and social context of apocalypses has become a greater concern, particularly when apocalypses are understood as protest literature. Following the discussion of function, I will conclude by addressing the final three elements of the “master-paradigm”: paraenesis by the revealer (11) and concluding elements, which include instructions to the recipient (12) and narrative conclusion (13).

Function and the Semeia 14 Definition of “Apocalypse” The original Semeia 14 definition of “apocalypse” made no mention of the function or social setting of apocalypses. While this was intentional on the part of the SBL Genre group,¹ the absence of any discussion of function in the definition or the “master-paradigm” was one of the significant criticisms raised against the definition at the Uppsala conference on apocalypticism, which was held in the same year Semeia 14 was published.² The most extensive

¹ John J. Collins, “Introduction: Toward the Morphology of a Genre,” Semeia, 14 (1979), 1–2. ² David Hellholm, ed., Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12–17, 1979 (Tübingen, 1983). John among the Apocalypses: Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the “Apocalyptic” Gospel. Benjamin E. Reynolds, Oxford University Press (2020). © Benjamin E. Reynolds. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198784241.001.0001

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

94     critique came from David Hellholm, who argued that function should be considered along with form and content for a proper understanding of the genre. He contended that apocalypses were “intended for a group in crisis with the purpose of exhortation and/or consolation.”³ While this may be true for some apocalypses, it is unlikely that all were written within or in response to crises. For example, John Collins notes that 2 Enoch “does not appear to have been written in the context of any great historical crisis.”⁴ Further, as has been noted, it is difficult to discern the precise social setting of an apocalypse merely from the text itself.⁵ David Aune also critiqued the Semeia 14 definition of apocalypse for its lack of reference to social function. With some sensitivity to genre, he argued that a definition should make reference to form, content, and function and proposed a three-part definition of the social function of apocalypses. According to Aune, apocalypses are intended: (a) to legitimate the transcendent authorization of the message, (b) by mediating a new actualization of the original revelatory experience through literary devices, structures and imagery, which function to “conceal” the message which the text “reveals,” so that (c) the recipients of the message will be encouraged to modify their cognitive and behavioral stance in conformity with transcendent perspectives.⁶

Adela Yarbro Collins rightly critiqued this definition as wordy;⁷ however, Aune outlines well the purpose of apocalypses. Aune’s appeal to broader transcendence ((a) and (c)) and the act of revealing and concealing (b) are valuable concerns to consider. In light of the specific suggestions of Hellholm and Aune, Adela Yarbro Collins proposed the following addition to the definition of “apocalypse.” She states that an apocalypse is:

³ David Hellholm, “The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John,” Semeia, 36 (1986), 13–64. ⁴ John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 3rd edn (Grand Rapids, MI, 2016), 307. ⁵ George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Social Aspects of Palestinian Jewish Apocalypticism,” in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12–17, 1979, ed. by David Hellholm (Tübingen, 1983), 641; John J. Collins, Seers, Sibyls, and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism (Boston, MA, 2001), 33. ⁶ David E. Aune, “The Apocalypse of John and the Problem of Genre,” Semeia, 36 (1986), 65–96 (87). ⁷ Adela Yarbro Collins, “Introduction: Early Christian Apocalypses,” Semeia, 36 (1986), 1–11.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

   

95

intended to interpret present, earthly circumstances in light of the supernatural world and of the future, and to influence both the understanding and the behavior of the audience by means of divine authority.⁸

Both of Hellholm’s and Aune’s contributions are noticeable in the addition, as well as Yarbro Collins’s attempt to retain the cosmological and eschatological foci of the original Semeia 14 definition (e.g., “supernatural world” and “future”). She validates that each apocalypse was written in a certain situation and for a specific reason, but at the same time, her addition does not specify those situations as crisis, unrest, or some other difficulty, but rather the more general “present, earthly circumstances.” Yarbro Collins also includes Aune’s suggestions on “transcendent authorization” as “divine authority.” Thus, the addition allows for breadth of purpose and social context. Unlike the original Semeia 14 definition of apocalypse, the Semeia 36 addition concerning function does not have a “master-paradigm” of elements. As a result, the comparison in the following section is determined solely by the wording of the addition. As in Chapters 2 and 3, I will draw attention to the way Jewish apocalypses fit the definition before then drawing attention to any similarities with the Gospel of John.

The Function of Revelation Intended to Interpret Present, Earthly Circumstances in Light of the Supernatural World and of the Future The first part of the addition noticeably avoids the word “crisis” and any reference to a specific group, since a number of apocalypses do not reflect crises. However, while apocalypses may not be crisis literature, the current consensus among scholars of Jewish apocalypses is that they were written as resistance literature and particularly resistance against imperial power, whether Hellenistic or Roman.⁹ Aune argues that as protest literature ⁸ Yarbro Collins, “Introduction,” 7. ⁹ Paul D. Hanson, “Apocalypse, Genre and Apocalypticism,” IDBSup, 1976, 27–34; Aune, “Apocalypse of John,” 89; Richard A. Horsley, Revolt of the Scribes: Resistance and Apocalyptic Origins (Minneapolis, MN, 2010); Anathea E. Portier-Young, Apocalypse against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI, 2011); Anathea E. Portier-Young, “Jewish Apocalyptic Literature as Resistance Literature,” in The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature, ed. by John J. Collins (Oxford, 2014), 145–62; Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Coping with Alienating Experience: Four Strategies from the Third and Second Centuries ,” in Rejection: God’s Refugees, ed. by Stanley E. Porter, MNTS (Eugene, OR, 2015), 57–83.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

96     apocalypses allowed “the oppressed rights of a minority [to be] legitimized by divine revelation.”¹⁰ In this understanding, the present circumstances of author and audience are one of imperial oppression, and they are understood in light of God’s promises to his people, of an awareness of the cosmological world, and of a hope for future redemption. The situation of the Jewish people under the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes is referred to by Anathea Portier-Young as “state terror” and the “unmaking of the Judean world.”¹¹ She argues that early apocalypses, namely Daniel, the Apocalypse of Weeks, and the Book of Dreams, resist this oppression, albeit in different ways (more on that later in this section).¹² Philip Esler disagrees with the idea of apocalypses as resistance to imperial oppression. For Esler, the primary danger was not religious persecution from empire but a threat to ethnic identity, and thus “ethnic survival.”¹³ While ethnic identity may have been part of the danger, imperial oppression of religion is recognizable in the time period and in related literature. According to 1 and 2 Maccabees, there were religious connotations to Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ oppression. For example, Torah requirements were outlawed, particularly sacrifices in the temple (1 Macc. 1:45), circumcision (1:48, 60–1; 2 Macc. 6:10), and Sabbath keeping (2 Macc. 6:6), with the intention that the people would forget the law (1 Macc. 1:49). It is no coincidence that the event that sparked the Maccabean revolt took place at an altar where Seleucid representatives forced Jews to sacrifice an unclean animal in direct defiance of the Mosaic law (1 Macc. 2:15–28; cf. 2 Macc. 7). It may be that Antiochus was attempting to impose another ethnic identity on the Jewish people and merely to rid the people of their customs and ethnicity, but there were also strong religious dimensions to this imposition and the resulting resistance.¹⁴ While some apocalypses evidently functioned as resistance literature, not all Jewish apocalypses did.¹⁵ Various examples will be noted in this section, but whatever the social context, whether one of imperial oppression, one group ostracized by another, class exploitation,¹⁶ a “perceived” crisis,¹⁷ or a fragmented ¹⁰ Aune, “Apocalypse of John,” 89. ¹¹ Portier-Young, Apocalypse against Empire, 140–216. ¹² Portier-Young, Apocalypse against Empire, 217–380. ¹³ Philip F. Esler, “Social-Scientific Approaches to Apocalyptic Literature,” in The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature, ed. by John J. Collins (Oxford, 2014), 123–44. ¹⁴ Portier-Young, Apocalypse against Empire, 191–210. ¹⁵ Matthias Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism in Late First Century Israel: Reading Second Baruch in Context, TSAJ, 142 (Tübingen, 2011), 4–6. ¹⁶ Anthony Keddie, Revelations of Ideology: Apocalyptic Class Politics in Early Roman Palestine, JSJSup, 189 (Leiden, 2018). ¹⁷ Adela Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse (Philadelphia, PA, 1984), 84–107.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

   

97

situation that needed restoration, the apocalypses interpret that reality in relation to “the supernatural world and the future” (i.e., cosmology and consummated time). As a result, some scholars have tended to view the perspective of Jewish apocalypses as escapist, an attempt to live in another world and not the present.¹⁸ In other words, the world below and the earthly circumstances of the present are severed from the heavenly sphere. This escapist view of Jewish apocalypses has been critiqued in recent years. Liv Ingeborg Lied sees an overlap between the earthly and heavenly spheres rather than a separation.¹⁹ Richard Horsley argues that there is no “fundamental antithesis” or “cosmic dualism” between the earthly and heavenly in Jewish apocalypses but a “correlation” between what is above and below and the events that take place in their spheres.²⁰ Portier-Young contends that what actually takes place in apocalypses is not an abandonment of reality but that the visions of Jewish apocalypses “portrayed reality in a new light in order to change not only how their audiences saw, but also what they did.”²¹ She argues that Jewish apocalyptic writings made the invisible power structures of imperial oppression visible and sought to invert those power structures. “The thesis of apocalyptic literature is that hidden realities ineluctably shape the visible and therefore must be revealed: revelation of hidden things provides the necessary basis for action.”²² Interpreting the present in light of the invisible, supernatural world is thus not a flight from reality, but acknowledging the supernatural world forms and directs a proper understanding of the visible, natural world. Loren Stuckenbruck states: [the writers of the Book of Watchers, Tobit, the Epistle of Enoch, and 4 Ezra] set before their immediate audiences and, potentially, others beyond them a larger theological worldview that could put the problems they encountered into perspective. In broader terms, the writers of these texts designed their ideas in such a way as to make “the way the God of Israel sees things” less elusive for their audiences than before.²³

In other words, the present, earthly circumstances are given a new interpretation in light of the supernatural world. This reinterpretation is not an escape, but a re-envisioning of reality in terms of spatial and temporal transcendence

¹⁸ Paul D. Hanson, The Dawn of the Apocalyptic, rev. edn (Philadelphia, PA, 1979), 29–30. ¹⁹ Liv Ingeborg Lied, The Other Lands of Israel: Imaginations of the Land in 2 Baruch, JSJSup, 129 (Leiden, 2008), 286–305 (esp. 302–5). ²⁰ Horsley, Revolt, 6. ²¹ Portier-Young, Apocalypse against Empire, 217. ²² Portier-Young, Apocalypse against Empire, 37. ²³ Stuckenbruck, “Alienating Experiences,” 58 (emphasis original).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

98     or, as Stuckenbruck puts it, in light of “the way the God of Israel sees things.” This reinterpretation of present reality appears primarily cosmological, or spatially transcendent, although such a cosmology often includes expectations about God’s consummation of time (cf. “and of the future” in the definitional addition).²⁴ For instance, 2 Enoch is not resistance literature, but it still offers this sort of supernatural reinterpretation of the world. John Collins says that the issues in 2 Enoch are “no more specific than human sinfulness, the prevalence of idolatry and injustice. 2 Enoch, then, has the character of a reflection on the human situation in general.”²⁵ Assuming an Alexandrian Jewish provenance, Andrei Orlov has argued for a polemical nature to 2 Enoch, as seen in the way Adam and other patriarchs are appropriated in possible intra-Jewish rivalries.²⁶ Christfried Böttrich, in contrast, understands 2 Enoch to be about “integration,” namely integration between Jewish tradition and the Hellenistic Alexandrian context. Böttrich understands this process as an “updating of the tradition” and not a replacement.²⁷ Since “2 Enoch could derive from any region in which Jewish, Greek, Egyptian, and other Near Eastern ideas mingled,”²⁸ determining its purpose is more complicated; however, the various suggestions correspond better with intra-Jewish opposition or party politics than conflict, crisis, or resistance to political power. The Book of the Watchers, on the other hand, reflects imperial resistance, yet in the context of Greek rule over Israel before the Seleucids. George Nickelsburg argues that the social context of the Shemihazah myth in the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 6–7), which narrates the fall of the Watchers and the resulting birth of the giants, concerns the Hellenistic rulers who succeeded Alexander the Great. He contends that the myth of the fallen angels in the Book of the Watchers forms a “parody” of the claims that the Diadochi were born of divine beings by portraying these divine beings as demons.²⁹

²⁴ In his recent book, Michael E. Stone, Secret Groups in Ancient Judaism (Oxford, 2018), 98–118, argues that apocalypses do not necessarily reflect the existence of secret groups behind the literature, but rather they use heavenly mysteries to “evoke mystification in those who do not know the inner teaching and to invoke that inner teaching in those who do know it” (113). ²⁵ Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 307–8. ²⁶ Andrei A. Orlov, “On the Polemical Nature of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch: A Reply to C. Böttrich,” JSJ, 34 (2003), 274–303. ²⁷ Christfried Böttrich, “The ‘Book of the Secrets of Enoch’ (2 En): Between Jewish Origin and Christian Transmission. An Overview,” in New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only, ed. by Andrei A. Orlov, Gabriele Boccaccini, and Jason M. Zurawaski, SJs, 4 (Leiden, 2012), 37–67 (61–3). ²⁸ F. I. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in OTP, ed. by James H. Charlesworth, 2 vols (New York, 1983), , 96. ²⁹ George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN, 2001), 170; also Horsley, Revolt, 55–7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

   

99

If this is the case, the Book of Watchers presents a cosmological interpretation of these earthly rulers, their successors, and the destruction and death they produced (1 En. 7:3–5). Loren Stuckenbruck draws attention to the lament raised by humanity as a result of this Hellenistic oppression (1 En. 8:4; 9:4–11). Their lament, which they ask the four archangels—Michael, Sariel, Raphael, and Gabriel—to take before the Most High (9:1–3), expresses their complaint that God is silent or even absent in their present circumstances (9:4–11). Whether or not God is silent, Stuckenbruck argues that God’s response in the Book of the Watchers refocuses the audience on God’s working in the past with Noah, in the promised judgment of the flood (1 En. 10:1–15) and the blessing of righteousness and truth (10:16–11:2). For Stuckenbruck, the narrative of the Book of the Watchers reassures its audience that evil will not prevail and that God will end this evil and all forms of oppression as he has done in the past.³⁰ The present circumstances of the audience are thus reshaped and reinterpreted in light of spatial and temporal transcendence, giving them a future hope. Fourth Ezra opens horizons on present, earthly circumstances through a supernatural orientation but as consolation and not as protest.³¹ Written following the destruction of the Second Temple and the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans, this Jewish apocalypse seeks to make sense of these events through Ezra’s dialogues with the Lord as mediated through the angel Uriel. Jerusalem’s and Israel’s present circumstances are given a supernatural context by directing attention to God’s ultimate control and the predetermination of events (4 Ezra 4:1–5:13),³² not to mention the visions of the Davidic messiah who will judge the wicked (4 Ezra 11–13) and Ezra’s reception of revelation directly from God (4 Ezra 14). According to 4 Ezra, yet differently from the Book of the Watchers, hope exists in the promise of God’s restoration through his supernatural intervention in the future³³ and the wisdom that God reveals (4 Ezra 14:45–8). In a similar way, 2 Baruch centers on rebuilding and consoling; however, Matthias Henze argues that 2 Baruch is concerned with the unity of the people in the aftermath of the tragic destruction and Roman oppression. Henze sees 2 Baruch as purposely non-sectarian and concerned with bringing the Jewish ³⁰ Stuckenbruck, “Alienating Experiences,” 61–2. ³¹ Portier-Young, “Resistance Literature,” 146. ³² Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN, 1990), 91–2. ³³ See Lester L. Grabbe, “4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Social and Historical Perspective,” in Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction after the Fall, ed. by Matthias Henze and Gabriele Boccaccini, JSJSup, 164 (Leiden, 2013), 221–35.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

100     people together,³⁴ arguing that it is an “inclusive text that seeks to rid apocalyptic literature of its sectarian stigma by arguing that an apocalyptic awareness does not preclude one from leading a faithful life according to Torah.”³⁵ Baruch’s speeches to the people and his letter at the end of 2 Baruch are evidence of this function, since they focus on comforting and encouraging the people of Jerusalem and Jews outside Palestine, respectively.³⁶ In light of these examples of Jewish apocalypses, Yarbro Collins was correct to describe the context of apocalypses more generally as “present, earthly circumstances.” There are various social contexts from which apocalypses arose. Some may have resulted from imperial oppression, others from internal ostracization or infighting, and others show no clear indication of a specific situation. What is common to them is an interpretation of the present world with respect to the supernatural revelation of a temporally and spatially transcendent reality.

The Gospel of John and Interpreting Present, Earthly Circumstances The Gospel of John, like Jewish apocalypses, interprets present, earthly circumstances in light of the supernatural world and the future. Jesus’s teaching and actions reshape understanding, particularly regarding being born above (John 3), living water (John 4), and true bread (John 6). His origin from above shapes the understanding of who he is and influences interpretation about worshipping God in spirit and truth (John 4) and remaining in the true vine (John 15). In Jesus’s farewell discourse, he speaks of his coming departure (14:2–4), a time of persecution (16:2–3), and the coming of the Paraclete who will convict the world (16:5–11). There is hope for the Gospel’s audience in light of present circumstances because of the Gospel’s revealed cosmological and eschatological perspective. The present circumstances of the Gospel are, however, debated, but some scholars have recently argued that the Gospel is a response to empire.³⁷ From

³⁴ Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism, 264. ³⁵ Matthias Henze, “Torah and Eschatology in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch,” in The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, ed. by George J. Brooke, Hindy Najman, and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, TBN, 12 (Leiden, 2008), 209–10. ³⁶ A. F. Klijn, “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,” in OTP, ed. by James H. Charlesworth, 2 vols (New York, 1983), , 617–18. ³⁷ Lance Byron Richey, Roman Imperial Ideology and the Gospel of John, CBQMS, 43 (Washington, DC, 2007); Warren Carter, John and Empire: Initial Explorations (New York, 2008); Tom Thatcher, Greater than Caesar: Christology and Empire in the Fourth Gospel (Minneapolis, MN, 2009).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

   

101

this perspective, the Gospel inverts imperial power by making the claim that Jesus is king and not Caesar. This claim is most pronounced in Jesus’s dialogue with Caesar’s representative, Pilate (John 18:28–19:11), in which Jesus cosmologically interprets present circumstances. In response to Pilate’s question about whether Jesus is a king, Jesus says that his kingdom is not of this world and that it is “not from here” (οὐκ ἔστιν ἐντεῦθεν, 18:36). Jesus’s language of another world continues his claims of being from above and sent by God (3:31; 8:23), and yet “Jesus challenges Rome not as a rival to Caesar on the earth, nor as a ruler in heaven instead of on earth, but instead as his superior, ruling both heaven and earth.”³⁸ For this earthly and heavenly kingship, Jesus has been born and come into the world (18:37). The statement of the Samaritan crowd designating Jesus as the “Savior of the World” (John 4:42) may be viewed as a challenge to Rome and specifically Caesar.³⁹ Warren Carter argues that the term “savior” was used widely in the ancient world but that part of its reference in John 4:42 is to an imperial title. Thus, the words, coming especially from the Samaritans, may be understood as an anti-empire statement.⁴⁰ Another arguable challenge to Caesar may be found in Jesus’s statement to his disciples in the farewell discourse: “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. I do not give it to you as the world gives” (14:27; cf. 20:19, 21). If it is the Roman Empire and Caesar who have granted peace on earth, Jesus the king whose kingdom is from another world grants peace in a manner different from the way the world does. These three instances of possible response to empire are examples of the Gospel’s interpretation of present, earthly circumstances in light of the supernatural world. In each of them, earthly authority is interpreted in relation to supernatural authority, and spatial transcendence reshapes earthly power structures. Concerning the Gospel’s social context, the consensus among Johannine scholars, especially for the last fifty years, has been that the Gospel itself was written and/or edited in response to an intra-Jewish conflict. Raymond Brown and J. Louis Martyn have been the most influential scholars on this topic, and their work has dominated Johannine scholarship for the last half century. For Martyn, the statements in the Gospel concerning the threat to cast followers of Jesus “out of the synagogue” (ἀποσυνάγωγος) reflect the oppression faced by the author and the audience of the Gospel and not the situation of Jesus’s life

³⁸ Richey, Roman Imperial Ideology, 165–6 (emphasis original). ³⁹ Richey, Roman Imperial Ideology, 82–91; Thatcher, Greater than Caesar, 136. ⁴⁰ Carter, John and Empire, 188–91.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

102     (John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2).⁴¹ According to Martyn, the Gospel is presented as a two-level drama, which reflects the past of Jesus’s life and the present of the community of Johannine Jesus followers⁴² and which offers a new interpretation for the community. Ironically, Martyn based his argument for a twolevel drama on a misguided understanding of “apocalyptic” as escapist and the severing of the earthly and heavenly spheres as discussed in the previous section.⁴³ Like Martyn, Raymond Brown understands the casting out from the synagogue as an indication of a crisis faced by the community of the Gospel’s author.⁴⁴ However, Brown also argues that the Gospel was shaped by further conflicts: ongoing persecution by the Ἰουδαῖοι⁴⁵ (16:2), disputes with followers of John the Baptist (1:9, 15, 29–34; 3:28; 5:33), and disagreements, theological and otherwise, with three other Jesus-believing groups.⁴⁶ Recently, John Ashton has argued that the tension between Jesus believers and other members of the synagogue concerned an “opposition between Moses and Jesus.”⁴⁷ Jan van der Watt states: “The exact nature, situation, stage, and locale of this conflict is [sic] still open to debate, but that does not negate the fact that there most probably was such a conflict and that the material in the Gospel relates to such a conflict.”⁴⁸ In this discussion, I am not attempting to solve the question of the origin of John’s Gospel. The decades’ worth of views and proposals on the historical and social context of the Fourth Gospel highlights the challenges (futility?)⁴⁹ of doing so.⁵⁰ I would merely like to point out that the consensus of Johannine scholarship is that, at the very least, the circumstances of the evangelist or the evangelist’s audience had some bearing on the function of the Gospel, even if

⁴¹ J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, NTL, 3rd edn (Louisville, KY, 2003), 46–9. See Adele Reinhartz, Cast out of the Covenant: Jews and Anti-Judaism in the Gospel of John (Lanham, MD, 2018), 111–30, for a recent critique of Martyn. ⁴² Martyn, History and Theology, esp. 40. ⁴³ Martyn, History and Theology, 130. ⁴⁴ Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (I–XII): Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 29 (Garden City, NY, 1966), lxxiv–lxxv; Raymond E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple: The Life, Loves, and Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times (New York, 1979), 22, 41. ⁴⁵ For the difficulties of translating Ἰουδαῖοι, see Timothy Michael Law and Charles Halton, eds., Jew and Judean: A MARGINALIA Forum on Politics and Historiography in the Translation of Ancient Texts (Los Angeles, 2014), http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/jew-judean-forum/, accessed April 6, 2020. ⁴⁶ Brown, Community, 66–88; cf. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the Gospel of John, ed. by Francis J. Moloney, ABRL (New York, 2003), 177–80. ⁴⁷ John Ashton, The Gospel of John and Christian Origins (Minneapolis, MN, 2014), 9–22. ⁴⁸ Jan G. van der Watt, “Ethics and Ethos in the Gospel according to John,” ZNW, 97/2 (2006), 175. ⁴⁹ Jörg Frey, The Glory of the Crucified One: Christology and Theology in the Gospel of John, trans. by Wayne Coppins and Christoph Heilig, BMSEC (Waco, TX, 2018), 30–1. ⁵⁰ See the extensive, multistage proposal by Urban C. Von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John, ECC, 3 vols (Grand Rapids, MI, 2010).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

   

103

the details cannot be agreed upon.⁵¹ The Fourth Gospel is shaped by cosmological understandings of who Jesus is and where he is from and also by future expectations concerning persecution, Jesus’s return to the Father, eternal life, and the resurrection of the dead. The Fourth Gospel shares this sort of spatial and temporal reinterpretation of present, earthly circumstances in common with Jewish apocalypses.

Intended to Influence both the Understanding and Behavior of the Audience by Means of Divine Authority The second part of Yarbro Collins’s addition to the definition of “apocalypse” addresses the way in which apocalypses are “intended to influence understanding and behavior of the audience by means of divine authority.” This influence has an obvious connection with the supernatural interpretation of present circumstances, since such an interpretation would unsurprisingly have an effect on what one knows and does.⁵² In addition, an angelic mediator speaking as the messenger of God or revelation written on heavenly tablets provides the divine authority to encourage such a change of understanding and behavior.⁵³ The Jewish apocalypses clearly encourage a shift in knowledge and action, although the understanding and behavior that are encouraged vary between apocalypses.⁵⁴ For example, Portier-Young argues that although Daniel, the Apocalypse of Weeks, and the Book of Dreams all resist imperial oppression, they each do so in different ways. In Daniel, resistance is nonviolent and takes place through knowledge and interpretation, including prayer, penitence, and teaching (Dan. 9). By contrast, the resistance in the Apocalypse of Weeks is not passive, but rather the righteous will become agents of change and act in judgment in the future eighth week (1 En. 93:10; 91:11). The Book of Dreams, PortierYoung contends, calls for armed revolt (1 En. 90:8–19).⁵⁵ The Apocalypse of Abraham insists on the avoidance of idolatry, which is understood to be what caused the destruction of the temple (Apoc. Abr. 23–6).⁵⁶ Grant Macaskill argues that 2 Enoch expects readers to understand God as creator and humans

⁵¹ Frey, Glory of the Crucified One, 71–2. ⁵² Yarbro Collins, Crisis, 160–1. ⁵³ Hellholm, “Problem of Apocalyptic Genre,” 44–6. ⁵⁴ Nickelsburg, “Social Aspects,” 641–54; Stuckenbruck, “Alienating Experiences,” 59–80. ⁵⁵ Portier-Young, Apocalypse against Empire, 244, 254, 323–4, 328–9, 372–4; see also Horsley, Revolt, 65–76. ⁵⁶ Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York, 1993), 66.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

104     as bearers of his image (2 En. 33:8–9) and to recognize the resulting ethical requirements.⁵⁷ This creation-oriented ethic includes providing clothes for the naked, food for the hungry, and caring for the widow, orphan, and those treated unjustly (2 En. 42). For each of these apocalypses and others, the human recipients’ experiences of mediated revelation provide the divine authority which influences the audiences in diverse ways. The divine authority is also extended in some apocalypses through emphasis on making a written record of the heavenly revelation. The written revelation serves as a testimony to the event of revelation,⁵⁸ but it also serves to teach future generations about the content of the heavenly revelation (1 En. 81:5–6; 82:1; 92:1; 108:1; 2 En. 33:8–9; 35:2; 36:1; 4 Ezra 14:21; Jub. 1:1; cf. 1 En. 93:1–2), even if some apocalypses require the sealing up or secrecy of the revelations (Dan 12:4; Rev 10:4; 4 Ezra 14:45–6).⁵⁹ The written revelation makes possible the ability to remember and retell the heavenly secrets so that the content of the revelation may be understood and acted upon. Toward the end of the Book of Luminaries, Enoch speaks to his son Methuselah: Now my son Methuselah, I am telling you all these things and am writing (them) down. I have revealed all of them to you and have given you the books about all these things. My son, keep the book written by your father so that you may give (it) to the generation of the world. Wisdom I have given to you and to your children and to those who will be your children so that they may give this wisdom which is beyond their thought to their children for the generations. (1 En. 82:1–2)⁶⁰

This wisdom that is to be learned involves a call for righteous behavior: “Blessed are all the righteous who will walk in the way of righteousness and have no sin” (1 En. 82:4).⁶¹ The heavenly mysteries are written down in the Book of the Luminaries and passed on so that following generations will be faithful and live righteously. ⁵⁷ Grant Macaskill, Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, JSJSup, 115 (Leiden, 2007), 212–18, esp. 213. ⁵⁸ See Leslie Baynes, The Heavenly Book Motif in Judeo-Christian Apocalypses, 200 –200 , JSJSup, 152 (Leiden, 2012), 36–42. ⁵⁹ On the secrecy of apocalyptic revelation, see William Adler, “Introduction,” in Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity, ed. by James C. VanderKam and William Adler, CRINT, 3 (Assen, 1996), 13–16. ⁶⁰ George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation (Minneapolis, MN, 2012). ⁶¹ The sin is not as one might expect the transgression of the law but rather improper astronomical measurements. James VanderKam in George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 37–82, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN, 2012), 547.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

   

105

In other Jewish apocalypses, revelation is written down so that future generations will understand God’s judgments and decrees and “purge from [their] heart the idle error for which” they were punished (2 Bar. 87:5–6), and so that they will “find the path” and “live” (4 Ezra 14:22)⁶² and read and know that there is none but God the creator (2 En. 33:8; 36:1). In the book of Revelation, the audience is expected to read, hear, and keep the things revealed to them (Rev. 1:3, also chs. 2–3). Thus, the written revelation that is passed on to future generations serves to influence understanding and behavior by functioning as divine authority. Those who keep the written revelation are righteous and know the plan of God for the righteous and the wicked (1 En. 81:7–10; 82:4; Rev 1:19).⁶³

The Gospel of John and Influencing Understanding and Behavior As with the function of apocalypses, the Gospel of John communicates an intention “to influence understanding and behavior by means of divine authority.” This purpose is especially noticeable in the statement in John 20:30–1: “These [signs] have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name” (cf. John 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:35; 7:37–8).⁶⁴ The audience is also to believe that Jesus was with God in the beginning (1:1–2; cf. 1:18), is the vision of God (12:41; 14:9), one with the Father (10:30; 17:11; cf. 5:17–18), the one of whom Moses wrote (5:46), and the one who was before Abraham (8:58). Many of these claims require significant change of understanding. The disciple Jesus loved, who testifies to these things, authorizes their divine authenticity.⁶⁵ His testimony is declared “true” because he witnessed “these things” (19:35; 21:24): beholding Jesus’s glory (1:14), the first sign at Cana (2:11), Jesus’s unbroken bones and the blood and water flowing from his side at the crucifixion (19:35), and the empty tomb (20:8). The audience of the Gospel is called to believe, to

⁶² Stone, 4 Ezra, 427: “The Torah enables humans to achieve eternal life.” ⁶³ Ignace de La Potterie, “The Truth in Saint John,” in The Interpretation of John, ed. by John Ashton, IRT, 9 (London, 1986), 54–5. ⁶⁴ Adele Reinhartz, “Building Skyscrapers on Toothpicks: The Literary-Critical Challenge to Historical Criticism,” in Anatomies of Narrative Criticism: The Past, Present, and Futures of the Fourth Gospel as Literature, ed. by Tom Thatcher and Stephen D. Moore, RBS, 55 (Atlanta, GA, 2008), 63. ⁶⁵ Judith M. Lieu, “Text and Authority in John and Apocalyptic,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 235–53.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

106     have their understanding influenced, as a result of the narration of Jesus’s words and deeds. Anders Petersen states: “I do not think that John’s Gospel . . . is as interested in telling a story as it is focused on framing the mind-set of its intended audience.”⁶⁶ Additionally, as with Jewish apocalypses, the Gospel seeks to influence the behavior of its audience. Recent scholarship has addressed the question of whether or not John has ethical concerns,⁶⁷ but an obvious example of the Gospel’s concern for influencing behavior is in Jesus’s command to his disciples to love one another as he has loved them (John 13:34). Jesus repeats the command in 15:12: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you” (cf. 1 John 4:7; 2:7–10).⁶⁸ The command assumes Jesus’s own example of loving (cf. John 13:15).⁶⁹ By keeping Jesus’s command to love, his followers may abide in his love (15:10), and Jesus says that the greatest love is to give one’s life for another (15:13). He is the example of giving one’s life (10:14–17; 19:28–30), of keeping the Father’s commands (15:10), and of loving one another (13:34). Jan van der Watt states: “Love in this Gospel means love based on the value system informed by the Decalogue, but interpreted in the light of the presence of Christ.”⁷⁰ The Gospel also encourages a behavior of good works. On the positive side, “those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds (τὰ ἔργα) have been done in God” (John 3:21). Also, those in their graves who have done good (τὰ ἀγαθὰ ποιήσαντες) will be raised to a resurrection of life (5:28–9). Later, Jesus says that the work (ἔργον) of God is to believe in the one whom God sent (6:29). Second Baruch, in a related manner, connects belief with obedience to the law (2 Bar. 41:3; 42:2; 52:51). Van der Watt states, “Faith in Jesus is the first and most crucial action required to do

⁶⁶ Anders Petersen, “Generic Docetism: From the Synoptic Narrative Gospels to the Johannine Discursive Gospel,” in The Gospel of John as Genre Mosaic, ed. by Kasper Bro Larsen, SANt, 3 (Göttingen, 2015), 103. ⁶⁷ Wayne A. Meeks, “The Ethics of the Fourth Evangelist,” in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith, ed. by R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black (Louisville, KY, 1996), 317–26, argues that there is no ethic in John. For extensive arguments for a Johannine ethic, see Sherri Brown and Christopher W. Skinner, eds., Johannine Ethics: The Moral World of the Gospel and Epistles of John (Minneapolis, MN, 2017) but cf. Adele Reinhartz’s essay. ⁶⁸ See Lindsey M. Trozzo, Exploring Johannine Ethics: A Rhetorical Approach to Moral Efficacy in the Fourth Gospel Narrative, WUNT, 449 (Tübingen, 2017), 158–76, on the relation of the love command to Johannine ethics. ⁶⁹ Jan G. van der Watt, “Ethics through the Power of Language: Some Explorations in the Gospel according to John,” in Moral Language in the New Testament: The Interrelatedness of Language and Ethics in Early Christian Writings, ed. by Ruben Zimmermann, Jan G. van der Watt, and Susanne Luther, WUNT, II/296 (Tübingen, 2010), 139–67. ⁷⁰ Van der Watt, “Ethics and Ethos,” 166.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

   

107

the works of God.”⁷¹ Thus, within John, influencing a change of behavior begins with changed understanding, which in the Johannine context is belief. The Johannine call to good works is also reflected in the image of the branch remaining in the vine that bears much fruit (John 15:5). Those who do not abide in the vine and bear fruit are cut off and burned in the fire (15:6), just as those whose deeds are evil do not come into the light (3:20) and will be raised to a resurrection of judgment (5:29). Those who believe in Jesus and follow him will bear fruit and love one another (15:16–17). Kobus Kok argues that there is an ethic of mission in the reference to bearing fruit (15:8–10), the fields ripe for harvest (4:35), and Jesus’s sending of the disciples (20:21).⁷² These instances reflect an implicit ethic in the Gospel of John, and this ethic, as with Jewish apocalypses, begins with a change of understanding. While the Gospel of John may not be considered as providing the best example of practical ethics, it does, like Jewish apocalypses, influence belief and action through divine authority.

Summary When we consider the function of apocalypses, it becomes clear that they were not all written in and directed toward crises. In contrast, it is possible to say that all Jewish apocalypses in one way or another interpret the present situation of the author in terms of the supernatural world and the future, and they influence understanding and behavior through divine authority. As with the function of Jewish apocalypses, even though the Gospel of John’s social context is debated, it is generally agreed that the Gospel was written in or to a situation of conflict. This present situation was interpreted in light of the cosmological reality of Jesus and future expectation of the resurrection (John 5:28–9; 6:39–40) and of dwelling with God (14:2–3; 17:24). The Gospel of John was also written to encourage belief in Jesus and in the one who sent him (3:36; 12:44), and to influence behavior. While John’s Gospel may not reflect a clearly defined set of behavioral ethics, Jesus, the one sent by the Father from heaven who speaks the words of God, calls his listeners to do the

⁷¹ Van der Watt, “Ethics and Ethos,” 158; also Jan G. van der Watt, “The Gospel of John’s Perception of Ethical Behaviour,” In Die Skriflig, 45/2–3 (2011), 435. ⁷² Kobus Kok, “As the Father Has Sent Me, I Send You: Towards a Missional-Incarnational Ethos in John 4,” in Moral Language in the New Testament: The Interrelatedness of Language and Ethics in Early Christian Writings, ed. by Ruben Zimmermann, J. G. van der Watt, and Susanne Luther, WUNT, II/ 296 (Tübingen, 2010), 168–93; similarly, Trozzo, Exploring Johannine Ethics, 176.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

108     work of God, which is to believe in him (6:29), and he commands them to love one another as he has loved them (13:34; 15:12). Expectations for transformed understanding and behavior are evident in the Fourth Gospel.

Paraenesis (11) and Concluding Elements (12, 13) In this section, we return to the Semeia 14 “master-paradigm” underlying the definition of “apocalypse” and discuss its final three elements: paraenesis (11), instructions to the recipient (12), and narrative conclusion (13). These three elements come under two separate headings, “Paraenesis” and “Concluding Elements,” which are listed at the equivalent level to “Manner of Revelation,” “Content: Temporal Axis,” and “Content: Spatial Axis.”⁷³ This equivalency reflects two peculiarities regarding these final headings and their three elements (11–13). The first peculiarity is that the heading “Paraenesis” includes only one element, paraenesis (11), which makes this the only instance in the “master-paradigm” where a single element has its own heading. This configuration is made all the more peculiar in that Collins considers it a “significant element” even though it is rare in Jewish apocalypses, as we will see in the next section. The second peculiarity is that, even though the two headings are presented at the same level as the other headings, none of the three elements listed under “Paraenesis” and “Concluding Elements” is included in the formal definition of “apocalypse.” The SBL Genre Group did not include them in the definition because they did not view these elements as “defining characteristics” of the genre. John Collins states that concluding elements (12, 13), along with a few other elements: are by no means constant and obviously are less important than the presence of an otherworldly mediator and human recipient. These less significant elements are noted here because they recur with notable frequency and may be of significance for more detailed study of particular works. However, they are not defining characteristics of either the genre apocalypse or any of its subtypes.⁷⁴

The concluding elements may not be constant, but they are present in half or more of Jewish apocalypses. Tellingly, according to Collins’s own chart, ⁷³ Collins, “Morphology,” 6–8.

⁷⁴ Collins, “Morphology,” 8–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

   

109

“narrative conclusion” (13) may be found more often—and is thus more “constant”—than “ex eventu prophecy,” an element some scholars consider a defining characteristic of “apocalyptic.”⁷⁵

Paraenesis (11) Paraenesis refers to exhortation or instruction given to the recipient by the mediator during the course of the revelation. Collins states that paraenesis “occurs very rarely” but that it is included in the “master-paradigm” “because it is a significant element.”⁷⁶ Even with its inclusion in the “master-paradigm,” paraenesis is not significant enough to be included in the definition of apocalypse. The rarity of paraenesis is noticeable in that the only Jewish apocalypse Collins lists as containing paraenesis is 4 Ezra;⁷⁷ however, he has more recently said that paraenesis “occupies a prominent place in a few apocalypses,” and he lists 2 Enoch and 2 Baruch as examples, but intriguingly not 4 Ezra.⁷⁸ In 4 Ezra, we find the clearest examples of paraenesis, specifically in the angel Uriel’s command to Ezra to fast and pray (4 Ezra 5:13; 6:31) and to write what he has seen, to hide the book, and to teach the wise (12:37–8). Uriel also instructs Ezra to believe and not be afraid and not to think about former things (6:33–4). There are also instructions directly from God in 4 Ezra 14, where Ezra is told to set his house in order, reprove the people, comfort the lowly, instruct the wise, renounce the corruptible life, and put away mortal thoughts (14:13–15). The exhortations in 4 Ezra 14 may better reflect “instructions to the recipient” (12), but within Ezra’s dialogues with Uriel there are clear examples of paraenesis that fit the “master-paradigm” description. Second Enoch has fewer clear examples of paraenesis as defined in the “master-paradigm.” Paraenesis from mediator to recipient is evident in the angel Vrevoil’s instruction of Enoch over the course of thirty days and thirty nights and the specific exhortation to write down what he learned from ⁷⁵ Cf. Frederick J. Murphy, Apocalypticism in the Bible and its World: A Comprehensive Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI, 2012), 5–14; Greg Carey, Ultimate Things: An Introduction to Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic Literature (St. Louis, MO, 2005), 6–10. See Appendix A. ⁷⁶ Collins, “Morphology,” 9. ⁷⁷ Paraenesis is slightly more common among early Christian and gnostic apocalypses. See Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Early Christian Apocalypses,” Semeia, 14 (1979), 104–5; Francis T. Fallon, “The Gnostic Apocalypses,” Semeia, 14 (1979), 148. ⁷⁸ Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 7–8. Collins’s table here only lists elements under “Content: Temporal Axis” and not “Manner of Revelation,” “Content: Spatial Axis,” “Paraenesis,” or “Concluding Elements,” so I am unable to tell if Collins would now indicate on the table that 2 Enoch and 2 Baruch contain paraenesis.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

110     the mediator (2 En. 23:1–6). Another example of paraenesis may include God’s command to Enoch to return to earth and speak to his sons about what he has learned (2 En. 36:1); however, God and not the angelic mediator gives the exhortation. In 2 Baruch, paraenesis is also present, but it is not as clear that the exhortations in 2 Baruch fit exactly the “master-paradigm” definition, since Baruch receives instructions from God but not Remiel.⁷⁹ God exhorts Baruch in 2 Bar. 43:1–3 and 76:1–5 to instruct the people and to strengthen his own heart, as well as to write down all that he has learned (2 Bar. 50:1). These instances in 2 Baruch are evidence of paraenesis from God within the course of the revelation. In the Gospel of John, there are instances of paraenesis in the teaching and words of Jesus, the otherworldly mediator. The most explicit example would be Jesus’s new command to love one another (John 13:34). As mentioned in the section “The Gospel of John and Influencing Understanding and Behavior,” this command to love comes during Jesus’s auditory revelation of the farewell discourse in which he teaches the disciples many things. These exhortations, especially the command to love, may be considered paraenesis in light of their being given in the context of Jesus’s teaching. Other instances of paraenesis in John include the implication for the disciples to take part in the harvest (4:35–8), for the crowd to work for food that endures (6:27), and do the work of God that is belief (6:29). Relatedly, Jesus teaches his disciples to work while it is day (9:4–5). These examples highlight the existence of paraenesis in the Gospel of John; however, both Jewish apocalypses and the Fourth Gospel place greater emphasis on the revelation of spatial and temporal transcendence than on paraenesis.

Instructions to the Recipient (12) “Instructions to the recipient” (12) can easily be confused with “paraenesis” (11) because they both involve teaching or exhortation given to the recipient; however, the primary difference between these two elements is their placement within the revelatory narrative. Unlike paraenesis, which the human recipient receives from the mediator during the course of the revelation, instructions to the recipient are given after the revelation and form part of an apocalypse’s ⁷⁹ Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism, 189–91.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

   

111

conclusion. As a result, one common type of post-revelation instruction comprises commands to write down the revelation and whether what is written may be revealed or must be concealed. For example, Daniel is instructed by the angelic mediator to seal the book he has been writing “until the time of the end” (Dan. 12:4, 9; cf. Dan. 8:26). Similarly, in 4 Ezra there are instructions given to Ezra in the final section, called the epilogue, in which he is told to prepare writing tablets (4 Ezra 14:24), to make some of the things public and keep some secret (14:26), and to drink the fiery liquid (14:37). After drinking the liquid, Ezra receives understanding and dictates revelation that is written down in ninety-four books. God instructs Ezra to make public the first twenty-four, which are most likely the Scriptures of Israel, and to give the remaining seventy to the wise (14:45–6). In the Testament of Levi, Levi is given a sword and commanded to take vengeance for the violation of his sister Dinah (T. Levi 5:3; cf. Gen. 34:25–9). Enoch is commanded to make everything he has seen known to his son Methuselah in the Book of the Luminaries (1 En. 81:5), and Baruch, following the explanation of the final vision, is commanded by the angel Remiel to teach the people (2 Bar. 76:5). In these examples, the recipient receives different types of instructions following the revelation, and the most common are those that involve what to do with the revelation received.⁸⁰ In the Gospel of John, chapters 20 and 21 function as concluding sections to the narrative. The relationship of John 21 to the rest of the Gospel has long been debated, with many seeing it as a later addition.⁸¹ In the Gospel’s present form, the appearances of Jesus to his disciples in John 20 and 21 contain the “instructions to the recipient” element of the Semeia 14 “master-paradigm.” There are three instructions given to recipients of revelation in these concluding sections. First, Jesus tells the disciples (minus Thomas) to receive the Holy Spirit, sends them out, and breathes on them (John 20:21–2). Second, Peter is given three separate, yet similar instructions: feed my lambs (21:15), tend my sheep (21:16), and feed my sheep (21:17). And third, Jesus tells Peter twice “Follow me” (21:19, 22; cf. 1:39). None of these three instructions involves specific reference to the passing on of what Jesus has revealed, but they suggest that, like the human recipients of revelation in Jewish apocalypses, Jesus’s disciples are to pass on what they have seen and heard. In the first instruction, the reception of the Spirit implies this, because earlier Jesus told the disciples ⁸⁰ In 2 Enoch, this instruction occurs at the midpoint of Enoch’s journey and may thus be considered paraenesis. ⁸¹ See the succinct summary in Johannes Beutler, A Commentary on the Gospel of John, trans. by Michael Tait (Grand Rapids, MI, 2017), 521–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

112     that the Spirit would remind them of what he had taught and revealed to them (John 14:25–6) and that the Spirit would guide them into all truth (16:12–15). Jesus also says “Peace be with you” on three occasions (20:19, 21, 26; cf. 14:27), and in the second instance he adds, “As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you” (20:21). The sending of the disciples and the Spirit’s guiding them into all truth suggest that the disciples are expected to pass on what they have seen and heard,⁸² especially when “truth” as the content of revelation reflects similarities to revelation in Jewish apocalypses (Dan. 11:2).⁸³ In the second instruction, the command to Peter to tend and feed Jesus’s sheep also implies the passing on of what he has seen and heard (John 21:15–17). Since the sheep hear the voice of the Good Shepherd (John 10:3–4, 16, 27), part of Peter’s role in tending the sheep may be understood to include teaching,⁸⁴ especially since the total care of the sheep is in mind.⁸⁵ The content of the teaching, whether “apostolic mission” or not, would concern the revelation that Peter experienced, as the Spirit reminds him of Jesus’s words (14:25–6). Teaching is clearly related to shepherding in 2 Baruch, when the people charge Baruch to write a letter about Torah because “the shepherds of Israel have perished” (2 Bar. 77:13).⁸⁶ If Peter is being instructed in John 21 to pass on revelation, there are also recognizable similarities with the instructions to Enoch to pass on what he has seen and heard to his sons (1 En. 81–2; 2 En. 39–66). The third instruction, Jesus’s instructions to Peter to “follow me” (John 21:19), presents an obvious connection to Peter’s earlier claim that he would follow Jesus to death and thus his own martyrdom (13:37).⁸⁷ Following Jesus may include revealing the Father, as Jesus has done, since Peter and the other disciples have been sent by Jesus, just as Jesus was sent by the Father (20:18), and since they will testify to what they have seen and heard, as Jesus testified (15:27; cf. 3:11, 31). However, the context of Jesus’s command to follow suggests that it is specifically a prediction of Peter’s testifying to Jesus’s revelation through his death. These three examples of instructions ⁸² Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary, trans. by John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI, 1997), 15. See Catrin H. Williams, “Unveiling Revelation: The Spirit-Paraclete and Apocalyptic Disclosure in the Gospel of John,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 104–27. ⁸³ La Potterie, “Truth,” 53–66. ⁸⁴ Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (XIII–XXI): Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 29A (Garden City, NY, 1970), 1113–14. ⁸⁵ Ridderbos, The Gospel of John, 666; cf. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd edn (Philadelphia, PA, 1978). ⁸⁶ Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism, 203–5. ⁸⁷ Marianne Meye Thompson, John: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville, KY, 2015), 443.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

   

113

to recipients of Jesus’s revelation of the Father are noticeably different from some of the instructions evident in Jewish apocalypses, but the Fourth Gospel also contains instructions to recipients in its concluding sections, where there is emphasis on the passing on of what has been revealed.

Narrative Conclusion (13) The final element of the “master-paradigm” is “narrative conclusion” (13), and like “paraenesis” and “instructions to the recipient,” it is not found in the formal Semeia 14 definition of “apocalypse.” However, unlike paraenesis, narrative conclusion is evident in almost two-thirds of Jewish apocalypses.⁸⁸ “Narrative conclusion” completes the narrative framework of apocalypses in which the otherworldly being mediates revelation to the human recipient. John Collins explains that the narrative conclusion in apocalypses “may describe the awakening or return to earth of the recipient, the departure of the revealer or the consequent actions of the recipients.”⁸⁹ At the end of the Book of Dreams, we find an example of the first possibility. Enoch awakens from his vision, blesses the Lord, and weeps until he can weep no longer (1 En. 90:40–2). Levi, likewise, awakes and blesses the Most High (T. Levi 5:7). In 3 Baruch, Baruch is returned to earth. He then praises God and passes on what he has seen and heard (3 Bar. 17:1–4). In 2 Baruch, Baruch writes his letter to the exiles and sends it to them (2 Bar. 78–87). Enoch in the Book of the Luminaries is returned to earth and told to pass on what he has seen to his son Methuselah, and the apocalypse narrates his doing so (1 En. 81–2). Relatedly, in 2 Enoch, after Enoch’s sons and the elders kiss Enoch and bless the Lord (2 En. 64:2–6), Enoch gives a few more exhortations to them and then is taken back to heaven (2 En. 65–7). The rest of 2 Enoch concerns what takes place after his return, from the building of an altar by Methuselah to the birth of Melchizedek (2 En. 68–73). At the end of 4 Ezra, Ezra is told to make the twenty-four books public and give the seventy to the wise, and he replies, “I did so” (4 Ezra 14:48). The final two verses of 4 Ezra report his ascension to heaven, which was foretold in 4 Ezra 14:9 (14:50).⁹⁰ ⁸⁸ It is worth noting that “narrative conclusion,” while not being considered a defining feature by Collins, occurs in Jewish apocalypses more often (by Collins’s own count) than a number of temporal transcendence features which are often inappropriately considered central to the genre. This again highlights what appears to be bias toward eschatological features in the definition of “apocalypse.” John J. Collins, “The Jewish Apocalypses,” Semeia, 14 (1979), 35; cf. Christopher Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (London, 1982), 22–60. ⁸⁹ Collins, “Morphology,” 8. ⁹⁰ Stone, Fourth Ezra, 442, also 420.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

114     Another common feature in the narrative conclusion of Jewish apocalypses is an emphasis on the written record of the revelation that has been mediated to the human recipient. While the command to write was spoken of in the previous section as an example of “instructions to the recipient,” the actual writing is often an example of the “consequent actions of the recipient” (1 En. 81:5–6; 82:1; 2 En. 33:8–9; 35:2; 36:1; 4 Ezra 14:21; Jub. 1:1; cf. 1 En. 93:1–2). In his speech to Methuselah in the Book of the Luminaries, Enoch speaks about what has been revealed to him and how he has written this revelation down and given the “books” to Methuselah (1 En. 82:1). In 2 Enoch, Enoch returns to earth with the books he transcribed (2 En. 23:1–6) and keeps them for a later generation (2 En. 33:5; 35:2; 40:2). Ezra, as mentioned previously, dictates ninety-four books that are also to be distributed, but not to everyone (4 Ezra 14:44–6).⁹¹ As can be seen in these examples, the narrative conclusions of Jewish apocalypses involve numerous features, often including the writing and passing on of a written record of what has been revealed. The Gospel of John may also be shown to contain the element “narrative conclusion” (13). There is no human recipient in the Fourth Gospel who wakes up from a vision or is returned to earth, but there is an indication of the recipients’ consequent actions. First, it is worth noting the blessing that Jesus states regarding those who believe without seeing (John 20:29) and Thomas’s exclamation regarding his recognition of Jesus’s resurrection (20:28). Both blessing and exclamation are not uncommon in the narrative conclusions of apocalypses (e.g., 1 En. 81:10; 2 En. 67:3 A). Second, and more significantly, the Gospel of John emphasizes the beloved disciple’s testimony (John 19:35; 21:24), particularly the written nature of that testimony.⁹² The final verses of John 21 state: This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. But there are many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world could not contain the books that would be written. (John 21:24–5; cf. 20:30–1)

As with Jewish apocalypses, the revelation received has been written down, and the conclusion of John’s Gospel implies the passing on of this written record to others. Not only is the written record of the revelation similar to ⁹¹ Stone, Secret Groups, 131–6, remarks that the written nature of revelation in Jewish apocalypses is “pseudo-esoteric” because they contain “secret” information that circulated widely. ⁹² Lieu, “Text and Authority,” 245, notes how apocalyptic books claim authority for themselves while they also “delegitimize alternate readings.”

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

   

115

Jewish apocalypses, but the Fourth Gospel also indicates that more books could have been written. In fact, the extent of the revelation is so great that the world could probably not contain all of the books written about what Jesus did (John 21:25); yet the irony is that even though the possibility for more books exists, the reader only has one book.⁹³ This situation is not unlike the Book of the Luminaries, in which Enoch tells Methuselah he has given him the “books about all these things” and yet commands Methuselah to “keep the book” (1 En. 82:1).⁹⁴ The revelation Jesus brings could fill more books, but the Gospel is only a single book of written revelation. The Gospel’s interest in writing, the permanence of revelation being written in books, and the veracity and amount of what is written (or could be written) are noteworthy similarities with Jewish apocalypses, especially in the way these characteristics are located in the conclusion of their narratives.

Conclusion When compared to the function of apocalypses as defined by Yarbro Collins’s addition to the Semeia 14 definition of “apocalypse” and the final three elements of the “master-paradigm,” the Gospel of John shares a number of similarities with Jewish apocalypses. The Gospel interprets present, earthly circumstances in light of the supernatural world and the future as evident in its cosmological and temporal perspectives. The Gospel also influences understanding and behavior through divine authority, as is highlighted by John’s emphasis on belief and ethical expectation. The features of paraenesis and concluding elements, while not being considered important for the definition of “apocalypse,” are also evident in the Fourth Gospel. The Gospel reflects paraenesis (11) in Jesus’s exhortations, particularly in the love command (John 13:34). John’s instructions to the recipient (12) include Jesus’s instructions to his disciples to pass on what he has taught them (20:21–2), to Peter to tend and feed Jesus’s sheep (21:15–17), and the command to Peter to “follow me” (21:19). Narrative conclusion (13) is specifically evident in John in the consequent actions of the beloved disciple who writes down a record of the revelation for the preservation of what the revealer has disclosed.

⁹³ See the comments on John’s book by Troels Engberg-Pedersen, John and Philosophy: A New Reading of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford, 2017), 308–9. ⁹⁴ Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 547.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

116     The assessment of the function of apocalypses and the Gospel of John in this chapter concludes my comparison of the Gospel’s form, content, and function with that of Jewish apocalypses. John Ashton was, perhaps, more correct than he suspected when he claimed that the Gospel of John fits the definition of “apocalypse” snugly.⁹⁵ The Fourth Gospel has been shown to have significant similarities with the prototype apocalypse described in the “master-paradigm” and defined by the Semeia 14 definition, in that it is framed by the mediation of revelation through an otherworldly being to a human recipient, contains a temporally and spatially transcendent reality, and functions to interpret present circumstances in light of the supernatural world and the future and to influence understanding and behavior by divine authority. However, even with all of this snugness, there are noticeable differences between the Gospel and Jewish apocalypses, differences which I have more or less passed over in Chapters 2–4. In Chapter 5, I will draw attention to the ways in which the Gospel of John differs from the genre of apocalypse, but I will argue that the affinity between the Gospel and Jewish apocalypses reflects the Gospel’s extension of the gospel genre in light of Jewish apocalyptic tradition, such that the Gospel of John may best be described as a gospel in kind and an apocalypse in mode.

⁹⁵ John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 2nd edn (Oxford, 2007), 309.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

5 John’s Gospel as “Apocalyptic” Gospel In Chapters 2–4, I have argued that the Gospel of John fits the Semeia 14 “master-paradigm” of “apocalypse” and thus has recognizable affinity with the apocalypse genre, including all three dimensions of form, content, and function. The Fourth Gospel undoubtedly functions as an example of a revelatory narrative that relates a revelation disclosed by an otherworldly figure to a human recipient. The heavenly things that are revealed include aspects of temporal and spatial transcendence, and the function of the revelation is to interpret earthly circumstances in relation to another world and the future and to influence understanding and behavior by divine authority. Considering that Jewish apocalypses correspond to the “master-paradigm” in various ways, the Gospel of John’s similarity with this prototype definition suggests that the Gospel may be understood to participate in the genre of apocalypse. Yet, while there are significant parallels between Jewish apocalypses and John, the Fourth Gospel has not been mistaken for an apocalypse, nor is there a movement of those wishing to reclassify John from gospel to apocalypse. Even John Ashton, who makes the most extensive argument for “intimations of apocalyptic” in the Gospel, is so certain that John is not part of the genre of apocalypse that he revised the Semeia 14 definition so that John cannot be included in the genre.¹ Thus, the affinity between John and Jewish apocalypses requires further explanation. In this chapter, I will first summarize the Gospel of John’s similarities with the Semeia 14 “master-paradigm” that were noted in Chapters 2–4. Second, I will indicate those elements of the paradigm where the Gospel deviates from the genre of apocalypse. Third, since John may not be described as an apocalypse, I will argue that the affinity between the Gospel of John and Jewish apocalypses may best be explained by describing the Gospel not as an inverted or reversed apocalypse, as Ashton suggests,² but as an “apocalyptic” gospel, a gospel that frames its narrative about Jesus as a mediated and revelatory telling of Jesus’s life. ¹ John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 2nd edn (Oxford, 2007), 308–10. ² Ashton, Understanding, 328–9. John among the Apocalypses: Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the “Apocalyptic” Gospel. Benjamin E. Reynolds, Oxford University Press (2020). © Benjamin E. Reynolds. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198784241.001.0001

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

118    

John and the Genre of “Apocalypse” The comparison of the Gospel of John with the Semeia 14 “master-paradigm” of “apocalypse” in Chapters 2–4 highlights the numerous similarities and shared elements between the Gospel and Jewish apocalypses. No apocalypse contains every element of the paradigm, but the paradigm serves as a prototype description of the genre, such that the texts participating in the genre of apocalypse contain a common core of interconnected elements—mediated revelation in a narrative framework, an otherworldly mediator, human recipient, eschatologically and spatially transcendent content, interpretation of present circumstances in relation to cosmology and eschatology, and influencing of understanding and behavior.³ Since genre theory views genres in terms of cognitive prototypes instead of “family resemblances,”⁴ comparing John with the prototype apocalypse is more methodologically sound than comparing a loose collection of various family traits.⁵ When John is compared with the thirteen elements of the “master-paradigm” and the addition to the Semeia 14 definition, the Gospel of John displays a striking affinity with the genre of apocalypse. All three elements of the manner of revelation may be found in the Fourth Gospel. The medium of revelation (1) is evident in John’s emphasis on sight and visual revelation (1.1). Although in John seeing heavenly things does not take place in visions (1.1.1), dreams, or epiphanies (1.1.2) in the same way as in apocalypses, John’s Gospel describes revelatory experiences that may be seen, such as the opening of heaven and visions of God (John 1:51; 14:7, 9). The Gospel, however, reflects more clearly the auditory revelation (1.2) of apocalypses, which takes place through discourse (1.2.1) and dialogue (1.2.2) and is closely linked to what is visibly disclosed (e.g., John 3:1–21; 4:1–26; 5:1–47). In apocalypses, auditory revelation may occur through interpretations of dreams or answers to questions about what the recipient sees. In John, the relationship between auditory and visual revelation is evident in the clarification of Jesus’s signs through dialogue and discourse. The other two media of revelation, otherworldly journeys (1.3) and writing (1.4), are absent in the Gospel of ³ See John J. Collins, “What Is Apocalyptic Literature?,” in The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature, ed. by John J. Collins (Oxford; New York, 2014), 1–16. ⁴ John M. Swales, Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings, Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series (Cambridge, 1990), 45–58; John Frow, Genre, The New Critical Idiom, 2nd edn (London, 2015), 81–3. ⁵ Cf. Klaus Koch, The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic, trans. by Margaret Kohl, SBT, Second Series, 22 (London, 1972), 24–33; Frederick J. Murphy, Apocalypticism in the Bible and its World: A Comprehensive Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI, 2012).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

 ’    “  ” 

119

John, but the lack of these two features is no reason to disqualify John from the genre of apocalypse, since Jewish apocalypses typically contain one or more of the four media. Only the Book of the Luminaries (1 En. 72–82) has all four media of revelation; the Book of Dreams (1 En. 83–90), on the other hand, only mediates through visual revelation (1.1). The majority of Jewish apocalypses have some combination of two to three media of revelation,⁶ as occurs in the Fourth Gospel. Regarding the other two elements of the manner of revelation, the Gospel depicts an otherworldly mediator (2), who comes from heaven and “communicates the revelation”⁷ (John 3:13; 9:39), and a human recipient (3), who receives the revelation from the mediator (1:14; 19:34–5; 21:24). When it comes to the content of revelation, the mediation of a temporally and spatially transcendent reality is similarly reflected in the Gospel of John. The temporal content is first evident in John’s protology (4). The Gospel refers to creation in its opening verses (John 1:3–4) and hints at the devil’s deception of Adam and Eve in the garden (8:44). The Gospel also mentions persecution (7.1) that will come to those who believe in Jesus (John 9:33; 15:20; 16:2, 33; 17:15). The judgment of sinners (8.1) is part of the revelation that Jesus proclaims (John 3:18, 36; 5:29), and personal salvation (9.2) is portrayed as eternal life (John 3:16–17; 5:24) and includes bodily resurrection (9.2.1) (John 5:28; 6:39, 40; 11:27). The spatial content of revelation in the Fourth Gospel includes the disclosure of otherworldly regions (10.1). The Gospel acknowledges the existence of heaven as the place from which Jesus has come into the world and to which he will return (John 3:31; 14:2–3). Otherworldly regions are also revealed in the heavenly dwellings that Jesus will prepare (14:2–3). John’s spatial content also includes otherworldly beings (10.2), namely, angels (1:51; 20:12–13), the devil and ruler of this world (8:44; 12:31; 13:27; 17:15), the Father (3:16; 12:28), and the Son of Man (1:51; 3:13; 6:62). John’s Gospel also contains the final three elements of the paradigm, even though these elements are not as significant for the definition of apocalypse. Paraenesis (11) can be seen, for example, in Jesus’s teaching of the new command to love one another (John 13:34). The “concluding elements”— instructions to the recipient (12) and narrative conclusion (13)—are arguably present in John’s double conclusion (John 20:21–2; 21:15–17, 19, 24–5). Regarding the function of apocalypses,⁸ the Gospel interprets present, earthly

⁶ John J. Collins, “The Jewish Apocalypses,” Semeia, 14 (1979), 28. See Appendix A. ⁷ John J. Collins, “Introduction: Toward the Morphology of a Genre,” Semeia, 14 (1979), 6. ⁸ Adela Yarbro Collins, “Introduction: Early Christian Apocalypses,” Semeia, 36 (1986), 1–11.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

120     circumstances in light of the supernatural world and the future (John 14:2–3; 16:5–11; 18:37), and the Gospel influences understanding and behavior by divine authority (John 13:34; 15:12; 20:30–1).⁹ Like the Jewish apocalypses, the Gospel of John contains core elements of form, content, and function that make up the Semeia 14 definition and its “masterparadigm.”¹⁰ In other words, the Fourth Gospel could be said to fit the Semeia 14 definition to a “T,”¹¹ and thus, John may participate in the genre of apocalypse. Yet, even after drawing attention to John’s similarities with the definition and “master-paradigm,” no one would confuse John with an apocalypse.

Why John Is Not an Apocalypse The reasons often given for dissociating the Gospel from the genre of apocalypse are related to John’s lack of end-of the-world eschatology.¹² This dissociation is made on the assumption that apocalyptic eschatology (only comprising elements 7–9 of the “master-paradigm”) determines the definition of “apocalyptic.” If ex eventu prophecy (5), “other eschatological upheavals” (7.2), and eschatological judgment and/or destruction (8), particularly of the natural elements (8.2), are considered determinative of the genre, then you could dismiss John from the genre of apocalypse quite easily, since the Gospel lacks these elements.¹³ On this assessment, the Book of the Watchers, the Book of the Luminaries, 2 Enoch, and 3 Baruch would also need to be reassessed for their participation in the genre. On the other hand, the Gospel of John contains the elements of the manner of revelation (1–3, 12–13), protology (4), eschatological salvation (9), the entire category of spatial transcendence (10), and the function of apocalypses. Even though it contains these elements, there are differences between the Gospel and the genre of apocalypse. In the subsections that follow, I will address the primary reasons for disqualifying John from full participation in ⁹ See Chapters 2–4 for the complete argument on the Gospel of John’s inclusion of these elements of form, content, and function. ¹⁰ See Appendix B for a comparison of John’s Gospel with the “master-paradigm” of apocalypses. ¹¹ Ashton, Understanding, 7. ¹² Murphy, Apocalypticism, 275–8; Greg Carey, Apocalyptic Literature in the New Testament, CBS (Nashville, TN, 2016), 102–4. ¹³ Adela Yarbro Collins, “Epilogue,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 302–7, also disqualifies John from being called “apocalyptic” on the basis of John’s salvific focus and the Messiah; however, her position creates a false dichotomy between salvation and revelation and underestimates the centrality of revelation in the Fourth Gospel.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

 ’    “  ” 

121

the genre of apocalypse. The differences are all subtle differences having to do with the details of the manner of revelation, namely differences in the visual revelation (1.1), the otherworldly mediator (2), and the human recipient (3).

Differences in the Medium of Revelation (1): Visual Revelation (1.1) As I argued in Chapter 2, the Gospel of John contains revelation experienced through sight, as evidenced in Jesus’s signs and works and the Gospel’s emphasis on verbs of seeing (John 1:14; 2:11; 12:38, 41; 14:9; 20:27–9). However, none of this visual revelation takes place in visions (1.1.1), or even epiphanies (1.1.2), which are the only sub-elements of visual revelation listed in the “master-paradigm.”¹⁴ If visions and epiphanies are the only forms of visual revelation in apocalypses, then it would suggest that this medium of revelation is not found in the Gospel of John. The closest vision-like examples in the Gospel are, first, the opening of heaven that makes possible the vision of the Son of Man (John 1:51). Even if the Gospel of John does not explicitly narrate or describe the opening of heaven, such that the disciples see an actual vision of ascending and descending angels,¹⁵ the life of Jesus on earth is the visual fulfillment of “greater things” made visible through the opening of heaven (1:50–1). Second, another possible example of vision-like revelation is evident in Jesus’s statement that seeing him is equivalent to seeing the Father, which makes possible the vision of God on earth (John 14:9). In these instances, visual revelation of heavenly things is possible through the person of Jesus. There is visual revelation in the Gospel of John, but this visual revelation is not quite the same as that in Jewish apocalypses, such as Daniel’s or Ezra’s visions of the night or Enoch’s or Abraham’s heavenly journeys.¹⁶ However, a lack of visual revelation does not disqualify a text from participation in the genre, since the medium of revelation may also include auditory revelation (1.2). Jubilees, for example, is the only Jewish apocalypse not to include visual revelation (1.1), but then again Jubilees also includes the medium of writing (1.4) and is not always considered a full participant in the genre.¹⁷ ¹⁴ Collins, “Morphology,” 6. ¹⁵ Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (I–XII): Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 29 (Garden City, NY, 1966), 89. ¹⁶ This lack of visual revelation in John is one of Ashton’s reasons why John is not an apocalypse. Ashton, Understanding, 310. ¹⁷ Todd R. Hanneken, The Subversion of the Apocalypses in the Book of Jubilees, EJL, 34 (Atlanta, GA, 2012), 25, “Jubilees is like a Penguin.”

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

122    

Differences in the Otherworldly Mediator (2) The most significant differences between the “master-paradigm” of apocalypse and the Gospel of John are evident in the portrayal of the otherworldly mediator. As has been noted in Chapter 2, there are similarities between the Johannine Jesus and mediators in Jewish apocalypses. Jesus is a heavenly figure who descends from heaven and communicates the revelation to human beings, and he mediates through auditory revelation such as discourses and dialogues that interpret the visual revelation in his signs. However, there are three aspects of Jesus in John that disqualify him from being understood as an otherworldly mediator according to the “master-paradigm” and the depictions of mediators in Jewish apocalypses.

Jesus as Human Being First, one of the primary differences between the mediators in Jewish apocalypses and in the Gospel of John is that Jesus is not an angel but a human being. The “master-paradigm” states that the “mediator is most often an angel.”¹⁸ As we have seen, the mediators in Jewish apocalypses are various named and unnamed angels, such as Gabriel (Dan. 8:15–26; 1 En. 20:1–8), Uriel (1 En. 72–82; 4 Ezra 4:1), Phanael (3 Bar. 2:1, 5), and the unnamed “angel of the presence” (Jub. 1–2). In comparison to this angelic mediation in Jewish apocalypses, Jesus, the Logos and Son of God, descends from heaven and reveals the heavenly mysteries in the Gospel of John. Jesus’s otherworldly nature is noted in his being with God in the beginning (John 1:1; 17:5), taking part in creation (1:3, 10), being before Abraham (8:58), coming into this world (9:39), being sent into the world by the Father (3:17; 10:36; 17:18, 21), and numerous other aspects we have already mentioned. Even with all of that, it is evident that Jesus is not an angel.¹⁹ The Johannine Jesus became flesh and dwelt on earth (1:14, 17). He is able to speak of his flesh being eaten and his blood drunk (6:53–4), and he is referred to as a “human” (ἄνθρωπος) by his opponents (7:46, 51; 9:16, 24). Jesus is crucified, and blood and water come

¹⁸ Collins, “Morphology,” 6. ¹⁹ Some scholars have drawn attention to the angelic nature of the portrayal of Jesus in John, particularly in John 1:51. See Charles A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence, AGJU, 42 (Leiden, 1998), 270–93; Jarl E. Fossum, The Image of the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence of Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology, NTOA, 30 (Göttingen, 1995), 135–51.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

 ’    “  ” 

123

from his side (19:28–30, 35).²⁰ Even the narration of Jesus eating and drinking is an example of his humanity. He reclines at table with Lazarus (12:2), has dinner with his disciples (13:2), drinks sour wine from the cross (19:29–30), and possibly eats grilled fish for breakfast (21:13–15). Although Jesus does not eat or drink when the disciples return with food from the Samaritan village, the disciples expect that he can and will eat (4:31–4). Jesus’s eating and drinking point to his humanity and non-angelic nature, as evident in the Jewish tradition of angels who do not eat or drink.²¹ For example, in Tobit, the angel Raphael does not actually eat but only appears to do so (Tob. 12:19). The expectation that angels do not eat is also evident in the Jewish apocalypse the Testament of Abraham. In one of the many humorous episodes in the Testament of Abraham, the angelic mediator Michael asks God about what he is to do when Abraham invites him to eat with him. Michael is concerned with refusing Abraham’s hospitality because angels cannot eat food (T. Ab. 4:9–10 A). Thus, the presentation of Jesus as one eating and drinking indicates his humanity and makes him poignantly different from angelic mediators in Jewish apocalypses. Relatedly, unlike the otherworldly mediators in Jewish apocalypses, Jesus suffers death by crucifixion, is buried, and is raised to life on the third day (John 19:28–30; 19:42; 20:1–18). Nothing like death or even suffering happens to otherworldly mediators in Jewish apocalypses.²² Jesus’s humanity, as seen particularly in his ability to eat and in his death, marks a stark contrast between the Johannine mediator and those in Jewish apocalypses. The reality that Jesus is a human being and an otherworldly mediator is a significant difference with regard to the genre of apocalypse. In Jewish apocalypses, the angelic mediators remain angels and do not become like those to whom they reveal the heavenly mysteries,²³ but in John, the otherworldly figure has become a human being like the recipients to whom he reveals the heavenly mysteries (John 1:14). Ashton contends that Jesus in John is both the otherworldly mediator and the human recipient. He states: “The blinding realization that in Jesus angel

²⁰ See Marianne Meye Thompson, The Incarnate Word: Perspectives on Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA, 1993); Craig R. Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community, 2nd edn (Minneapolis, MN, 2003), 39–42. ²¹ See Kevin P. Sullivan, Wrestling with Angels: A Study of the Relationship between Angels and Humans in Ancient Jewish Literature and the New Testament, AGJU, 55 (Leiden, 2004), 179–95. ²² However, the angelic mediator in Dan. 10 was opposed by the prince of the kingdom of Persia (v. 13), but this does not presume suffering. ²³ Sullivan, Wrestling with Angels, 37–83, esp. 82–3; Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York, 1993), 70–1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

124     and seer are one and the same marks one of the most significant advances in the whole history of Christian thought: its ramifications are endless.”²⁴ Ashton appears to be referring to Jesus as the human recipient because of his descent from heaven and subsequent role in revealing the mysteries that he has seen in heaven (John 3:12–13). Since Jesus receives revelation from the Father and then descends to earth to make that revelation known, it has been argued that Jesus is like an ascending prophet or human recipient who starts on earth and ascends to heaven before descending.²⁵ The Father’s showing of the Son what he does (5:19–24) may also be used to support this view, but since Jesus begins in heaven and not on earth (1:1; 3:17; 31), the Father’s showing the Son what he does functions as the instruction given to an otherworldly mediator rather than the disclosure given to a human recipient after an ascent to heaven (Apoc. Ab. 10; Jub. 1–2; Test. Ab. 1:4–7).²⁶ In addition, while some human recipients in Jewish apocalypses do ascend to heaven, it is not true of all. Some recipients remain on earth, and angels descend and disclose revelation to them, as Jesus does in John’s Gospel. The difference between the Fourth Gospel and Jewish apocalypses is not Jesus’s travel pattern but that Jesus is human and not an angel.

Jesus as One with God Second, along with Jesus’s humanity, another difference between Jesus and otherworldly mediators is his oneness with the Father. In Jewish apocalypses, angelic mediators are messengers of God and speak the words of God, but they are not one with him. The angelic mediator that comes the closest to being portrayed as one with God is Yahoel in the Apocalypse of Abraham. Yahoel bears the ineffable name (Apoc. Ab. 10:3, 8) and is also described in terms suggestive of divine attributes (11:1–6).²⁷ However, Yahoel is sent by God as a messenger to Abraham (10:4), and he worships God along with Abraham once they come into God’s presence (17:2). Christopher Rowland contends that “the figure is clearly an angel,” even though he may be considered an ²⁴ Ashton, Understanding, 258. ²⁵ Jan-Adolf Bühner, Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4. Evangelium: die kultur- und religionsgeschichtlichen Grundlagen der johanneischen Sendungschristologie sowie ihre traditionsgeschichtliche Entwicklung, WUNT, II/2 (Tübingen, 1977), 374–99; John Ashton, “The Johannine Son of Man: A New Proposal,” NTS, 57/4 (2011), 508–29. ²⁶ Benjamin E. Reynolds, “Apocalyptic Revelation in the Gospel of John: Revealed Cosmology, the Vision of God, and Visionary Showing,” in Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the Shaping of New Testament Thought, ed. by Benjamin E. Reynolds and Loren T. Stuckenbruck (Minneapolis, MN, 2017), 109–28. ²⁷ Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 76–8, 277–8, who also cites the Prayer of Joseph 9; 1 En. 69:15; 3 En. 12:5. See also Christopher Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (London, 1982), 94–113; Ashton, Understanding, 281–98.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

 ’    “  ” 

125

exalted angel.²⁸ Another example of possible oneness with God in Jewish apocalypses includes the difficulty of clarifying whether God or the angel is speaking, but even in 4 Ezra and Jubilees, Uriel and the angel of the presence are merely mediators who speak for God. They are not one with him.²⁹ While these two examples indicate that there are some mediators who are close with God, angelic mediators are not one with God. The Gospel of John portrays Jesus as one with the Father in a way that extends beyond the messenger role of otherworldly mediators in Jewish apocalypses. Jesus says, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30; cf. 17:22). Jesus does what God does: he judges, he gives life (5:19–24), and he works on the Sabbath (5:17). Jesus is accused of making himself equal with God (5:18). He claims the divine name “I Am” (8:28), and he says that he has come in his Father’s name (5:43; 17:11; cf. 12:28). Jesus has the glory of the only begotten of the Father (1:14; 17:5), and God and Jesus are glorified in one another (13:31–2). Not only was the Logos with God, but the Logos was God (1:1).³⁰ Ernst Käsemann states: “In unique dignity as the Father’s ‘exegete’ (1:18), he surpasses everyone else who may otherwise have been sent.”³¹ While the otherworldly mediators of Jewish apocalypses communicate revelation and speak the words of God, they are not confused with God, considered as one with God, or accused of being equal with God. They point away from themselves to the content or meaning of what is revealed, and, like Yahoel, they fade into the background when God appears (Apoc. Ab. 19:1–3).

Jesus as Content of the Revelation A third difference between otherworldly mediators in Jewish apocalypses and Jesus in the Gospel of John is the Johannine mediator’s role as the content of the revelation that he reveals. To describe this as the merging of Message and Messenger³² or Jesus as Revealer and Revelation³³ captures the sense of the

²⁸ Rowland, Open Heaven, 103; Sullivan, Wrestling with Angels, 82. ²⁹ 4 Ezra 5:31, 38–56; 6:11–16, 30–2; 7:1–17; Jub. 1:22, 26, 27; 2:1; 6:20, 32; 33:18; 50:1–2. See Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN, 1990), 199; Ashton, Understanding, 291–2. ³⁰ See Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids, MI, 2008), 46–50. ³¹ Ernst Käsemann, The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17 (London, 1968), 11; also Philippe van den Heede, Der Exeget Gottes. Eine Studie zur johanneischen Offenbarungstheologie, HBibSt, 88 (Freiburg im Breisgau, 2017), 60–81. ³² Robert H. Gundry, Jesus the Word according to John the Sectarian: A Paleofundamentalist Manifesto for Contemporary Evangelicalism, Especially its Elites, in North America (Grand Rapids, MI, 2002), 14. ³³ Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. by Kendrick Grobel, 2 vols (New York, 1951), , 66.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

126     assimilation that moves the Gospel of John beyond the bounds of texts participating in the genre of apocalypse. Revelation in Jewish apocalypses never focuses on the otherworldly mediators. They interpret dreams and visions, speak messages from God, and guide recipients to heaven, but they are never the content of the revelation. They direct attention away from themselves and toward the content of the revelation that they are sent to disclose.³⁴ For example, Remiel appears to Baruch without fanfare or description (2 Bar. 55:3); and even in the epiphany that Daniel experiences, the angel directs Daniel’s attention away from himself and to the words he speaks (Dan. 10:10–11, 12, 18–19). By contrast, in the Gospel of John, Jesus is the content of what is revealed. It is only through belief in Jesus, the otherworldly mediator, that people can receive eternal life or come to the Father (John 14:6). The focus on Jesus’s identity (John 7–9), on his words and signs (4:34; 5:36; 8:26, 28; 12:37–8), and on the necessity of belief in him for salvation (3:16; 20:30–1) highlights the way in which the heavenly emissary in John is the focus and content of the revelation that he himself brings. Two additional features in the Gospel of John underscore that Jesus is the content of the revelation. First, the Fourth Gospel’s otherworldly mediator is also the Son of Man, the one who has the authority to judge (John 5:27). In Jewish apocalypses in which a son of man figure appears, the mediator discloses or interprets a vision of the son of man (Dan. 7:13–14; 1 En. 46; 62; 71:14; 4 Ezra 13; 2 Bar. 29–30, 72). The angel is not part of the vision, nor is the angel confused with any of the figures in the vision. Instead, the otherworldly mediator explains the vision that the seer experiences.³⁵ Second, the Johannine Jesus receives glory, glory that belongs to the Father (John 12:23; 13:31–2). Otherworldly mediators in Jewish apocalypses do not typically receive glory nor do they come close to the status that Jesus holds as the heavenly mediator in John’s Gospel.³⁶ Even Yahoel, in Apoc. Ab. 10:3–17, is ³⁴ See Benjamin E. Reynolds, “The Otherworldly Mediators in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: A Comparison with Angelic Mediators in Ascent Apocalypses and in Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah,” in Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction after the Fall, ed. by Matthias Henze and Gabriele Boccaccini (Leiden, 2013), 175–93. ³⁵ In the Parables of Enoch, the human recipient appears to be the Enochic Son of Man of his own vision (1 En. 70:1; 71:14), but the otherworldly mediator is not part of the vision. See Helge S. Kvanvig, “The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. by Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids, MI, 2007), 179–215; 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. by Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Gabriele Boccaccini, EJL, 44 (Atlanta, GA, 2016), 169–97. ³⁶ See Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism, 2nd edn (London, 2005), 81–2; Rowland, Open Heaven, 103.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

 ’    “  ” 

127

not glorified or worshipped even though he is given the ineffable name. These features highlight the important difference between the Gospel and Jewish apocalypses in that the otherworldly mediator in John directs attention to himself because he is the content of the revelation.

Christ as Mediator in Christian Apocalypses According to the “master-paradigm,” the otherworldly mediator is “most often an angel,” but in Christian apocalypses, Christ often functions as the otherworldly mediator.³⁷ While Christ acting as mediator might appear to undercut my argument that the Johannine Jesus is different from angelic mediators in Jewish apocalypses, it is the risen Christ who is mediator in these Christian apocalypses (e.g., Rev. 1:12–20; 4:1).³⁸ As a result, the narratives of early Christian apocalypses narrate the revelation that occurs after Jesus’s resurrection. They do not narrate the life of Jesus before his resurrection (Apoc. Pet. 3–5). As with the otherworldly mediators in Jewish apocalypses, the Christ of Christian apocalypses is not the content of the revelation. Thus, when it comes to the otherworldly mediator’s role regarding the manner of revelation, there are substantial differences between the Gospel of John and Jewish apocalypses, and even between Christian apocalypses that portray the risen Christ as the otherworldly mediator. In John, the otherworldly mediator differs from those in Jewish and Christian apocalypses in that he is a human being, is one with God, and the content of what he reveals.

Differences in the Human Recipient (3) Regarding the human recipient (3) of revelation, the Gospel of John demonstrates two recognizable differences from Jewish apocalypses. The first difference is that the Fourth Gospel does not claim the authorship of a “venerable figure from Israel’s past.”³⁹ The author of John is not Enoch, Ezra, or Baruch, but, at the same time, the author of the Fourth Gospel is presented differently than the authors of the Synoptic Gospels. Simon Gathercole has recently made a persuasive argument that the Gospels should not be assumed to be

³⁷ Collins, “Morphology,” 6. ³⁸ Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Early Christian Apocalypses,” Semeia, 14 (1979), 61–121. The later dating for most Christian apocalypses also creates a problem for associating “the Christ” of these apocalypses with the Johannine Jesus. ³⁹ Collins, “Morphology,” 6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

128     anonymous;⁴⁰ however, the Synoptic Gospels are closer to anonymity within their narratives than are the pseudonymous Jewish apocalypses. Matthew and Mark make no reference to their authors within their narratives, unless Matt. 10:3 and Mark 14:51–2 are understood as veiled references to their authors. Even if they are, there is no explicit authorship claim within Matthew and Mark. The Gospel of Luke begins with a first-person introduction (Luke 1:1–4) but then continues in the third person. The fourth evangelist, on the other hand, is presented as the disciple whom Jesus loved and thus as one of the characters within John’s narrative (John 13:23; 19:26; 21:7, 20; cf. 1:35–40; 18:15; 20:2).⁴¹ In the Gospel of John, the recipient of revelation is not pseudonymous as in apocalypses (cf. Rev. 1:9), but, as noted in Chapter 2, the beloved disciple functions as the privileged recipient of revelation (John 13:23–6; 19:34–5; 20:8; 21:7) and the one who writes down that revelation (21:24).⁴² Although the beloved disciple is presented as a character in the narrative and is identified within the Gospel as its author, he remains unnamed. Thus, on the element of the human recipient, the Gospel of John is like and unlike Jewish apocalypses and like and unlike the Synoptic Gospels. Like Jewish apocalypses, the Gospel of John includes the first-person experience of the author within the narrative, and like the Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John is primarily written as a third-person narrative.⁴³ Like the Synoptics but unlike Jewish apocalypses, the author of John is unnamed in the narrative.⁴⁴ Unlike the Synoptics but like Jewish apocalypses, the author of John is a character in the narrative and a privileged recipient of heavenly revelation. The author of John is anonymous in the sense that he is not mentioned by name in the narrative and his unequivocal identity is unknown to us,⁴⁵ but the description of him as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” suggests that this figure was known to the original audience and is the privileged witness of the revelation that he relates (13:23–6; 19:35; 20:2–10; 21:20–4).⁴⁶

⁴⁰ Simon J. Gathercole, “The Alleged Anonymity of the Canonical Gospels,” JTS, 69/2 (2018), 447–76. ⁴¹ See Francis Watson, The Fourfold Gospel: A Theological Reading of the New Testament Portraits of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI, 2016), 12–16. ⁴² Cf. Andrew T. Lincoln, “The Beloved Disciple as Eyewitness and the Fourth Gospel as Witness,” JSNT, 24/3 (2002), 3–26. ⁴³ Luke’s author distances himself from firsthand eyewitness (Luke 1:1–4). ⁴⁴ Gathercole, “Alleged Anonymity,” 457–60, argues that authors are commonly unnamed in GrecoRoman biographies. ⁴⁵ Jörg Frey, The Glory of the Crucified One: Christology and Theology in the Gospel of John, trans. by Wayne Coppins and Christoph Heilig, BMSEC (Waco, TX, 2018), 22. ⁴⁶ Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd edn (Grand Rapids, MI, 2017), 393–409.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

 ’    “  ” 

129

Second, the Gospel of John is different from apocalypses because it portrays multiple recipients of revelation, alongside the beloved disciple as the privileged receiver of revelation. As was also noted in Chapter 2, there are multiple references to others who see or hear the revelation from Jesus. Many individuals, such as Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman, have their own revelatory experiences with Jesus, and the beloved disciple includes himself with them as a fellow recipient of revelation (John 1:14; 1:51; 2:11; 12:37–8). If the pseudonymity of the apocalypses was a “democratizing feature” in the sense that “the visions belong to all,” as Susan Niditch suggests,⁴⁷ the Fourth Gospel may have extended the democratization by including more recipients and portraying the unnamed beloved disciple as an example of belief.⁴⁸ Considering John’s affinity with Jewish apocalypses and the bending of the gospel genre in the Fourth Gospel, the Gospel’s implicitly named author who is a character within the narrative and the privileged recipient of revelation reflects a blending of gospel authorship with apocalypse authorship.

Summary These differences between Jewish apocalypses and the Gospel of John in terms of the medium of revelation, the otherworldly mediator, and the human recipient indicate the reasons why John is not an apocalypse, even though the Gospel has a marked affinity with Jewish apocalypses. Thus, I agree and disagree with Adela Yarbro Collins’s comment that the “Gospel of John is not an apocalypse because it is not that sort of narrative.”⁴⁹ I agree because the Gospel of John is not an apocalypse, but I disagree because John is more of “that sort of narrative” than Yarbro Collins allows. The Gospel is that sort of narrative because it has the framework of an apocalypse—revelatory narrative in which an otherworldly mediator discloses revelation to a human recipient⁵⁰—and contains a core of the “master-paradigm’s” thirteen elements from the three dimensions of form, content, and function. In this sense, the Gospel ⁴⁷ Susan Niditch, “The Visionary,” in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms, ed. by George W. E. Nickelsburg and John J. Collins, SCS, 12 (Chico, CA, 1980), 174. ⁴⁸ An interesting comparison may be made with the Christian apocalypse the Testament of our Lord. The Testament is written from the perspective of a singular, pseudonymous disciple, but in the closing section, authorship is claimed by John, Peter, and Matthew (2:27). James Cooper and Arthur John Maclean, Testament of Our Lord: Translated into English from the Syriac with Introduction and Notes (Edinburgh, 1902), 138. See Yarbro Collins, “Early Christian Apocalypses,” 77, on the pseudonymity of the disciples. ⁴⁹ Yarbro Collins, “Epilogue,” 301. ⁵⁰ John Ashton, The Gospel of John and Christian Origins (Minneapolis, MN, 2014), 115.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

130     of John is broadly framed like an apocalypse. Yet, as I have just shown, it is in the details of John’s visual revelation,⁵¹ otherworldly mediator, and human recipient that John is disqualified from participating in the genre of apocalypse.

An Apocalypse “in Reverse, Upside Down, Inside Out”? If the Fourth Gospel cannot be included among the apocalypses, some explanation is needed for John’s revelatory framework and its “intimations of apocalyptic,”⁵² especially since Yarbro Collins still allows that John “does . . . presuppose apocalyptic tradition.”⁵³ John Ashton explained the relationship as follows: “the fourth evangelist conceives his own work as an apocalypse—in reverse, upside down, inside out.”⁵⁴ The description simultaneously recognizes the Gospel’s affinity with Jewish apocalypses but also its differences. Ashton’s use of the terms “reverse,” “upside down,” and “inside out” are intended to draw attention to the earthly location of the revelation and its embodiment in the human Jesus. He states: There is no divine plan first disclosed to a seer in a vision and then repeated in earthly terms. The divine plan itself—the Logos—is incarnate: fully embodied in the person of Jesus. It is his life that reveals God’s grand design of saving the world, a design now being realized, lived out, by the community.⁵⁵

He makes this more explicit in The Gospel of John and Christian Origins: “So the new revelation is the Gospel itself, a story set on earth—which is why it may be called an apocalypse in reverse.”⁵⁶ Ashton’s position is echoed by Christopher Rowland: “Heavenly visions of God are not what is on offer in the Fourth Gospel, for claims to see God must be regarded as claims to see Jesus. The Gospel of John is indeed ‘an apocalypse in reverse’.”⁵⁷

⁵¹ Ashton, Understanding, 310, notes the medium of revelation as a key determinant for John not aligning with Jewish apocalypses. ⁵² Ashton, Christian Origins, 97–118; Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland, eds., John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic (London, 2013). ⁵³ Yarbro Collins, “Epilogue,” 307; also Murphy, Apocalypticism, 275–9. However, what both mean by the presupposing of apocalyptic tradition has to do with the themes of judgment and eschatology in John. ⁵⁴ Ashton, Understanding, 328–9; cf. Christian Origins, 114–18. ⁵⁵ Ashton, Understanding, 328, also 528–9. ⁵⁶ Ashton, Christian Origins, 118. ⁵⁷ Christopher Rowland and Christopher R. A. Morray-Jones, The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament, CRINT, 12 (Leiden, 2009), 131; Christopher Rowland, “Apocalyptic, Mysticism, and the New Testament,” in Geschichte—Tradition—Reflexion: Festschrift

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

 ’    “  ” 

131

Ashton’s and Rowland’s comments suggest that their description of John’s Gospel as “an apocalypse in reverse,” whether merely as a rhetorical device or not, appears to rely on two points which are actually two sides of the same coin. First, the vision of God by a human recipient in the Gospel of John does not occur in heaven, and second, the vision of God is given in, of, and through the life of the earthly Jesus, the Logos made flesh. If we understand apocalypses primarily in terms of otherworldly journeys (i.e., ascents to heaven) and throne room visions, describing John’s Gospel as “an apocalypse in reverse” makes sense because the revelation occurs on earth. However, the Semeia 14 definition of an “apocalypse” and the “master-paradigm” indicate that otherworldly journeys (1.3) and visual revelation (1.1) are just two ways out of four in which heavenly revelation may be mediated. In light of this, I think that designating the Gospel of John as “an apocalypse in reverse” is not the most accurate explanation of the affinity between John and Jewish apocalypses, and this for two reasons. First, not all Jewish apocalypses narrate visions of heaven or ascents to heaven, even though revelation can be mediated in these ways. And second, the embodiment of the vision of God in a human being seems less like an inversion and more like an innovation. I will address these two points in turn. Two Jewish apocalypses, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, do not speak of heavenly ascents, nor do they include visions of God. The human recipient remains on earth, and the otherworldly mediator is sent to earth to answer Ezra’s and Baruch’s prayers and questions. Likewise, in Dan. 9:20–7, the angel Gabriel comes to Daniel when Daniel is at prayer. The possibility or expectation of ascents to heaven and resulting visions of heaven appears to be refuted by 4 Ezra, when the claim is made that God cannot be reached (4 Ezra 8:21; cf. 14:49–50).⁵⁸ Thus, while heavenly journeys are present in some Jewish apocalypses, they, like end-of-the-world eschatology, are not a consistent feature of the genre. Of greater interest for considering John’s relationship with the genre of apocalypse is Jubilees. At first glance, one might not include this text in the list of Jewish apocalypses, since it does not contain strange visionary imagery or heavenly journeys that the word “apocalypse” popularly conjures. As a result, Jubilees has been called a “borderline case for the apocalyptic genre,” or more

für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by Hubert Cancik, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Peter Schäfer, 3 vols (Tübingen, 1996), , 405–30. ⁵⁸ See Rowland and Morray-Jones, Mystery of God, 126; Stone, Fourth Ezra, 80–1, 272–3. Note that the Testament of Abraham has examples of both heavenly descent by an otherworldly mediator and ascent by a human recipient.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

132     recently “a work of hybrid genre.”⁵⁹ Jubilees recounts Israel’s history from creation to Moses and strongly emphasizes the importance of keeping the law and of obeying God’s commands; as such, Jubilees is closer to the biblical account in Genesis and Exodus but for its revelatory framework.⁶⁰ The text begins with Moses going up Mount Sinai to receive the law and speaks of the glory of the Lord dwelling on the mountain. However, once Moses is on the mountain, what he is told—the history of Israel from creation until his own day—is described as revelation. Jubilees 1:4 states: “And the Lord revealed to him both what (was) in the beginning and what will occur (in the future), the account of the division of all the days of the Law and the testimony” (cf. Jub. 1:27–9; 2:1).⁶¹ The similarity to prophetic literature is apparent; however, Jubilees is generally considered to participate in some way in the genre of apocalypse because it is a narrative in which heavenly revelation is mediated by an otherworldly figure (“the angel of the presence”) to a human recipient (Moses). The aspect of “personal eschatological salvation,” which is not necessarily connected to a cataclysmic, end-time judgment in Jubilees, is noticeable in the emphasis on righteous living through the keeping of the law (Jub. 6:17–22; 13:26; 15:25–7; 32:10–15; 33:10–14; 49:1–50:13). Although Jubilees lacks heavenly ascents and visions and thus marginally participates in the genre, it still participates in the genre of apocalypse,⁶² even if it has been argued that Jubilees subverts the genre.⁶³ Like the Gospel of John, Jubilees is a revelatory narrative that takes place on earth. It also portrays the otherworldly mediator appearing on earth. Daniel, 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, Jubilees, and the Apocalypse of Weeks all contain revelation that takes place while the human recipient is on earth. Thus, I do not find it entirely appropriate to claim that the Gospel of John is “an apocalypse in reverse” on the basis of the earthly location of Jesus’s revelation. The earthly or heavenly location of revelation does not necessarily intimate reversal or non-reversal of the apocalyptic framework or a text’s participation or non-participation in the genre. Rather, it reflects whether a Jewish apocalypse contains the revelatory medium of otherworldly journeys (1.3) or not.

⁵⁹ John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 3rd edn (Grand Rapids, MI, 2016), 104; see also Hanneken, Subversion of the Apocalypses, 24–6. ⁶⁰ See Rowland, Open Heaven, 51–2; and also Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism, JSJSup, 77 (Leiden and Atlanta, GA, 2003), 41–50. ⁶¹ All translation of Jubilees are from O. S. Wintermute, “Jubilees,” in OTP, ed. by James H. Charlesworth, 2 vols (New York, 1985), , 35–142. ⁶² Rowland, Open Heaven, 51–2; Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 104. ⁶³ Hanneken, Subversion of the Apocalypses.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

 ’    “  ” 

133

The second reason Ashton gives for his view that John’s Gospel is an apocalypse “in reverse, upside down, inside out” is the fact that in the Fourth Gospel the revelation of God is embodied in the human person of Jesus. My understanding of what Ashton is describing is that it is in Jesus’s earthly life, specifically in his actions and words, that the revelation of the heavenly mystery of God’s salvation takes place.⁶⁴ Ashton states: Thus the fundamental paradox consists in the identification of a man, Jesus, with a heavenly being whose message has nothing to do with the things of earth. The form is apocalyptic but . . . the destiny of Jesus is the reverse of an apocalypse. This, not some esoteric mystery disclosed to a seer or dreamer, is the true revelation.⁶⁵

Essentially, Ashton argues that John’s Gospel should be called an apocalypse “in reverse, upside down, inside out” because Jesus’s descent–ascent (John 3:13) is inverse to the human recipient’s ascent–descent in Jewish apocalypses and because of the embodiment of the heavenly revelation in a human being. However, we are again confronted with the reality that revelation occurring on earth does not mean that John is an apocalypse in reverse or upside down (e.g., Jubilees, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, Daniel). Further, the embodiment of the revelation in the person of Jesus is not the inversion or reversal of an apocalypse. The embodiment of the revelation of God in a human being is unlike anything encountered in Jewish apocalypses. The closest example in Jewish apocalypses is the transformation of the human recipient into an angelic or exalted being (T. Levi 5; 2 En. 22:9–10), and most especially in the possible declaration of Enoch as the Son of Man (1 En. 71:14).⁶⁶ Ashton and Rowland would likely remind me here that Ashton’s phrase is not a technical description, and they would be correct to do so.⁶⁷ However, even as a heuristic device, Ashton’s stimulating phrase functions as an imprecise description of the Fourth Gospel’s relationship with Jewish apocalypses. John’s Gospel is not an inverted apocalypse but rather a gospel shaped by the genre of apocalypse.

⁶⁴ Ashton is responding to Bultmann’s claim of contentless revelation with these arguments. Ashton, Understanding, 522–8; Ashton, Christian Origins, 116. ⁶⁵ Ashton, Understanding, 529. ⁶⁶ Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 37, 40,45–6; Sullivan, Wrestling with Angels, 85–111. ⁶⁷ See Christopher Rowland and Catrin H. Williams, “Introduction,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), ix–xvi.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

134    

The Gospel of John as “Apocalyptic” Gospel If the Gospel of John is not an apocalypse or an “apocalypse in reverse,” how best can we describe John’s genre while taking into account the remarkable similarities it shares with Jewish apocalypses? I contend that a better description of this relationship is to refer to the Gospel of John as an “apocalyptic” gospel, a gospel in kind and an apocalypse in mode.⁶⁸ There are two primary reasons for this, as will be argued more fully in the following sections. First, the description “apocalyptic” gospel recognizes that John is a gospel in the sense of the canonical gospels and, second, the adjective “apocalyptic” denotes the generic mode in which John’s Gospel is written, as is evident in the revelatory framing of John that it shares with regard to the form, content, and function of Jewish apocalypses.

John as Gospel While I have offered reasons above for disqualifying the Gospel of John from participation in the genre of apocalypse, the main reason that John is not an apocalypse or a reversed apocalypse is that John clearly participates in the gospel genre. Although John is different from Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the four Gospels have more in common with each other than they do with most other literature,⁶⁹ but we are thus confronted by the perennial question: “What is a gospel?” Alan Culpepper states that “The answer to such an ostensibly simple question has proved surprisingly elusive.”⁷⁰ The less elusive answer is to follow James Dunn’s lead and simply to see a gospel as a narrative focused on the life of Jesus, including his crucifixion and resurrection. With regard to the Gospel of John, Dunn states: For all its differences from the Synoptics, John is far closer to them than to any other ancient writing . . . . he chose, and chose deliberately, to retain the

⁶⁸ See Alastair Fowler, Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes (Cambridge, MA, 1982), 106–8. ⁶⁹ Robert Guelich, “The Gospel Genre,” in The Gospel and the Gospels, ed. by Peter Stuhlmacher (Grand Rapids, MI, 1991), 173–208 (203–4); D. Moody Smith, John among the Gospels, 2nd edn (Columbia, SC, 2001), 2–6. Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2 vols (Grand Rapids, MI, 2003), 33, states: “Whatever else may be said about the Fourth Gospel’s genre, it must fall into the same broad category as the Synoptics.” ⁷⁰ R. Alan Culpepper, “The Plot of John’s Story of Jesus,” in Gospel Interpretation: Narrative-Critical and Social-Scientific Approaches, ed. by Jack Dean Kingsbury (Harrisburg, PA, 1997), 188–99 (189).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

 ’    “  ” 

135

developed discourse material within the framework of a Gospel as laid down by Mark—traditions of Jesus’ miracles and teaching building up all the while to the climax of the cross.⁷¹

As Dunn suggests, Mark is often considered the prototype of the gospel genre.⁷² If we were to stick with Mark’s words, Mark 1:1 might serve as a sufficient description of a gospel’s form and content: “the gospel of Jesus Messiah, Son of God,”⁷³ but this description does not address function and it uses the term “gospel” to explain form, which only returns us to the original question. Since proclamation and preaching are clearly part of the genre,⁷⁴ it may be better to define a gospel as a narrative about Jesus’s life that proclaims the “good news” of salvation that comes through faith in Jesus.⁷⁵ Recent debates concerning gospel genre have centered on the questions of whether the Gospels form a unique genre (i.e., that they are sui generis), whether they are closer to Hebrew Bible narratives,⁷⁶ or whether they may be considered part of the larger genre of Greco-Roman biography, or βίος, which is itself part of Greco-Roman historiography.⁷⁷ The last view has become the common view. In his book What are the Gospels?, Richard Burridge outlines the form, content, and function of Greco-Roman biography in four categories—opening, subject of the biography, external features, and internal features. The Synoptic Gospels and John’s Gospel resemble the genre features of Greco-Roman βίος,⁷⁸ especially when we recognize that texts participate in genres and do not necessarily belong to them.⁷⁹ A number of scholars have followed Burridge and understand the Gospel of John as

⁷¹ James D. G. Dunn, “Let John Be John: A Gospel for its Time,” in The Gospel and the Gospels, ed. by Peter Stuhlmacher (Grand Rapids, MI, 1991), 293–322 (322). See also Smith, John among the Gospels, 2. ⁷² For this, see Lawrence M. Wills, The Quest of the Historical Gospel: Mark, John and the Origins of the Gospel Genre (London, 1997). ⁷³ Guelich, “Gospel Genre,” 208. See his comments on the relationship with non-canonical gospels on 206. ⁷⁴ Ashton, Understanding, 335; Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels, trans. by John Bowden (Harrisburg, PA, 2000), 141–57. ⁷⁵ Willem S. Vorster, “Gospel Genre,” in ABD, , 1077–9; Guelich, “Gospel Genre,” 206–7. ⁷⁶ Loveday Alexander, “What Is a Gospel?,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Gospels, ed. by Stephen C. Barton, CCR (Cambridge, 2006), 13–33. ⁷⁷ Charles H. Talbert, What Is a Gospel?: The Genre of the Canonical Gospels (Philadelphia, PA, 1977). ⁷⁸ Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography, 2nd edn (Grand Rapids, MI, 2004), 185–212, 213–32, respectively. Cf. David E. Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, LEC, 8 (Philadelphia, PA, 1987), 46. ⁷⁹ Jacques Derrida, “The Law of Genre,” in Modern Genre Theory, ed. by David Duff (New York, 2000), 219–31; Frow, Genre, 3, 24–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

136     participating in Greco-Roman biography,⁸⁰ while simultaneously noting multiple embedded genres within John’s gospel genre.⁸¹ John Ashton, on the other hand, argues against considering the Gospel of John as part of the genre of Greco-Roman biography and sees the four Gospels as sui generis.⁸² Ashton allows for their inclusion within Greco-Roman βίοι but only because he understands Burridge’s description of βίοι as quite general, referring to Burridge’s “not very stringent criteria.”⁸³ As noted above, Burridge actually lists a much broader collection of criteria in terms of form, content, and function;⁸⁴ however, for Ashton, what is missing is the function of the Gospels or “the primary aim of the evangelists.”⁸⁵ He concludes his discussion on the topic by stating: It is my contention, therefore, that to call the Gospels biographies without more ado is radically mistaken: we should think of them primarily in terms of the stated purpose of John and of the implicit purpose of Mark (since his word εὐαγγέλιον, gospel—good news, is equivalent to a state of intent).⁸⁶

This debate, however, rests on an older understanding of genre. Burridge relies on a family resemblance model of genre—if a text has certain family characteristics or traits, it may be considered part of the family. Ashton seems to assume a more static, Aristotelian approach to genre—if a text does not have x, y, or z features, it does not belong.⁸⁷ Thus, since Ashton does not see purpose among Burridge’s features of Greco-Roman biography (although Burridge’s seventh internal feature is “authorial intention and purpose”⁸⁸), Ashton dismisses the Fourth Gospel’s connection with βίοι because of the Gospel’s specifically kerygmatic function.⁸⁹ Modern genre theory does not consider texts as belonging to genres but rather as participating in them, and it expects ⁸⁰ Mark W. G. Stibbe, John’s Gospel, NTR (New York, 1994), 61–78; Keener, Gospel of John, 33; Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel according to Saint John, BNTC (London and New York, 2005), 14–17. ⁸¹ Mark W. G. Stibbe, John as Storyteller: Narrative Criticism and the Fourth Gospel, SNTSMS, 73 (Cambridge, 1992); Jo-Ann A. Brant, Dialogue and Drama: Elements of Greek Tragedy in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA, 2004); George L. Parsenios, Departure and Consolation: The Johannine Farewell Discourses in Light of Greco-Roman Literature, NovTSup, 117 (Leiden, 2005); Kasper Bro Larsen, Recognizing the Stranger: Recognition Scenes in the Gospel of John, BIS, 93 (Leiden, 2008); George L. Parsenios, Rhetoric and Drama in the Johannine Lawsuit Motif, WUNT, I/258 (Tübingen, 2010). ⁸² Ashton, Understanding, 332–3; Ashton, Christian Origins, 24–9. ⁸³ Ashton, Christian Origins, 25. ⁸⁴ See the closer reading of Burridge by Stibbe, John’s Gospel, 63–5. ⁸⁵ Ashton, Christian Origins, 25. ⁸⁶ Ashton, Christian Origins, 29. ⁸⁷ See Frow, Genre, 55–78; also David Duff, “Introduction,” in Modern Genre Theory, ed. by David Duff (New York, 2000), 1–24. ⁸⁸ Burridge, What Are the Gospels?, 180–3. ⁸⁹ Ashton, Christian Origins, 29. See Hengel, Four Gospels, 145–52.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

 ’    “  ” 

137

modifications to occur within and between texts and genres as they interact with one another. Genre serves as a classification for readers and writers and shapes boundaries and expectations, but a “generic classification never covers the global text.”⁹⁰ In other words, there are always features and modes within a text that are not addressed by any one classification. This aspect highlights the way in which each text tends toward its own uniqueness while also participating in one or more genres. With regard to the four Gospels, they may appear unique or sui generis,⁹¹ but this perception is due to their shared focus on the person of Jesus and their proclamatory purpose, which distinguishes them from other βίοι as βίοι Ἰησοῦ.⁹² As such, the Gospel of John participates in the broader genre of Greco-Roman biography and even more narrowly as a βίος Ἰησοῦ or gospel, along with Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

John as “Apocalyptic” Gospel As a participant in the gospel genre and the broader genre of Greco-Roman biography, the Fourth Gospel narrates the life of Jesus and proclaims the “good news,” which in John is eternal life through belief in Jesus; however, the Gospel of John narrates and proclaims the εὐαγγέλιον as a revelatory narrative of the life of Jesus. This revelatory framing of the Gospel makes it distinct from the Synoptic Gospels and extends the gospel genre through the influence of the genre of apocalypse. John portrays Jesus as an otherworldly mediator who descends from heaven, reveals the Father in an earthly vision of God, and makes him known. The heavens open for this revelation to take place, and human witnesses see and react to this revelation. This temporally and spatially transcendent revelation functions to interpret present circumstances in light of the supernatural world and the future and to influence understanding and behavior through divine authority. These numerous elements of form, content, and function belonging to the prototype apocalypse are evident in John’s Gospel and highlight the apocalyptic (i.e., revelatory) nature and framing of this gospel, even though the Fourth Gospel deviates from the prototype of an apocalypse at key points, particularly in the details of the ⁹⁰ Heta Pyrhönen, “Genre,” in The Cambridge Companion to Narrative, ed. by David Herman (Cambridge, 2007), 114. ⁹¹ Ruth Sheridan, “John’s Gospel and Modern Genre Theory: The Farewell Discourse (John 13–17) as a Test Case,” ITQ, 75/3 (2010), 295, states: “No genre can be said to be totally sui generis, else it would not be recognizable or interpretable, yet secondary genres gain their particularity—or dissimilarity from other genres—by the ways in which they incorporate primary genres.” ⁹² Burridge, What Are the Gospels?, 250.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

138     manner of revelation. I contend that the best way to explain the Gospel of John’s similarities with apocalypses and yet deviation from the genre, an explanation that is in tune with modern genre theory, is to understand John as participating in the gospel genre, yet at the same time reworking and extending the gospel genre⁹³ through the influence of the apocalypse genre. This blending of gospel and apocalypse does not create a hybrid gospelapocalypse genre. John belongs among the Gospels as a narrative of Jesus’s life that proclaims the “good news” of salvation through belief in him, and John’s similarities with Jewish apocalypses are an indication of the mode in which the Fourth Gospel is presented: John participates in the gospel genre and is “apocalyptic” in mode. As I discussed in Chapter 1, modes are the adjectival use of one genre to qualify the presentation of another genre.⁹⁴ John Frow states that modes “are usually qualifications or modifications of particular genres.” He continues by saying that in an adjectival sense modes give “a thematic and tonal qualification or ‘colouring’ of genre.” As examples of this modal coloring, Frow cites the “gothic thriller, pastoral elegy, satirical sitcom,”⁹⁵ while Alastair Fowler offers Jane Austen’s Emma as an example of a novel in kind and comedy in mode (a “comic novel”).⁹⁶ This tonal or adjectival description is what is meant when we speak of a prophetic narrative, a poetic prophecy, or an epistolary apocalypse. The “thematic and tonal qualification” of the Gospel of John is apocalyptic, making it an “apocalyptic” gospel. The manner of revelation and the revealed temporally and spatially transcendent reality qualify the Fourth Gospel’s presentation of the life of Jesus. Unlike the Synoptics, the portrayal of Jesus in the Gospel of John has been colored with that of an otherworldly mediator in the way Jesus descends from heaven, is sent by the Father, and discloses heavenly revelation. Visual revelation and auditory revelation are the media of this disclosure, and the intricacies of the fourth evangelist’s revelatory narration reflect an intermingling with apocalypse authorship. The apocalyptic mode of John’s Gospel prepares the readers’ “horizon of expectations” so that they expect the disclosure of apocalyptic revelation.⁹⁷ Alistair Fowler states: “The opening words and topics [of a text] are particularly influential . . . in preparing [the reader’s] expectations of genre in a more

⁹³ Pyrhönen, “Genre,” 118. ⁹⁴ Fowler, Kinds of Literature, 106–8, also 56–7. Burridge, What Are the Gospels?, 40, follows Fowler on the adjectival use of “mode.” ⁹⁵ Frow, Genre, 71, 73. ⁹⁶ Fowler, Kinds of Literature, 106. ⁹⁷ I take the phrase from Pyrhönen, “Genre,” 114, who cites Tzvetan Todorov, Genres in Discourse (Cambridge, 1990), 18.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

 ’    “  ” 

139

discriminating way.”⁹⁸ In John, the opening words create expectations for a revelatory narrative, an otherworldly mediator, and revelatory content that contains a temporally and cosmologically transcendent reality. The opening verse of the Gospel—“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God” (John 1:1)—alerts readers to a temporal and cosmological reality that continues in Jesus’s statement about seeing heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man (1:51). The manner and content of revelation are again evident in the visual revelation of Jesus’s glory in his first sign (2:11), and auditory revelation is evident in Jesus’s dialogue with Nicodemus, a dialogue that has obvious similarities with Uriel’s dialogues with Ezra (John 3:2–11; cf. 4 Ezra 4). Jesus’s words to Nicodemus draw attention to his role as an otherworldly mediator who comes from heaven and discloses heavenly things (John 3:12–13, 16). Yet, even as John creates this horizon of expectations through its apocalyptic mode, John upends these expectations and extends the genre. Heaven opens and a vision of God takes place, but there is no narration of the vision; the vision of God and the words of God are embodied in the person of Jesus. God can only be seen and heard in Jesus’s signs and words. God can only be made known through the heavenly mediator, who is the only one who has seen him and known him, who is simultaneously human and one with God. And while there is a privileged recipient of revelation, the beloved disciple is not alone in experiencing the revelation that Jesus discloses. The Gospel of John is not an apocalypse or an inverted one, but it is unmistakably influenced by the genre of apocalypse while not fully participating in it. John’s form, content of revelation, and function have the “tone” of an apocalypse that qualifies the Gospel of John as a revelatory gospel that mediates revelation through an otherworldly mediator. In light of this modal qualification, the Gospel of John may best be generically described as an “apocalyptic” gospel. Here, it is worth noting that John is not alone among the Gospels in being described as “apocalyptic.” Each of the Synoptic Gospels has been called “apocalyptic” at one time or another. Matthew has been described as such by Leopold Sabourin and Donald Hagner, with Sabourin going so far as to say: “It is not at all

⁹⁸ Fowler, Kinds of Literature, 98, also 88; see also Maria Antónia Coutinho and Florencia Miranda, “To Describe Genres: Problems and Strategies,” in Genre in a Changing World, ed. by Charles Bazerman, Adair Bonini, and Débora Figueiredo (West Lafayette, IN, 2009), 42–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

140     doubtful that Matthew is the most apocalyptic of the evangelists.”⁹⁹ Adela Yarbro Collins describes Mark as an “apocalyptic historical monograph,”¹⁰⁰ and N. T. Wright argues that Mark functions as an apocalypse in the sense that it unveils mysteries.¹⁰¹ More recently, Elizabeth Shively has argued for Mark’s connection to the apocalyptic imagination.¹⁰² Luke is not as regularly called “apocalyptic,” which may be due to Luke’s historiographical approach, but the Third Gospel’s eschatology has been discussed in comparison with “apocalyptic tradition.”¹⁰³ What is evident in these descriptions of Matthew, Mark, and Luke as “apocalyptic” is that the term “apocalyptic” is often used not in reference to the genre of apocalypse but to various features that are deemed to be “apocalyptic,” particularly apocalyptic eschatology.¹⁰⁴ Mark is the most likely to be called “apocalyptic” because of Jesus’s discourse in Mark 13 (cf. Matt. 24–5), which contains imagery and eschatological content similar to Daniel’s apocalyptic eschatology (Dan. 7, 9) and is thus “often inappropriately labeled as the ‘little apocalypse’.”¹⁰⁵ Intriguingly, Shively recently described Mark as a narrative presented in an apocalyptic mode,¹⁰⁶ but she has previously defined “apocalyptic” in terms of the “world-view or presuppositions that are typical of the genre of apocalypse” and says that Mark “manifests the characteristics of

⁹⁹ Leopold Sabourin, “Apocalyptic Traits in Matthew’s Gospel,” RSB, 3/1 (1983), 19; Donald A. Hagner, “Apocalyptic Motifs in the Gospel of Matthew: Continuity and Discontinuity,” HBT, 7/2 (1985), 53–82. ¹⁰⁰ Adela Yarbro Collins, The Beginning of the Gospel: Probings of Mark in Context (Minneapolis, MN, 1992), 27–38. In her later commentary, Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN, 2007), 42–3, changes the description to “eschatological historical monograph,” indicating that the “apocalyptic” aspect is essentially eschatological. ¹⁰¹ N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis, MN, 1992), 390–6. ¹⁰² Elizabeth E. Shively, Apocalyptic Imagination in the Gospel of Mark: The Literary and Theological Role of Mark 3:22–30, BZNW, 189 (Berlin, 2012). See also Christopher W. Skinner, “Overcoming Satan, Overcoming the World: Exploring the Cosmologies of Mark and John,” ed. by Christopher Keith and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, WUNT, II/417 (Tübingen, 2016), 101–21, who argues that Mark has a more “thoroughgoing apocalyptic perspective” than John. ¹⁰³ Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, trans. by Geoffrey Buswell (New York, 1961), 125–8. ¹⁰⁴ e.g., Hagner, “Apocalyptic Motifs,” 56; Yarbro Collins, Beginning of the Gospel, 27–32. See the critiques of this view by Kristian Bendoraitis, “Apocalypticism, Angels, and Matthew,” in Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the Shaping of New Testament Thought, ed. by Benjamin E. Reynolds and Loren T. Stuckenbruck (Minneapolis, MN, 2017), 31–51; Grant Macaskill, “Apocalypse and the Gospel of Mark,” in Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the Shaping of New Testament Thought, ed. by Benjamin E. Reynolds and Loren T. Stuckenbruck (Minneapolis, MN, 2017), 53–77; and Kindalee Pfremmer DeLong, “Angels and Visions in Luke-Acts,” in Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the Shaping of New Testament Thought, ed. by Benjamin E. Reynolds and Loren T. Stuckenbruck (Minneapolis, MN, 2017), 79–107. ¹⁰⁵ Macaskill, “Apocalypse,” 71. ¹⁰⁶ See Elizabeth E. Shively, “Recognizing Penguins: Audience Expectation, Cognitive Genre Theory, and the Ending of Mark’s Gospel,” CBQ, 80 (2018), 279 n. 24.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

 ’    “  ” 

141

an apocalyptic outlook.”¹⁰⁷ Essentially, Shively uses the adjective “apocalyptic” in relation to “apocalypticism”¹⁰⁸ and a taxonomic list of features rather than in relation to the Semeia 14 definition and the “master-paradigm.”¹⁰⁹ As I have argued in this section (and more fully in Chapter 1), an apocalyptic modal sense requires a combination of form, content, and function of the apocalypse genre.¹¹⁰ Mark lacks the revelatory narrative framework of an apocalypse in which an otherworldly mediator mediates revelation to a human recipient.¹¹¹ Therefore, of the four canonical gospels, the Gospel of John may more accurately be described as an “apocalyptic” gospel because it is qualified by the form, content, and function of the genre of apocalypse.¹¹² All three dimensions are needed for understanding a genre. Form is the primary determinant of some genres like haiku and the sonnet, but content is more important for others, such as an acceptance speech or an epitaph.¹¹³ Function may determine the genre of some administrative correspondence,¹¹⁴ although form and content also play a part. All three of these generic dimensions of the apocalypse genre are present in the Gospel of John and not in the Synoptic Gospels. It is the inclusion of all three of these dimensions in their tonal qualification of John’s Gospel that explains the centrality of the revelation theme in the Gospel and the Gospel’s significant difference from the Synoptics. John, unlike the Synoptic Gospels, presents Jesus as an otherworldly being who descends from heaven, having been sent by the Father, and makes the Father known. John’s Jesus mediates revelation that includes personal eschatological salvation and information about the existence of otherworldly regions and beings. John is a gospel in kind but apocalyptic in mode; it is the “apocalyptic” Gospel.¹¹⁵ Two further clarifications are in order with regard to this adjectival description of the Fourth Gospel. First, the modal description of John as “apocalyptic”

¹⁰⁷ Shively, Apocalyptic Imagination, 21–2, also 37. Here she follows Greg Carey, Ultimate Things: An Introduction to Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic Literature (St. Louis, MO, 2005), 6–8, on apocalyptic discourse and its topics or characteristics. ¹⁰⁸ See Paul D. Hanson, “Apocalypse, Genre and Apocalypticism,” IDBSup, 1976, 27–34. ¹⁰⁹ Shively, Apocalyptic Imagination, 147–52. ¹¹⁰ Frow, Genre, 79–84. ¹¹¹ The Hebrew Bible and other early Jewish literature could be shown to contain the “apocalyptic topoi” of persecution, judgment, and heavenly beings, but even with this content, these texts are appropriately not considered “apocalyptic” (e.g., Gen. 3; Gen. 18; Exod. 19, 24, 32–4; Job 1–2; Ps. 139). ¹¹² Cf. Yarbro Collins, “Epilogue,” 307. ¹¹³ Fowler, Kinds of Literature, 60–72; Frow, Genre, 79–84. See also Todorov, Genres in Discourse, 9–10. ¹¹⁴ See Swales, Genre Analysis, 58. ¹¹⁵ To be as clear as possible, I am using the term “apocalyptic” as an adjective tied to the revelatory genre of apocalypse and not as a narrower reference to apocalyptic eschatology or to a list of various themes found in apocalypses. See the critique of Ernst Käsemann on this very point by Judith L. Kovacs, “ ‘Now Shall the Ruler of This World Be Driven Out’: Jesus” Death as Cosmic Battle in John 12:20–36,” JBL, 114/2 (1995), 247 n. 83.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

142     Gospel does not negate John’s use of embedded genres. Embedded genres are shorter versions of genres that are found within another genre, and they function in a hierarchical relationship with the primary genre.¹¹⁶ In Jewish apocalypses, embedded genres may include prayers and dream narrations. In John’s Gospel, examples of embedded genres include “dramatic dialogue,”¹¹⁷ testament,¹¹⁸ or recognition scenes.¹¹⁹ Thus, although there are various embedded genres present within the Gospel of John, they do not take away from its apocalyptic mode. The second clarification is that describing John with an adjective and the word “gospel” is nothing new. Such descriptions have a long precedent in interpretations of John. In attempting to put their finger on what makes John different from Matthew, Mark, and Luke, many interpreters have applied numerous adjectives to explain this difference: “spiritual gospel,” “maverick gospel,” “prophetic gospel,” “mystical gospel,” etc. Similar descriptors are also used to classify non-canonical gospels. For example, the Gospel of Thomas is considered a “sayings gospel,” while the Gospels of Mary and Judas are both called “dialogue gospels.” Other classifications include “narrative gospels” and “meditation gospels.”¹²⁰ Intriguingly, the non-canonical classifications tend to be oriented toward form with some consideration of content. The descriptions of John that I have noted, on the other hand, tend to be more thematic or content-oriented. By considering form, content, and function, the Fourth Gospel’s affinity with Jewish apocalypses may be explained as the modal qualification of its gospel narrative in terms of the genre of apocalypse as defined in the Semeia 14 definition and its “master-paradigm.” The Gospel of John is “apocalyptic” Gospel because it is a revelatory telling of Jesus’s life.

Conclusion The Gospel of John contains many of the elements of the Semeia 14 “masterparadigm” of apocalypse, which implies that it participates in the genre of ¹¹⁶ Frow, Genre, 73. ¹¹⁷ C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1953), 311; Brant, Dialogue and Drama. ¹¹⁸ Fernando F. Segovia, The Farewell of the Word: The Johannine Call to Abide (Minneapolis, MN, 1991), 5–20; Parsenios, Departure and Consolation. ¹¹⁹ Larsen, Recognizing the Stranger. ¹²⁰ See the classifications of non-canonical gospels in Christoph Markschies and Jens Schröter, eds., Antike christliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung. I. Band. Evangelien und Verwandtes (Tübingen, 2012). I am grateful to Simon Gathercole for drawing my attention to these adjectival uses.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/9/2020, SPi

 ’    “  ” 

143

apocalypse. With regard to the manner of revelation, an otherworldly figure descends and discloses heavenly secrets to human recipients. Concerning content, the revelation contains heavenly things that include a temporally and spatially transcendent reality, namely, the salvation of the righteous and information about the heavenly realm and heavenly beings. Concerning function, the Gospel also reflects the function of apocalypses in its interpretation of present reality and its call to changed understanding and behavior. Although the Gospel shares this affinity with Jewish apocalypses, John is not an apocalypse. The differences in the manner of revelation indicate that John does not actually participate in the genre. Jesus the otherworldly mediator is not an angel, but in one of the extensions of the apocalyptic framework he is a human being who dies and yet is also one with God. Distinct from Jewish apocalypses, he is the content of the revelation he discloses. Moreover, although the beloved disciple is the privileged recipient of the revelation, John’s Gospel presents the mediator disclosing revelation to multiple human recipients. These differences highlight innovations in the central plot typical of an apocalypse in such a way that the Gospel does not participate in the genre of apocalypse. Despite the differences between the Gospel of John and Jewish apocalypses, they are somehow related. Referring to John as an “apocalypse in reverse”— even when used as a rhetorical turn of phrase—is, I think, misleading, in that this description does not take into account those Jewish apocalypses that depict otherworldly figures descending to earth, that speak of revelation being given on earth, or that portray human recipients who remain on earth and do not have visions of God. These subtle but significant differences between John’s Gospel and Jewish apocalypses keep the Gospel from being declared a full-fledged apocalypse. Rather, John is first a gospel, but a gospel in which its revelatory narrative is presented in the mode of an apocalypse. John’s Gospel is not an apocalypse reversed, inside out, upside down, but a gospel that has been qualified by the genre of apocalypse. To call the Gospel of John the “apocalyptic” Gospel may not be as elegant as Ashton’s description, but I contend that it offers a more precise generic description of the Fourth Gospel’s revelatory portrayal of the life, work, and passion of Jesus. Describing John as a revelatory telling of Jesus’s life has a number of implications for understanding the Fourth Gospel. In Chapter 6, I will explore one of these areas where understanding the Fourth Gospel as an “apocalyptic” gospel can illuminate a challenging issue in John.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

6 Interpreting the “Apocalyptic” Gospel with Jewish Apocalypses In the preceding chapters, I have argued that the Gospel of John participates most fully in the “gospel” genre, but its narrative telling of Jesus’s life has been qualified by the genre of apocalypse. In generic terms, John is a gospel in kind and “apocalyptic” in mode.¹ That is, John may be described as an “apocalyptic” gospel, a description that explains why revelation features as the Gospel’s Grundkonzeption and why, unlike the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is portrayed as an otherworldly mediator who descends from heaven and reveals the Father. In this chapter, I will explore how this revelatory understanding of the Fourth Gospel may aid in the interpretation of the Gospel.² While there are a number of perennial questions in Johannine studies that may benefit from an apocalyptic approach, I will focus primarily on one Johannine issue where I think understanding John as “apocalyptic” Gospel can offer promising insights: the relationship between the revelation given to Moses and the revelation disclosed through an otherworldly mediator. Toward the end of the chapter, I draw attention to a few other Johannine topics, such as imagery, which future studies could explore.

The Torah in Jewish Apocalypses and the Gospel of John The mediation of heavenly revelation by an otherworldly figure in Jewish apocalypses creates tension with the Torah and the prophets. When Moses was on Mount Sinai, God wrote the Torah on tablets of stone and gave them to him (Exod. 24:12; 31:18; 32:15–16), but in the Book of the Luminaries, Enoch

¹ As discussed in Chapter 1, the terminology of “kind” and “mode” is that of Alastair Fowler, Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes (Cambridge, MA, 1982). ² Catrin H. Williams, “John’s Gospel and Jewish Apocalyptic: Some Recent Trends and Possibilities” (Presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 2014), reminds us that those features considered the most Johannine, even those with recognized connections to the Hebrew Bible, may reflect a “Johannine filtering . . . through a distinctly apocalyptic lens.” John among the Apocalypses: Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the “Apocalyptic” Gospel. Benjamin E. Reynolds, Oxford University Press (2020). © Benjamin E. Reynolds. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198784241.001.0001

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

  “  ” 

145

reads the heavenly tablets, copies them, and passes them along to his son Methuselah (1 En. 81:1–6; cf. Jub. 1:1). We are immediately faced with questions about the relationship of the Enochic revelation to that of the revelation at Sinai, whether the Enochic material is a rejection, replacement, complement, addition, or otherwise of the Torah given to Moses. Similar questions may be asked of the Gospel of John’s revelation through Jesus Christ (John 1:17–18). Whereas in Johannine studies, this difference is often portrayed as an issue separating Johannine Jesus believers from the Jewish synagogue, Jewish apocalypses indicate that many of these same issues existed in intra-Jewish debate and dialogue. I will begin with a brief examination of the Torah in a few Jewish apocalypses, before proceeding to an investigation of the Torah in John. As will become clear, some of the perennial questions concerning the Fourth Gospel’s references to Moses and the Law as well as its use of scripture are not unique when considered in comparison to scriptural interpretation in early Judaism.³

Jewish Apocalypses and the Torah The relationship between the Torah and Jewish apocalypses varies from apocalypse to apocalypse; however, Jewish apocalypses do not contain examples of commentary or pesher approaches to the Scriptures of Israel that are evident in the Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g., 4QCommentary on Genesis; 1QpHab).⁴ What is clear is that all Jewish apocalypses interpret the Scriptures of Israel and depend on them. For instance, the naming of Enoch, Abraham, Levi, Ezra, and Baruch as human recipients of mediated revelation assumes indebtedness to Israel’s Scriptures and a respect for the patriarchs and prophets. The allusions to biblical accounts, references to specific scriptural events, explaining narratival gaps, and “rewritten Bible” (or at least the

³ For an extensive discussion of this topic, see James L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era, rev. edn (Cambridge, MA, 1998). ⁴ See Moshe J. Bernstein, “The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the History of Early Biblical Interpretation,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, ed. by Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman, JSJSup, 83 (Leiden, 2004), 215–38; Aharon Shemesh, “Biblical Exegesis and Interpretations from Qumran to the Rabbis,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, ed. by Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids, MI, 2012), 467–89; George J. Brooke, “Prophetic Interpretation in the Pesharim,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, ed. by Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids, MI, 2012), 235–54.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

146     retelling of narratives and legal texts) indicate the importance of the Torah for those who wrote apocalypses.⁵ The explicit citations of Israel’s Scriptures that are found in Qumran pesharim and New Testament documents are more or less absent in Jewish apocalypses, but scriptural allusions are common. For instance, the Parables of Enoch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch all refer to the human-like figure from Daniel 7. The Parables of Enoch echoes Isaiah 11 and 49 and Psalm 2 along with Daniel 7 in its presentation of the Son of Man (1 En. 46, 48–9, 62). The Apocalypse of Abraham retells part of the Abraham narrative (Gen. 12–17), even though it includes a significant place for the angel Yahoel and an ascent of Abraham. Echoes of Deuteronomy have been noted in Baruch’s speech to the elders in 2 Bar. 31:2 (“Hear, O Israel, and I will speak to you, and you, seed of Jacob, listen and I will instruct you”; cf. Deut. 5:1),⁶ as well as in the “If . . . , then . . . ” language of Baruch’s letter (2 Bar. 85:1–5).⁷ In 4 Ezra, Ezra is portrayed as similar to the prophets Ezekiel and Daniel (cf. 4 Ezra 3:1–2 with Ezek. 1:1 and Dan. 7:1), and Ezra appeals to the examples of prayer by Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Elijah, and Hezekiah (4 Ezra 7:106–11).⁸ Jubilees alludes to numerous biblical texts, including Psalm 90 (Jub. 23).⁹ The Enoch traditions in 1 and 2 Enoch expand on the little that is said about Enoch in Gen. 5:21–4.¹⁰ The majority of 1 Enoch traditions, including the Watchers and birth of Noah, rely on knowledge of Genesis 5–9, but they explain and speculate on what happened to Enoch after “he walked with God and then was not, because God took him” (Gen. 5:24).¹¹

⁵ Bernstein, “Qumran Discoveries,” 237, notes that the Jewish Pseudepigrapha and the Qumran literature have “driven home the message that commentary is not the only form of biblical interpretation and that such interpretation in Second Temple Judaism took a heretofore unimaginable number of forms.” ⁶ All translations of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch are from Michael E. Stone and Matthias Henze, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: Translations, Introductions, and Notes (Minneapolis, MN, 2014). ⁷ Matthias Henze, “Torah and Eschatology in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch,” in The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, ed. by George J. Brooke, Hindy Najman, and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, TBN, 12 (Leiden, 2008), 201–15 (209–10, 203). ⁸ Hindy Najman, “The Exemplary Protagonist: The Case of 4 Ezra,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures, ed. by Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, BETL, 270 (Leuven, 2014), 284–5, 267, argues that the recalling of figures associated with prophetic traditions adds to the authority of what is being written and said. Ezra becomes a new prophet, speaking to the people in a new exiled context. ⁹ Todd R. Hanneken, The Subversion of the Apocalypses in the Book of Jubilees, EJL, 34 (Atlanta, GA, 2012), 226–9. ¹⁰ See a summary of reception history in James L. Kugel, “The Beginnings of Biblical Interpretation,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, ed. by Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids, MI, 2012), 3–23 (15–21). ¹¹ See esp. James C. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, CBQMS, 16 (Washington, DC, 1984).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

  “  ” 

147

Torah connections are evident in the opening line of the Book of the Watchers: “the words of the blessing with which Enoch blessed the righteous chosen” (1 En. 1:1; see also the Apocalypse of Weeks, 1 En. 93:1).¹² A similar phrase frames the opening of Moses’s final speech to the people before he ascends Mount Nebo and dies: “And this is the blessing which Moses, man of God, blessed the children of Israel before his end” (καὶ αὕτη ἡ εὐλογία ἣν εὐλόγησεν Μωυσῆς ἄνθρωπος τοῦ θεοῦ τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰσραηλ πρὸ τῆς τελευτῆς αὐτοῦ, Deut. 33:1). The next two verses of the Book of the Watchers allude to the opening of Balaam’s oracle in Num. 24:15–17. Enoch “took up his discourse,” just as Balaam took up his (1 En. 1:2–3; also 93:1–3).¹³ These brief examples highlight the Jewish apocalypses’ obvious dependence on the Scriptures of Israel; yet, considering the revelation that they disclose, their relationship with the Torah is less than clear. Is the revelation of Jewish apocalypses new revelation that replaces or surpasses what was previously revealed to Moses or other prophets? Or does it in some way complement or supplement the Torah? As the following examples will indicate, Jewish apocalypses are not uniform in the way that they answer these questions. Regarding the Enochic apocalypses (the Book of the Watchers, the Parables of Enoch, Book of the Luminaries, Book of Dreams, Apocalypse of Weeks), an extensive scholarly discussion has ensued over the place of the Mosaic Torah in these texts. Moses, Sinai, the Law, and the covenant are rarely mentioned throughout the Enochic apocalypses.¹⁴ George Nickelsburg points out that the only explicit reference to covenant in 1 Enoch is in the Apocalypse of Weeks. The text prophesies that in the fourth week “a covenant for all generations and a tabernacle will be made” (1 En. 93:6), which is an obvious reference to the Sinai covenant. In addition, as noted above, the Book of the Watchers and the Apocalypse of Weeks allude to Moses’s final blessing of the people, in which Moses begins by speaking of the Lord’s appearance on Mount Sinai (1 En. 1:4 and 93:1–3 with Deut. 33:1–3).¹⁵ However, the apparent disregard for Moses and Sinai in the Animal Apocalypse’s retelling of Israel’s history is what many scholars see as Enochic negativity to the Mosaic Torah. The Animal ¹² George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Enochic Wisdom and its Relationship to the Mosaic Torah,” in The Early Enoch Literature, ed. by Gabriele Boccaccini and John J. Collins, JSJSup, 121 (Leiden, 2007), 81–94; see 81–2 for more connections between 1 Enoch and the Torah. Also, George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN, 2001), 135–6. ¹³ Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 137–9; Alex P. Jassen, Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism, STDJ, 68 (Leiden and Boston, MA, 2007), 265–6. ¹⁴ For an excellent survey of the discussion, see Kelley Coblentz Bautch, A Study of the Geography of 1 Enoch 17–19: “No One Has Seen What I Have Seen,” JSJSup, 81 (Leiden, 2003), 289–99. ¹⁵ Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 50–1, 135–6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

148     Apocalypse “makes no reference to the establishment of the covenant or the giving of the Torah (1 En. 89:29–35),”¹⁶ and this silence has suggested to Gabriele Boccaccini that those behind the Enochic literature, who represent “Enochic Judaism,” were antagonistic to Mosaic Judaism.¹⁷ According to Boccaccini, the revelation presented in the Enochic literature represents a polemic against the Mosaic Torah.¹⁸ Considering the reduced role of Moses and the Law in 1 Enoch and their central place in Pharisaical and Rabbinic Judaism, an Enochic antagonism to the Torah is possible, even though it is primarily an argument from silence.¹⁹ Although Nickelsburg has provided the most thorough discussion of the lack of Torah references in 1 Enoch, he does not think that there is an “antiMosaic bias or polemic” in the Enochic literature, nor does he think the Enochic literature is concerned with the issues of the Mosaic Torah. In fact, Nickelsburg points out that the biblical prophets only rarely mention Moses (e.g., Jer. 13:1; Isa. 63:11–12).²⁰ Even in the Animal Apocalypse, where the Sinai covenant is passed over with little comment, the apocalypse addresses the life of Moses from his birth to his death (1 En. 89:15–38), including Moses going up the mountain (1 En. 89:29, 32) and building a house for the Lord (1 En. 89:36). More space is given to Moses in the Animal Apocalypse than to Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob combined (1 En. 89:1–12). In addition, Noah and Moses are the only animal figures who become human, a description that may be understood as an angelic transformation (1 En. 89:1; 89:36). So although the Enochic apocalypses may not be evidently pro-Moses and pro-Law, the literature’s brief mentions of Moses and the Torah do not necessitate a negative view of them,²¹ even if they may appear to have “sidestepped” Moses.²²

¹⁶ Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 50; also Nickelsburg, “Enochic Wisdom,” 83. ¹⁷ Gabriele Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: An Intellectual History, from Ezekiel to Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI, 2002), 89–103; also Andreas Bedenbender, “The Place of the Torah in the Early Enoch Literature,” in The Early Enoch Literature, ed. by Gabriele Boccaccini and John J. Collins, JSJSup, 121 (Leiden, 2007), 65–79. ¹⁸ Cf. the more nuanced view of Helge S. Kvanvig, “Enochic Judaism—a Judaism without the Torah and the Temple?,” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees, ed. by Gabriele Boccaccini and Giovanni Ibba (Grand Rapids, MI, 2009), 163–77. ¹⁹ See the critique of Boccaccini in Bennie H. Reynolds, III, Between Symbolism and Realism: The Use of Symbolic and Non-Symbolic Language in Ancient Jewish Apocalypses 333–63 BCE, JAJSup, 8 (Göttingen, 2011), 58–9. ²⁰ Nickelsburg, “Enochic Wisdom,” 88–92. ²¹ Anathea E. Portier-Young, “Jewish Apocalyptic Literature as Resistance Literature,” in The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature, ed. by John J. Collins (Oxford, 2014), 294–307. Christopher Rowland and Christopher R. A. Morray-Jones, The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament, CRINT, 12 (Leiden, 2009), 23. ²² Nickelsburg, “Enochic Wisdom,” 85.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

  “  ” 

149

In 4 Ezra, there is a marked difference concerning Moses and the Torah. Considering its exilic timeframe, 4 Ezra is not indifferent to nor does it sidestep Moses; Moses and the Torah are viewed positively, with Ezra portrayed as a new Moses who also parallels the visionary prophets Ezekiel and Daniel (4 Ezra 3:1–2; Dan. 7:1; Ezek. 1:1). Ezra’s forty days of visions and his forty days of fasting (4 Ezra 14:23, 42–4) echo Moses’s forty days on Sinai (Exod. 24:18).²³ These Mosaic echoes present Ezra as the one who renews the Torah, in a similar way to that in which the biblical Ezra renewed the Torah after the destruction of the first temple (Ezra 7–10).²⁴ The connection between Ezra and Moses is made explicit when God speaks to Ezra out of a bush and says, “I revealed myself in a bush to Moses, when my people were in bondage in Egypt; and I sent him and led my people out of Egypt; and I led him up to Mount Sinai. And I kept him with me many days” (4 Ezra 14:3–4). After forty days of fasting, Ezra dictates ninety-four books, twenty-four are understood to be the Scriptures of Israel and seventy books are for the wise. The seventy books are often understood as new, esoteric revelation that is superior to the Mosaic Torah, since only the wise are able to view this material, while the twenty-four books may be read by anyone.²⁵ The superiority of the seventy books is implied when God describes them as “the springs of understanding, the fountains of wisdom, and the river of knowledge” (14:47), which is language used elsewhere of the Torah (cf. Prov. 18:4; 1 En. 48:1; Sir. 24:30; 2 Bar. 59:7).²⁶ While it may appear obvious to claim that the seventy books contain new and superior revelation to the twenty-four, the reality of “Torah” in 4 Ezra is, however, slightly more complicated.²⁷ First, Ezra has earlier received esoteric knowledge and been told to write it down, hide it, and teach it to the wise (4 Ezra 12:37–9). Second, Ezra was not the first to receive the knowledge of “the secrets of the times”; Abraham and Moses were already given this knowledge (3:14; 14:5–6).²⁸ Third, in 4 Ezra 14,

²³ Michael P. Knowles, “Moses, the Law, and the Unity of 4 Ezra,” NovT, 31/3 (1989), 257–74; see also Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN, 1990), 374–5. ²⁴ James R. Davila, “Seven Theses Concerning the Use of Scripture in 4 Ezra and the Latin Vision of Ezra,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures, ed. by Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, BETL, 270 (Leuven, 2014), 305–26, contends that 4 Ezra is “nearly oblivious to the scriptural background for Ezra himself.” Although there are dating and time concerns, it seems to me that the choice of Ezra as one who renews the covenant after exile makes an implicit connection with biblical Ezra. See Najman, “Exemplary Protagonist,” 261–87. ²⁵ Stone, Fourth Ezra, 442; see also Henze, “Torah and Eschatology,” 211. ²⁶ Stone, Fourth Ezra, 441. ²⁷ Karina Martin Hogan, “The Meanings of Tôrâ in 4 Ezra,” JSJ, 38/4–5 (2007), 530–52. ²⁸ Stone, Fourth Ezra, 373–4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

150     God speaks to Ezra from the bush, and Ezra asks to receive the knowledge of the Torah that was lost when Jerusalem was destroyed. Ezra says: For thy law has been burned, and so no one knows the things which have been done or will be done by thee. If, then, I have found favor before thee, send the holy spirit [or: spirit of holiness] into me, and I will write everything that has happened in the world from the beginning, the things which were written in thy law, that men may be able to find the path, and that those who wish to live in the last days may live. (4 Ezra 14:21–2; similarly, 4:23)

Ezra does not ask for esoteric knowledge because he has already received esoteric revelation in his visions. What he asks for is to receive the Torah that God revealed to Moses.²⁹ The seventy books, which may include 4 Ezra,³⁰ most likely contain wisdom and eschatological revelation (“the end of the times,” 4 Ezra 3:14) and are for those who “are already wise, in the sense of having internalized the moral knowledge that can be gained from the 24 books of Scripture.”³¹ Even if the seventy books are superior to the Torah, 4 Ezra does not give a negative portrayal of the Law of Moses (or the twenty-four). The Mosaic Torah leads to life, and, as life, it is for all and is foundational for other knowledge (4 Ezra 14:22, 30, 45). With regard to the Torah in 2 Baruch,³² there is no heavenly revelation that is kept secret for only a few as in 4 Ezra, but instead 2 Baruch is concerned with encouraging all Israel to follow the Torah.³³ Baruch tells the people in his second address, “do not withdraw from the way of the Torah but keep [it] and warn the people who are left, lest they withdraw from the commandments of the Mighty One” (2 Bar. 44:3). Matthias Henze notes that the people are concerned about Baruch’s eminent departure because they are unsure who will interpret the Torah for them when he leaves. This concern implies their uncertainty about how to keep the Torah (2 Bar. 46:1–3).³⁴ In 2 Bar. 84:1–9, ²⁹ The giving again of the Law by God has suggested to Juan Carlos Ossandón Widow, The Origins of the Canon of the Hebrew Bible: An Analysis of Josephus and 4 Ezra, JSJSup, 186 (Leiden, 2019), 149, that the Torah “subsists independently of its written transcription.” ³⁰ Stone, Fourth Ezra, 441; Hogan, “Meanings,” 549. Recently, Michael E. Stone, Secret Groups in Ancient Judaism (Oxford, 2018), 112 n. 69, has reversed his opinion and now contends that 4 Ezra should not be considered part of the esoteric books. ³¹ Hogan, “Meanings,” 550–1; also Ossandón Widow, Origins of the Canon, 151–5. ³² See Liv Ingeborg Lied, “Die syrische Baruchapokalypse und ‘die ‘Schriften’: Die syrische Baruchapokalypse als ‘Schrift’,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures, ed. by Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, BETL, 270 (Leuven, 2014), 327–49, for a discussion of readings of 2 Baruch as scripture. ³³ Henze, “Torah and Eschatology,” 209. ³⁴ Henze, “Torah and Eschatology,” 212–13.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

  “  ” 

151

Baruch writes to the exiles in Babylon telling them to remember the commandments because not keeping the Torah has led to the scattering of Israel. Henze contends that there is no sectarian teaching related to the Law that must be followed, but the author is concerned with unity and that the people follow the Torah, since it is all they have left in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.³⁵ Jubilees presents a further perspective on the Torah in Jewish apocalypses, since it is primarily a retelling of Genesis 1–Exodus 24. That it retells this portion of Israel’s Scriptures could mean that Jubilees replaces the Torah. Todd Hanneken argues that Jubilees is primarily derivative of the Torah, in which case it is essentially no different from the Torah. Hanneken understands Jewish apocalypses (i.e., primarily 1 Enoch and Daniel) to be “new” revelation and not derived directly from scripture. He provides little discussion about whether he understands this new revelation as being at odds with the Torah, but Hanneken’s main point is that the revelation in 1 Enoch and Daniel does not derive directly from the Hebrew Bible as it does with Jubilees.³⁶ However, even though Jubilees “derives” primarily from Genesis and Exodus, there are still deviations. Lawrence Schiffman suggests that the author of Jubilees distinguishes these deviations from the canonical Torah,³⁷ deviations which are most evident in Jubilees’s calendrical concerns (e.g., Jub. 2:4; 4:1–18; 6:32–8).³⁸ Hindy Najman argues that Jubilees was intended to complement the Torah rather than replace it. For Najman, the “rewritten Bible” nature of Jubilees highlights differences with the Mosaic Torah, such as the solar calendar, but she argues that Jubilees authorizes itself with appeals to Mosaic authority. The revelation that Jubilees relates was revealed to Moses from the heavenly tablets and therefore this revelation originates with God and precedes creation and the Sinai covenant.³⁹ This brief look at the Torah and Moses in Jewish apocalypses has highlighted the distinct perspectives presented by each apocalypse. Even 2 Baruch ³⁵ Henze, “Torah and Eschatology,” 213–14. ³⁶ Hanneken, Subversion of the Apocalypses, 195–200, 217–25. ³⁷ Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Book of Jubilees and the Temple Scroll,” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees, ed. by Gabriele Boccaccini and Giovanni Ibba (Grand Rapids, MI, 2009), 99–115. Similarly, Jacques van Ruiten, “Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, ed. by Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids, MI, 2012), 121–56. ³⁸ Hanneken, Subversion of the Apocalypses, 217–36. ³⁹ Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism, JSJSup, 77 (Leiden and Atlanta, GA, 2003), 125. She also draws attention to the way Philo’s exegesis appeals to Moses as the originator of the Law (Opif. 24–5: “This is the doctrine of Moses, not my own”) (103), while Philo simultaneously understands “himself as teaching a tradition that dates back, not merely to Sinai, but to creation” (137).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

152     and 4 Ezra, which have much in common, do not present a uniform understanding of the Torah and its role. When 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and other apocalypses are also considered, the variety of ways in which the Torah is portrayed in Jewish apocalypses, not to mention other early Jewish literature, is easily apparent. In light of this variety and the brevity of my examination, I hesitate to make broad statements about “the Torah in Jewish Apocalypses,” but there are some noticeable commonalities in those apocalypses discussed above. First, revelation that is disclosed in Jewish apocalypses is dependent on the Torah and the Scriptures of Israel as a whole. From the pseudonymous heroes to the echoes of scriptural language,⁴⁰ the writers of Jewish apocalypses were immersed in the Jewish Scriptures and closely interacted with them,⁴¹ even if they did not explicitly cite them. Matthias Henze states: “Apocalyptic authors write in the biblical idiom, particularly in the idiom of prophecy and wisdom.”⁴² The presentations of Enoch in 1 Enoch, Ezra in 4 Ezra, and the speeches of Baruch in 2 Baruch echo Moses and other heroes of Israel’s history. The Book of the Watchers expands on the paucity of information about Enoch’s life and the Watchers in Genesis 5–6, but typically with an eye to exegetical explanation.⁴³ The written authority of the Torah (Exod. 32:15–16; 34:1, 27–8) means that all further revelation begins from written Scripture. By tapping that authority, writers of Jewish apocalypses provided authority to their revealed interpretations.⁴⁴ Jewish apocalypses could not have been written without the Hebrew Bible. Second, Jewish apocalypses could apparently be read alongside the Torah and other literature, such as community rules and legal and liturgical texts, as witnessed by their inclusion in the Qumran library. We cannot know how they were read or how often or in what contexts or which, if any, were given priority, but it appears that some Jewish apocalypses were read together or at least copied together at Qumran. What we, as present readers and interpreters, find at odds and contradictory with the Torah in Jewish apocalypses may not have been understood that way by the variety of groups within early ⁴⁰ e.g., Deut. 33:1–3 and Num. 24:15–17 in 1 En. 1:1–3 and 1 En. 93:1–3; Isa. 11 in 1 En. 48; Dan. 7 in 4 Ezra 11–13 and 2 Bar. 39–40. ⁴¹ Daniel Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine, SBLDS, 22 (Missoula, MT, 1975), 139–208; more recently, Susan Docherty, “New Testament Scriptural Interpretation in its Early Jewish Context: Reflection on the Status Quaestionis and Future Directions,” NovT, 57 (2015), 1–19. ⁴² Matthias Henze, “The Use of Scripture in the Book of Daniel,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, ed. by Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids, MI, 2012), 279. ⁴³ Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 15, contends that one of the assumptions about the Bible in antiquity was that it was “a fundamentally cryptic document.” ⁴⁴ Markus N. A. Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity, WUNT, II/36 (Tübingen, 1990), 29; Najman, Seconding Sinai, 62, 67.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

  “  ” 

153

Judaism.⁴⁵ Revelation in Jewish apocalypses may have been “new” in the sense that it was newly written or newly interpreted but it need not imply that the Torah was any less important.⁴⁶ Najman states: “it was entirely possible to aspire, not to replace, but rather to accompany traditions already regarded as authoritative, and thus to provide those traditions with their proper interpretive context.”⁴⁷ Third, the revelation depicted in Jewish apocalypses ultimately derives from God and is merely transcribed by human recipients, or writers claiming the name of one of Israel’s heroes.⁴⁸ For this reason, it becomes more difficult to claim that revelation in Jewish apocalypses replaces Moses and the Torah. In fact, the appeal to heavenly tablets in apocalyptic revelation (e.g., in the Book of the Luminaries and Jubilees) draws attention to the revelation’s origin from God, with implications—sometimes explicit—that the tablets contain information that existed before Moses and even before creation. Their prior existence is implied in Jubilees, where the angel of the presence takes them to Moses on Mount Sinai before the stone tablets are written (Jub. 1:29).⁴⁹ The heavenly origin of revelation, although without heavenly tablets, is evident in 4 Ezra’s claim that Abraham and Moses both received revelation of “the secrets of the end of times” before Ezra (4 Ezra 3:14; 14:1–5). The revelation that Abraham and Moses received is not lessened, since Ezra receives the same eschatological information they did, as well as receiving the Torah that was revealed to Moses. Ezra, however, records that revelation and makes it available to the wise. Like the Torah given to Moses, the revelation in Jewish apocalypses derives from God, has been written down, and is considered authoritative because of its origin with God.⁵⁰ Scripture, language, and authority, thus, are used in Jewish apocalypses to present revelation that complements or accompanies rather than replaces the Torah. Revelation in Jewish apocalypses may at times appear to be new to us and possibly also to those contemporaries who disagreed with the authors of apocalypses,⁵¹ but apocalyptic writers attempted to explain the meaning of ⁴⁵ Najman, Seconding Sinai, 13. John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 3rd edn (Grand Rapids, MI, 2016), 19, states: “We have learned, however, that the apocalyptic writings are far more tolerant of inconsistency and repetition.” ⁴⁶ Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery, 28. ⁴⁷ Najman, Seconding Sinai, 44 (emphasis original). ⁴⁸ Najman, Seconding Sinai, 68. ⁴⁹ See Leslie Baynes, The Heavenly Book Motif in Judeo-Christian Apocalypses, 200 –200 , JSJSup, 152 (Leiden, 2012), 109–15, for a discussion of Jubilees’s heavenly tablets. ⁵⁰ Najman, Seconding Sinai, 120–5. ⁵¹ Christopher Rowland, “Apocalyptic Literature,” in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF, ed. by D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (Cambridge, 1988), 180 (also 183): “The idea of revelation may bring with it connotations of novelty and a radical break with tradition; but there is very little evidence that the actual content of the revelations in the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

154     Israel’s Scriptures for their current contexts,⁵² through divine and angelic mediation, as it relates to God’s Torah, plan, and the end of time.⁵³ Daniel’s use of Jeremiah’s prophecy is a classic example of Jewish writers making sense of scripture in their present circumstances (Dan. 9:2; Jer. 25:11, 12).⁵⁴ In Daniel 9, Daniel reads in Jeremiah that God will punish his people for their disobedience by sending them into exile for seventy years (Jer. 25:3–14). Daniel responds to his reading of Jeremiah’s prophecy with prayer, fasting, and confession (Dan. 9:3–19). Following his prayer, the angel Gabriel returns to him and interprets Jeremiah’s seventy years as seventy “weeks,” or seventy sets of seven years (Dan. 9:20–7).⁵⁵ Gabriel’s interpretation refers to coming trouble and suffering, which is commonly understood as an interpretation related to Antiochus IV. Similarly, in 4 Ezra, the angel Uriel explains to Ezra that the fourth beast of Daniel’s vision in Daniel 7 is an eagle (4 Ezra 12:10–12; cf. Dan. 7:7–8). Since Ezra receives information that Daniel did not know about the fourth beast, the revelation that Ezra receives is dependent on what was revealed to Daniel, but it takes on new meaning in Ezra’s context by providing clarity about Israel’s enemy in light of Jerusalem’s destruction by the Romans. A different sort of example is evident in the Book of the Watchers, where the use of prophetic scriptural markers aligns Enoch’s revelation with Moses’s final blessing (Deut. 33) and Balaam’s oracles (Num. 24:15–17). Both allusions frame the Book of the Watchers in scriptural language for the present proclamation of revelation to “the righteous chosen who will be present on the day of tribulation, to remove all the enemies; and the righteous will be saved” (1 En. 1:1). This sort of exegetical engagement with scripture has been called “inspired revelation” and “‘hermeneutical’ revelation” by Markus Bockmuehl. In his understanding, revelation is interpreted through “deep interaction” with the

apocalypses themselves gives much warrant for supposing that such a thing did go on, even if the potential for it was in fact there” (emphasis original). ⁵² Henze, “Use of Scripture,” 301–3; Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutic, 155–6, 196. ⁵³ Hindy Najman, “How to Make Sense of Pseudonymous Attribution: The Cases of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation, ed. by Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids, MI, 2012), 308–36. ⁵⁴ Armin Lange, “Interpretation als Offenbarung: Zum Verhältnis von Schriftauslegung und Offenbarung in apokalyptischer und nichtapokalyptischer Literatur,” in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition, ed. by Florentino García Martínez, BETL, 168 (Leuven, 2003), 17–33; Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 238. ⁵⁵ For a survey of Daniel’s use of Jeremiah, see Klaus Koch, “Die Bedeutung der Apokalyptik für die Interpretation der Schrift,” in Die Reiche der Welt und der kommende Menschensohn: Studien zum Danielbuch. Gesammelte Aufsätze 2, ed. by Martin Rösel (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1995), 16–45.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

  “  ” 

155

Torah.⁵⁶ Matthias Henze has noted that—specifically with regard to Daniel— “cognitive dissonance” between the revelation and the Torah does not exist. Instead, the Scriptures were and “remained profoundly meaningful” to the apocalyptic authors.⁵⁷ In other words, the authors were not trying to create new meaning because the Torah did not make sense. The authors were making sense of the Torah as God’s revelation through deep interaction with it but in light of their current situation, whether that was the destruction of Jerusalem or other political and religious oppression that may have been external or internal.⁵⁸ Although the Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain a clear example of a literary apocalypse, Alex Jassen argues that the writers of the Scrolls saw themselves as continuing the prophetic activity through what he calls “revelatory exegesis.”⁵⁹ In texts such as 1QS VIII, 14–16; 4Q381 69.1–5; and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah (4Q390) I, 4–7, Jassen argues there is evidence of “progressive revelation of the law” in the interpretation of the Mosaic Torah and its application to the Qumran community. For example, in 1QS VIII, 14–16, Isa. 40:3 is cited, and the phrase “preparing the way of the Lord in the wilderness” is interpreted as the study of the Torah. The Torah is said to have come through Moses (‫)התורה א]ש[ר צוה ביד מושה‬, but the prophets have an ongoing role in the revelation of how the Torah is to be kept.⁶⁰ This revelatory exegesis values the Torah given through Moses, but it also recognizes ongoing “inspired interpretation.”⁶¹ Obviously not all early Jewish interpreters would have agreed with these interpretations of the Mosaic Torah, which is why there were debates about interpretation. Najman states that: [various Jewish groups] disagreed sharply about who had the correct interpretation of an already ancient tradition whose meaning was sometimes elusive. Interpreters had to show why their interpretations of revealed literature were authoritative and should be preferred to the available alternatives.⁶² ⁵⁶ Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery, 31; Rowland, “Apocalyptic Literature,” 180; cf. Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutic, 184, 201. ⁵⁷ Henze, “Use of Scripture,” 301–2. ⁵⁸ Shemesh, “Biblical Exegesis,” 467–9. See Florentino García Martínez, Between Philology and Theology: Contributions to the Study of Ancient Jewish Interpretation, ed. by Hindy Najman and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, JSJSup, 162 (Leiden, 2013), 69. ⁵⁹ Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 203–7. ⁶⁰ Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 48–63, 342. ⁶¹ James L. Kugel and Rowan A. Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation, LEC, 3 (Philadelphia, PA, 1986), 10. ⁶² Najman, Seconding Sinai, 41.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

156     One example of this interpretational disagreement is the Qumran community’s residence in the wilderness and their animosity toward the “seekers of smooth things,” with whom they strongly disagreed, apparently concerning the Torah⁶³ (CD I, 14–II, 1; 1QpNah 1.1–3). Other disputes on matters of interpretation clearly existed throughout early Judaism, as exemplified in the calendrical arguments in Jubilees and the Book of the Luminaries and in Jesus’s halakic disputes with the Pharisees and Sadducees (e.g., Mark 7:1–23; 12:13–27). Appeals to Mosaic authority provided a way to support one’s interpretation. In Jewish apocalypses, authority was sought in scriptural echoes but also by tapping authority that preceded Moses, whether with Enoch the man who walked with God, Abraham the patriarch who preceded Moses, or heavenly tablets that existed before creation. Authority could also be claimed by participating in Mosaic discourse through the prophetic and scribal figures of Ezra and Baruch. As a result of these authority claims, Moses was not always considered the recipient of revelation par excellence,⁶⁴ but could be “downgraded,” to use Najman’s term, such that Moses became one of many human mediators of divine revelation.⁶⁵ Jewish apocalypses necessarily interact with the Torah in many different ways, but their revelation does not negate or replace the Torah. Jewish apocalypses depend upon the Scriptures of Israel, and they appear to have been read alongside the Torah, which suggests their accompaniment or supplementation of the Torah.⁶⁶ The revelation Jewish apocalypses relate originates not with a human mediator but with God, and as a result, Moses becomes one scriptural hero among many. The Mosaic Torah was not rejected. In fact, it continued to be “profoundly meaningful” to the authors of Jewish apocalypses.⁶⁷ Whether the revelation of Jewish apocalypses was considered “new” or not was likely dependent upon whether one agreed or disagreed with the “inspired interpretation.” Deep reflection on Israel’s Scriptures and “revelatory exegesis” did not subvert or replace scripture; rather, they accompanied them and interpreted them in light of present circumstances.⁶⁸

⁶³ James C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, 2nd edn (Grand Rapids, MI, 2010), 150. ⁶⁴ Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 61. ⁶⁵ Najman, Seconding Sinai, 125. ⁶⁶ Philip S. Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF, ed. by D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (Cambridge, 1988), 100. ⁶⁷ Henze, “Use of Scripture,” 303. ⁶⁸ Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery, 41; Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 342.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

  “  ” 

157

The “Apocalyptic” Gospel and the Torah When we approach the Torah in the Gospel of John, we find that the discussion is typically set against the backdrop of the trial motif, judgment, and Jesus’s relations with the Ἰουδαῖοι,⁶⁹ and often lurking in the background, I would contend, is the influence of Paul’s depiction of the Torah. As a result, the question of the Torah in John is often approached as a Jewish versus Christian question and an issue that reflects the parting of the ways between Christians and Jews, especially since John’s “high Christology” has caused many scholars to assume that John’s Christology is a later, theologized Christology. Recent scholarship on early Judaism has raised serious questions about such an approach.⁷⁰ In addition, if the Gospel of John shares a close affinity with the genre of “apocalypse,” and if there are a variety of perspectives on the Torah within Jewish apocalypses, and if the Gospel’s narrative has a Jewish context and setting, then there are weighty reasons for comparing John’s depiction of the Torah with the perspectives on the Torah in Jewish apocalyptic tradition. In Jewish apocalypses, as noted in the previous section, the disclosure of heavenly revelation can appear to be at odds with the Mosaic Torah. Similarly, John’s revelation of heavenly things can also appear to be in tension with the Torah.⁷¹ Our conclusions regarding the Torah in Jewish apocalypses will provide some insight into the Torah in the “apocalyptic” Gospel, but we will first begin with a brief discussion of the Torah (or Law)⁷² in John.⁷³

⁶⁹ Severino Pancaro, The Law in the Fourth Gospel: The Torah and the Gospel, Moses and Jesus, Judaism and Christianity according to John, NovTSup, 42 (Leiden, 1975), 1; Andrew T. Lincoln, Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA, 2000). Due to the debates about translation, I use the Greek term Ἰουδαῖοι. See the discussion in Timothy Michael Law and Charles Halton, eds., Jew and Judean: A MARGINALIA Forum on Politics and Historiography in the Translation of Ancient Texts (Los Angeles, 2014), http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/jew-judean-forum/, accessed April 6, 2020. ⁷⁰ Daniel Boyarin, “The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John,” HTR, 94/3 (2001), 243–84; Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ (New York, 2012); Annette Yoshiko Reed, “Messianism between Judaism and Christianity,” in Rethinking the Messianic Idea in Judaism, ed. by Michael L. Morgan and Stephen Weitzman (Bloomington, IN, 2014), 23–62; Benjamin E. Reynolds and Gabriele Boccaccini, eds., Reading the Gospel of John’s Christology as Jewish Messianism: Royal, Prophetic, and Divine Messiahs, AJEC, 106 (Leiden, 2018). ⁷¹ See Judith M. Lieu, “Text and Authority in John and Apocalyptic,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 235–53. ⁷² The term νόμος is usually translated into English as “law.” I will use “Torah” and “Law” interchangeably with regard to the Gospel, since the following discussion of νόμος in John highlights its breadth and flexibility. ⁷³ For extensive studies on the Law in the Gospel of John, see Pancaro, Law in the Fourth Gospel; William R. G. Loader, Jesus’ Attitude towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels, WUNT, 97 (Tübingen, 1997), 432–91.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

158     The term νόμος (“law”) is used in the Gospel of John in close association with Moses. The Torah is described by Jesus as “the Law of Moses” (ὁ νόμος Μωϋσέως, John 7:23), and on multiple occasions the Law is said to have been written or given through Moses (John 1:17; 1:45; 7:19; cf. 5:45). While νόμος can apply narrowly to the Pentateuch in contrast to “the prophets” (John 1:45), there are instances in John where it refers to the book of Psalms (John 10:34; 15:25), which suggests that νόμος can refer more broadly to the Scriptures of Israel. The phrases “your Law” (8:17; 10:34; 18:31), “our Law” (7:51), and “their Law” (15:25) are also evidence that νόμος may be assumed to refer to the entirety of the Hebrew Bible, unless it is clearly used more narrowly (e.g., 1:45). Relatedly, the term νόμος is used equivalently with ἡ γράφη (“the writing” or “the scripture”). For example, Moses is the writer of the Law (7:19), and he also wrote τὰς γράφας (“the scriptures,” 5:39, 47). Similarly, neither the “Law of Moses” nor the scripture can be broken (μὴ λυθῇ ὁ νόμος Μωϋσέως, 7:23; οὐ δύναται λυθήναι ἡ γραφή, 10:35). In the Gospel of John, the revelation that Jesus brings appears to oppose the Torah, and, as with Jewish apocalypses, many assume that this “new” revelation replaces or supersedes the Mosaic Torah. For example, John Ashton states, “God’s revelation to Moses, the core and foundation of the Jewish tradition, has been superseded by the revelation of Jesus, and Jesus himself has taken the place of Moses.”⁷⁴ William Loader’s summary statement is also indicative: “There seems to be broad consensus that John sees the primary role of the Law as bearing witness to Christ. Most would agree that for John, Jesus has at least superseded the Law, and that has rendered some, if not all, of its provisions obsolete (temple, probably also Sabbath, purity laws).”⁷⁵ Both Ashton and Loader rightly note the tension that exists in the Gospel’s contrast between the revelation brought by Jesus and the Mosaic Law, and between Jesus and Moses. As early as John 1:17, we read that the Law was given through Moses, and grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. This phrase can easily be interpreted as Jesus’s grace and glory replacing “that associated with the Mosaic covenant.”⁷⁶ This understanding that Jesus supersedes or replaces the Torah receives further support in the way Jesus’s language implies that he views himself as

⁷⁴ John Ashton, The Gospel of John and Christian Origins (Minneapolis, MN, 2014), 22. ⁷⁵ Loader, Jesus’ Attitude, 446. ⁷⁶ Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel according to Saint John, BNTC (London; New York, 2005), 107, 108. See Udo Schnelle, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, THKNT, 4 (Leipzig, 2004), 43, who contends that Moses and Jesus are in “einem strikten Gegensatz.”

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

  “  ” 

159

outside the Law.⁷⁷ When speaking to the Ἰουδαῖοι, Jesus calls the Law “your Law” (τῷ νόμῳ δὲ τῷ ὑμετέρῳ, John 8:17; τῷ νόμῳ ὑμῶν 10:34), which is the same as Pilate’s description of the Law (τὸν νόμον ὑμῶν, 18:31). When Jesus speaks to the crowd, he calls the Torah “the Law of Moses” (ὁ νόμος Μωϋσέως, 7:23). When he speaks alone with his disciples, he calls the Torah “their Law” (τῷ νόμῳ αὐτῶν, 15:25), referring to those who do not believe, which again is suggestive that Jesus is outside the Law. Yet, even while Jesus’s possessive uses (“your,” “their”) may imply that he is outside or above the Torah, both Jesus and the evangelist claim that Moses and the Law testify to Jesus. Jesus claims that Moses wrote about him (John 1:45; 5:46) and that the Ἰουδαῖοι do not keep the Law (7:19 with 7:15). Jesus also argues with the Ἰουδαῖοι and uses the Torah as the basis of his argument (7:22–4; 8:16–17; 10:34–5), although William Loader contends that the Gospel views this argumentation from the Torah as “scarcely serious.”⁷⁸ However, Jesus’s argumentation with the Ἰουδαῖοι is ironic in the sense that they are portrayed as misunderstanding the Torah, while they simultaneously claim that others do not know the Law (7:47–9, 52; 19:7).⁷⁹ Likewise, Jesus’s use of the phrases “your Law” and “their Law” may not put Jesus outside of the Law, but rather they may underline his opponents’ failure to interpret it properly.⁸⁰ As Jörg Augenstein highlights, examples of this type of usage are evident in Moses’s speech to the Israelites: the “covenant of the Lord your God” that will be a witness “against you” (Deut. 31:26), “your brothers” (Deut. 18:5), “your tribes and officers” (Deut. 31:28), and “your towns” (Deut. 31:12). Augenstein argues that these and other instances do not indicate distance but emphasize the speaker’s words, particularly where the speaker’s and the hearer’s understandings diverge about what they hold in common.⁸¹ Similarly, Josephus uses the phrase “your law” in a polemical speech to the people of Jerusalem, when he attempts to persuade them to surrender to the Romans. Josephus says, “even the Romans gave reverence to [the temple] from a distance, releasing many of their own customs for your law” (καὶ Ῥωμαῖοι πόρρωθεν προσεκύνουν ⁷⁷ Edwin D. Freed, Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John, NovTSup, 11 (Leiden, 1965), 60–1. ⁷⁸ Loader, Jesus’ Attitude, 489, also describes Jesus’s use of the Law here as “superficial to a degree which indicates that the Scriptures have in effect ceased to have probative worth except in as much as they serve to testify to Christ.” ⁷⁹ Bruce G. Schuchard, Scripture within Scripture: The Interrelationship of Form and Function in the Explicit Old Testament Citations in the Gospel of John, SBLDS, 133 (Atlanta, GA, 1992), 60. ⁸⁰ Martin Vahrenhorst, “Johannes und die Tora: Überlegungen zur Bedeutung der Tora im Johannesevangelium,” KD, 54 (2008), 25. ⁸¹ Jörg Augenstein, “ ‘Euer Gesetz’—Ein Pronomen und die Johanneische Haltung zum Gesetz,” ZNW, 88/3–4 (1997), 311–13.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

160     πολλὰ τῶν ἰδίων ἐθῶν εἰς τὸν ὑμέτερον παραλύοντες νόμον, War, 5.402).⁸² In a similar way, the Johannine Jesus engages in polemical disputes about the Law without distancing himself from it. The Gospel of John, in fact, contends that Jesus’s words and actions fulfill scripture (John 13:18; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24, 28, 36, 37; also 2:22; 7:38; 20:9)⁸³ and that the scriptures themselves testify about Jesus and his works (5:36–47). The Ἰουδαῖοι, however, argue just the opposite about Jesus from the Law. They tell Nicodemus to search and see that a prophet cannot come from Galilee (John 7:52). Nicodemus argues that “our Law” must hear Jesus before it can judge him (μὴ ὁ νόμος ἡμῶν κρίνει τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσῃ πρῶτον παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ γνῷ τί ποιεῖ;, 7:51). They will hear none of this from one of their own because Jesus is obviously against the Torah, and they mock Nicodemus, asking whether he also is from Galilee (7:52). The Ἰουδαῖοι also claim that the crowd is ignorant of the Law and accursed (7:49) because the crowd thinks that Jesus is either prophet or Messiah (7:41–2; cf. 12:34). The Jewish leaders claim to be disciples of Moses (9:28–9) and say that Jesus has broken the Law by making himself equal with God (10:31–3; cf. 5:18). In 19:7, they argue with Pilate, saying, “We have a Law and according to the Law, he ought to die because he made himself Son of God” (ἡμεῖς νόμον ἔχομεν καὶ κατὰ τὸν νόμον ὀφείλει ἀποθανεῖν, ὅτι υἱὸν θεοῦ ἑαυτὸν ἐποίησεν). Just as the Gospel’s arguments for Jesus’s identity as the Messiah and Son of God are dependent on Moses and the Law, so are the arguments of those who dispute this identity. If both Jesus and his opponents claim Moses and the Torah, then, the Gospel of John does not necessarily present us with the replacement of the Law by Jesus, but rather a struggle over proper interpretation of the Law and over who has rightful claim to Mosaic authority (cf. 5:46 with 9:28–9).⁸⁴ The Gospel presents the Law as a validation of Jesus and his work (John 1:45; 7:23; 8:17; 10:34; 15:25; cf. 7:51). Jesus’s opponents argue that Jesus is a blasphemer and should be killed because he has broken the Law (19:7; also 5:18; 10:33–5; 18:31; cf. Lev. 24:7).⁸⁵ This dispute need not be viewed as Christian versus Jewish interpretation of the Torah, as it typically is. Viewing John as participating in the mode of Jewish apocalypses offers other helpful, intra-Jewish dispute possibilities for understanding what is taking place in the Johannine narrative.

⁸² I am indebted to Simon Gathercole for drawing my attention to Augenstein’s article and the Josephus reference. See Simon J. Gathercole, The Apostolic Message and the Earliest Christian Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI, forthcoming). ⁸³ See Maarten J. J. Menken, Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form, CBET, 15 (Kampen, 1996). ⁸⁴ See Augenstein, “Euer Gesetz,” 313. ⁸⁵ Loader, Jesus’ Attitude, 480.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

  “  ” 

161

In the Gospel of John, both sides are concerned about the Torah being broken (7:22–4; 8:16–17; 10:31–5; 18:31), but Jesus and the Ἰουδαῖοι disagree about what may be considered lawbreaking. If disagreement with the Torah interpretation of the Ἰουδαῖοι is equivalent to replacement of the Law, then the Gospel of John replaces the Law. If the Gospel of John’s interpretation of the Torah is correct that Jesus fulfills the Law and that Moses wrote about him, then Jesus’s revelation does not negate or replace the Law but is a reappropriation of Mosaic authority.⁸⁶ Much of what is at stake in the Gospel of John has parallels with what we have seen in the previous section. Neither the Gospel nor Jesus’s opponents sidestep the Torah in a similar way to what appears to take place in the Apocalypse of Weeks and the Animal Apocalypse, but there are similarities with the claims to Mosaic authority and Mosaic discourse that are evident in 4 Ezra and Jubilees (cf. Daniel 9). John 1:17 is not necessarily the contrast between Jesus and Moses or between the Torah and grace that it is often understood to be.⁸⁷ John 1:17 reads: “The Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωϋσέως ἐδόθη, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο, John 1:17). One of the key words repeated in these parallel phrases is διὰ (“through”). In neither case, does anything originate with Moses or Jesus. The Law was given through Moses (διὰ Μωϋσέως ἐδόθη—cf. 1QS VIII, 15: “the law wh[i]ch he commanded through the hand of Moses”⁸⁸). Grace and truth came through Jesus (διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο). The implication is that the Father is the true origin of the Law and of grace and truth, which suggests that any contrast is not a stark contrast, considering that they have the same originator.⁸⁹ According to John 1:16, the verse immediately preceding 1:17, the Law is also referred to as “grace.” Grace came through Moses and now has come through Jesus.⁹⁰ Discussions of 1:16 typically focus on the Greek word ἀντί in the phrase χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος. Is the meaning of the phrase: “grace against grace” or “grace instead of grace” or “grace upon grace”?⁹¹ Either way, the phrase implies that the Law is also grace that came from God but through

⁸⁶ For this pattern in the Qumran literature, see Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 61. ⁸⁷ Vahrenhorst, “Johannes und die Tora,” 14–36. ⁸⁸ Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2 vols (Leiden, 1997), , 89. On the text, see Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 49–52. ⁸⁹ Philippe van den Heede, Der Exeget Gottes. Eine Studie zur johanneischen Offenbarungstheologie, HBibSt, 88 (Freiburg, 2017), 57–60. ⁹⁰ Vahrenhorst, “Johannes und die Tora,” 29. ⁹¹ For the definitively cited position on 1:16, see Ruth B. Edwards, “ΧΑΡΙΝ ΑΝΤΙ ΧΑΡΙΤΟΣ (John 1.16): Grace and the Law in the Johannine Prologue,” JSNT, 32 (1988), 3–15.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

162     Moses, and now grace and truth have come from the Father through Jesus. This grace and truth are closely linked with God’s glory and fullness (1:14, 16) and with Jesus’s identity, as the Word who was with God (1:1) and now has become flesh (1:14). In this understanding, Moses and Jesus, and also Law and grace, are not contrasted so much as the Gospel highlights “the two ways of God’s communication” through which God reveals himself.⁹² Like Daniel, Jubilees, and 4 Ezra, the Gospel of John does not purport to bring new revelation, but it is engaged in Mosaic discourse and accompanies the Law of Moses. Moses is not rejected or subverted by John. Moses’s witness is appealed to as one who spoke about Jesus (John 5:39–47; 7:19–24), but he has been “downgraded” from the key mediator of God’s revelation to one mediator out of many.⁹³ In a way that is not unlike that in which Jubilees appeals to the heavenly tablets that preceded Moses and that in which the Book of the Watchers claims the authority of Enoch’s heavenly ascent, the Fourth Gospel claims authority from a source of revelation that preceded the creation of the world (John 1:3–4), from one who was with God in the beginning (1:1–2), and is the only one who has seen God (1:18; 6:46). Jesus’s intimate knowledge of God originated long before Moses and Abraham (8:58), even before the foundation of the world (1:1; 1:18; 17:5).⁹⁴ The revelation that Jesus brings is thus not disconnected from or a replacement of the scriptures. Rather, the real meaning of what Israel’s Scriptures say is clarified by the revelation recently mediated by the one coming from above. This “inspired interpretation” or “revelatory exegesis” requires a close study and understanding of the scriptures rather than a rejection of them (John 5:39; cf. 7:52).⁹⁵ For John’s Gospel, the revelation which is mediated by Jesus is the apocalyptic interpretation that fulfills and explains the scriptures. The “deep interaction with Scripture,” which is required for this “inspired interpretation” in Jewish apocalypses, “opens the divine perspective on the world, and from this vantage point addresses pressing issues of cosmic and historical theodicy.”⁹⁶ I would argue that this Jewish apocalyptic perspective on the Torah ⁹² Van den Heede, Der Exeget Gottes, 59–60: “die zwei Arten der Kommunikation Gottes.” ⁹³ Moses is not the only hero of Israel who is downgraded in the Gospel, as is evident with Abraham (8:58), Isaiah (12:41), Jacob (1:51; 4:12)—and possibly Enoch (3:13)—and even John the Baptist (1:15). See Morna D. Hooker, “Creative Conflict: The Torah and Christology,” in Christology, Controversy, and Community: Essays in Honour of David Catchpole, ed. by David G. Horrell and Christopher M. Tuckett, NovTSup, 99 (Leiden, 2000), 117–36. ⁹⁴ If Jesus’s use of “your Law” and “their law” does distance him from the Law, it is arguably due to his otherworldly origin, preexistence, and oneness with the Father. See Hugo Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel: Interpreted in its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World (Uppsala, 1929), 292–3; followed by Augenstein, “Euer Gesetz,” 312–13. ⁹⁵ Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery, 31; Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 203–7. ⁹⁶ Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery, 41.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

  “  ” 

163

is what is operative in the “apocalyptic” Gospel. The Gospel of John, no less than the Jewish apocalypses, claims to open up a “divine perspective on the world.” In the Gospel, the revelation of heavenly things is mediated by an otherworldly being who is the only one to have seen or known God. The Johannine revelation is the revelation of Jesus the Son of God who reveals the Father and is himself God (John 1:1, 18; 10:30; 14:6–7).⁹⁷ The Fourth Gospel claims the authority of Moses and discloses heavenly revelation in a manner reminiscent of Jewish apocalypses. This revelation that the Gospel discloses is Jesus himself, the one who is the fulfillment of what Moses and the prophets wrote.

Further Interpretation of John with Jewish Apocalypses In addition to aiding in understanding the Gospel of John’s presentation of the Torah, recognition of John’s apocalyptic mode could also open new interpretive understandings of the Fourth Gospel’s use of imagery, time, language, and numbers (e.g., the number seven). John’s riddles could be studied in comparison with esoteric wisdom, and since the Gospel’s audience is expected to understand what the characters in the narrative do not,⁹⁸ the audience could be understood as the wise, the ones who are privileged to receive the divine revelation (cf. Daniel and 4 Ezra). Unfortunately, these comparisons must remain areas for future research, but I would like to outline how one of these topics, a comparison of imagery in Jewish apocalypses and the Gospel of John, might be approached, especially since imagery is considered indicative of both the Gospel and Jewish apocalypses. One of the initial issues to be addressed in a comparison of imagery in John and Jewish apocalypses is terminology. Imagery includes multiple topics, such as symbolism, metaphor, allegory, myth, riddles, and narrative images, as well as broader questions about language and epistemology.⁹⁹ Within scholarship ⁹⁷ James D. G. Dunn, “Let John Be John: A Gospel for its Time,” in The Gospel and the Gospels, ed. by Peter Stuhlmacher (Grand Rapids, MI, 1991), 331–2, states: The revelation which Jesus brings seems to be so limited, precisely because what he reveals is not information but, quite simply, God, that he is God in his self-revelation. This is what it means for the Fourth Evangelist to confess Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God. It is this faith which he wants to win or sustain in his readers. ⁹⁸ Troels Engberg-Pedersen, John and Philosophy: A New Reading of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford, 2017), esp. 308–9. ⁹⁹ Ruben Zimmermann, “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. by Jörg Frey, Jan G. van der Watt, and Ruben Zimmermann, WUNT, 200 (Tübingen, 2006), 1–43.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

164     on Jewish apocalypses the assumption is that imagery is primarily symbolic, that is, the images point beyond themselves to some other meaning. Daniel’s beasts (Dan. 7) and 4 Ezra’s vision of the woman (4 Ezra 9) are two examples of symbolic imagery. Because of this understanding of imagery in Jewish apocalypses, imagery is often discussed under “apocalyptic language.” Although both Klaus Koch and Greg Carey view imagery as characteristic of “apocalyptic literature,” it is not the images themselves but the language of symbolism that they actually find characteristic.¹⁰⁰ John Collins notes that interest in “apocalyptic language” typically either focuses on the meaning of images or their origin.¹⁰¹ These three scholars highlight the little interest that there appears to be in examining non-symbolic images or even paying attention to images as images within Jewish apocalypses. Bennie Reynolds, III, in his excellent study, has drawn attention to the use of symbolic and nonsymbolic language in “apocalyptic literature.” From his examination, it is evident that Jewish apocalypses with historical reviews and dream visions tend to have symbolic imagery (Dan. 7; 4 Ezra 13; 2 Bar. 53), while Jewish apocalypses with heavenly journeys tend to have non-symbolic imagery.¹⁰² The heavenly journeys of Enoch in the Book of the Watchers and the Book of the Luminaries relate what Enoch sees in heaven. The images of the heavenly temple, God as the “Great Glory,” and the movement of the sun, moon, and stars that Enoch sees do not necessarily represent some other meaning (1 En. 14; 72–80). Imagery is also considered characteristic of the Gospel of John, but in contrast to scholarship on Jewish apocalypses, imagery in John has been discussed much more extensively.¹⁰³ Johannine imagery is closely connected to Christology in its references to Jesus as the bread of life, light of the world, the Good Shepherd, and the true vine, and there are other images in the Gospel that take on broader meaning (e.g., water, light, witness, and glory). ¹⁰⁰ Klaus Koch, The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic, trans. by Margaret Kohl, SBT, Second Series, 22 (London, 1972), 26–7; Greg Carey, Ultimate Things: An Introduction to Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic Literature (St. Louis, MO, 2005), 7–8. ¹⁰¹ Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 19–26. ¹⁰² Reynolds, III, Between Symbolism and Realism, 62–91. ¹⁰³ C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1953), 133–43; Craig R. Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community, 2nd edn (Minneapolis, MN, 2003); Dorothy A. Lee, The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel: The Interplay of Form and Meaning, JSNTSup, 95 (Sheffield, 1994); Larry Paul Jones, The Symbol of Water in the Gospel of John, JSNTSup, 145 (Sheffield, 1997); Jan G. van der Watt, Family of the King: Dynamics of Metaphor in the Gospel according to John, BIS, 47 (Leiden, 2000); Jörg Frey, Ruben Zimmermann, J. G van der Watt, and Gabriele Kern, eds., Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language, WUNT, 200 (Tübingen, 2006); Beth M. Stovell, Mapping Metaphorical Discourse in the Fourth Gospel: John’s Eternal King, LBS, 5 (Leiden, 2012); Engberg-Pedersen, John and Philosophy, 345–57.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

  “  ” 

165

Relevant for a comparison with Jewish apocalypses is the way in which Craig Koester notes the spatial transcendence evident in Johannine imagery: “In Johannine terms, symbols span the chasm between what is ‘from above’ and what is ‘from below’ without collapsing the distinction.”¹⁰⁴ His use of the term “symbol” for Johannine imagery highlights the need to address whether Johannine images should be referred to as symbols or metaphors.¹⁰⁵ Yet, even if the Johannine images, such as water, are symbols, they do not function the same way as symbolic images function in Jewish apocalypses. Johannine images lack the “this is that” type of imagery that we find in the dream visions of Jewish apocalypses. In fact, some Johannine scholars have invoked the lack of symbolic imagery in the Gospel of John as an example of John’s difference from Jewish apocalyptic tradition.¹⁰⁶ Further study of Johannine images and imagery in Jewish apocalypses would, therefore, be most fruitful by comparing metaphorical and non-symbolic imagery. Some specific examples of imagery that could be compared include the lamb imagery of the Gospel of John (John 1:29, 36) and the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 85–90), especially since C. H. Dodd suggested that the Gospel’s lamb imagery is dependent on “apocalyptic symbolism.”¹⁰⁷ While there are a number of problems with Dodd’s approach, Johannine scholars tend to dismiss the connections too easily.¹⁰⁸ Another example is the portrayal of God’s presence as the “Great Glory” in Jewish apocalypses (1 En. 14:20; T. Levi 3:4) and the visibility of Jesus’s glory, which is also the Father’s glory, in the Gospel of John (John 1:14; 2:11; 12:28; 13:31–2; 17:5). Third, Jesus is called the true vine (John 15:1), and the Messiah of 2 Baruch is also portrayed as a vine (2 Bar. 36–40). Fourth, while the shift in imagery between Jesus as the Good Shepherd and the gate of the sheep has drawn extensive discussion, shifting imagery is not all that surprising in Jewish apocalypses (Dan. 7:17, 23). Even in the book of Revelation, Jesus is depicted as a lion, a root, and a lamb in the same visionary context (Rev. 5:5–6). One intriguing aspect of these four examples is that both the Gospel of John and Jewish apocalypses draw on imagery from the ¹⁰⁴ Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel, 4. See the critique by Engberg-Pedersen, John and Philosophy, 349. ¹⁰⁵ Engberg-Pedersen, John and Philosophy, 346. ¹⁰⁶ Douglas R. A. Hare, The Son of Man Tradition (Minneapolis, MN, 1990), 83; Torsten Löfstedt, “The Ruler of This World,” SEÅ, 74 (2009), 61. ¹⁰⁷ Dodd, Interpretation, 236. ¹⁰⁸ Jesper Tang Nielsen, “The Lamb of God: The Cognitive Structure of a Johannine Metaphor,” in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language, ed. by Jörg Frey, Jan G. van der Watt, and Ruben Zimmermann, WUNT, 200 (Tübingen, 2006), 227. See Benjamin E. Reynolds, “The Lamb of God in the Gospel of John and the Lambs of the Animal Apocalypse and Revelation,” in a Festschrift for James H. Charlesworth, ed. by Loren T. Stuckenbruck, Lorenzo DiTommaso, Gerbern Ogema, and Henry Rietz (Tübingen, forthcoming).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

166     Scriptures of Israel, which may not be all that surprising in light of our discussion of the Torah in the previous section. An intriguing question to pursue would be whether or not we can discern whether John draws on images directly from Israel’s Scriptures or indirectly through Jewish apocalyptic tradition. This brief sketch has highlighted some valid reasons for pursuing a comparison of imagery in the Gospel of John and Jewish apocalypses. Imagery is considered characteristic of both Jewish apocalypses and the Gospel of John, and the Synoptic Gospels do not use imagery in the same way that the Gospel of John does. The evidence of imagery in Jewish apocalypses and the Gospel of John suggests that a comparison of their imagery may indicate an apocalyptic influence on the imagery of the “apocalyptic” Gospel.

Conclusion In this chapter, I have sought to show how understanding the Gospel of John as an “apocalyptic” gospel may aid in explaining some interpretive questions concerning John. I focused primarily on the question of the Torah in Jewish apocalypses and in the Gospel of John, and I noted how John’s use of the Torah reflects similarities with approaches to the Torah in Jewish apocalypses. Heavenly revelation creates tension and possibly competition with the Mosaic Torah in both Jewish apocalypses and the Gospel. Jewish apocalypses appeal to the authority of Moses or to heavenly tablets to lend divine authority to their revelation. Whether one thought this revelation accompanied the Torah or replaced it most likely depended on whether one agreed with the interpretation. The Gospel of John likewise authorizes itself by claiming Mosaic authority but also by claiming the authority of one who existed before creation and is the only one who has seen and known God. I ended the chapter by drawing attention to other Johannine topics that may also be explored in comparison with Jewish apocalypses, and I sketched out challenges and avenues for a comparison of imagery in Jewish apocalypses and the Gospel of John. One notable aspect of these examples is that some of this same imagery (i.e., lamb, glory, and shifting imagery) is also evident in the book of Revelation. In Chapter 7, I consider John’s relationship with the New Testament’s only apocalypse and whether that relationship might offer a possible explanation for the Fourth Gospel’s apocalyptic mode.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

7 The “Apocalyptic” Gospel and the Apocalypse of John Throughout the preceding chapters, in which I have argued that the Gospel of John is an “apocalyptic” gospel, an elephant has steadily ambled into the room. The elephant is the book of Revelation and its relationship with the Gospel of John. If the Gospel of John may be described as an “apocalyptic” gospel, does it in any way relate to the Apocalypse of John? The “apocalyptic” Gospel and the New Testament’s apocalypse have long been recognized as having some sort of relationship. They noticeably share similar language and themes, and, since at least the second century, a significant number of interpreters have understood these texts as sharing an author. For Christopher Rowland, the exploration of the Gospel’s similarities to and dissimilarities from Revelation is something he wished John Ashton had pursued in the second edition of Understanding the Fourth Gospel. Specifically, Rowland notes two areas where he desired additional comment from Ashton: the nature of John and Revelation’s relationship and the Wirkungsgeschichte (reception history) of the Gospel, including both literary and non-literary media. Regarding reception history, Rowland states: “I am firmly of the opinion that this dimension of historical study enhances the historical discussion of the text’s antecedents and immediate historical context.”¹ In this chapter, I am primarily interested in pursuing whether or not the relationship between the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation may offer some insight into why the Fourth Gospel could have been written and read as an “apocalyptic” gospel. Following Rowland’s suggestions, I will first concentrate on similarities and differences between the Gospel of John and Revelation with regard to vocabulary, syntax, and themes. Second, I will address aspects of the literary and non-literary reception of the writing of the Gospel. I am ¹ Christopher Rowland, “Foreword,” in Understanding the Fourth Gospel, by John Ashton, 2nd edn (Oxford, 2007), vii–ix (viii); see an example of the former in Ian Boxall, “From the Apocalypse to the Johannine ‘Apocalypse in Reverse’: Intimations of Apocalyptic and the Quest for a Relationship,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 58–78. John among the Apocalypses: Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the “Apocalyptic” Gospel. Benjamin E. Reynolds, Oxford University Press (2020). © Benjamin E. Reynolds. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198784241.001.0001

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

168     interested in the non-literary reception of Byzantine iconographic traditions that depict the writing of the Fourth Gospel because some of these traditions intriguingly interpret Revelation as chronologically prior to the Gospel and because much of the iconographic tradition portrays the writing of the Gospel as a revelatory experience. Although not my primary focus, an examination of this sort cannot avoid the thorny question of authorship; however, I hope to shed some light on the revelatory nature of the Gospel of John in light of the reception history of the Gospel and the book of Revelation and to present a possible explanation for the Gospel’s apocalyptic mode.²

John and the Book of Revelation: The Elephant in the Room The relationship between the book of Revelation and the Fourth Gospel is closely tied to questions surrounding the authorship of the Johannine literature, traditionally described as the Gospel of John, 1–3 John, and Revelation. In both ancient and modern interpretation, John and Revelation have been associated and dissociated. Irenaeus (c.130–200; Adv. haer. 3.1.1; 5.26.1), Clement of Alexandria (150–c.215; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.14.7), and others held to joint authorship of the texts. On the other hand, Dionysius of Alexandria (200–65) stated that there were two Johns in Ephesus, and he contended that the John who wrote Revelation was not John the disciple of Jesus and son of Zebedee. Dionysius, like the fourth-century Eusebius (260–340), to whom we owe the preservation of Dionysius’s words, disapproved of an overly literal millenarian interpretation of the book of Revelation (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 7.25.1–2, 6–27; 3.39.4–6).³ Whereas Irenaeus, Clement, and also Origen (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.25.9–10) held to common authorship of the Johannine corpus, most scholars today agree with Dionysius and Eusebius and understand the Gospel and Revelation to have been written by different individuals, whether their names were John or not. Modern scholarship sees so little connection between the ² Considering the complexities of the issues involved, I will be unable to explore all of them in depth. For many of these issues, see R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, with Introduction, Notes, and Indices, ICC, 2 vols (New York, 1920), xxix–l; Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment, 2nd edn (Minneapolis, MN, 1998), 85–113; Jörg Frey, “Erwägungen zum Verhältnis der Johannesapokalypse zu den übrigen Schriften des Corpus Joanneum,” in Die johanneische Frage: Ein Lösungsversuch, mit einem Beitrag zur Apokalypse von Jörg Frey, by Martin Hengel, WUNT, 67 (Tübingen, 1993), 326–429; Ian Boxall, Patmos in the Reception History of the Apocalypse, OTRM (Oxford, 2013). ³ R. Alan. Culpepper, John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend (Minneapolis, MN, 2000), 144–7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

“  ”      

169

two books that studies on John or Revelation rarely mention the other text.⁴ For example, the recent Oxford Handbook of Johannine Studies lists four Revelation texts in its appendix.⁵ Similarly, the edited volume of the sixtyfourth Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense, which was held July 23–25, 2015 and addressed “the state of the question in research on the book of Revelation and the exploration of new perspectives and methods,” there are only 17 references to the Gospel of John in 593 pages of scholarly essays.⁶ Of these 17 references, 9 occur over 3 pages in Judith Kovacs’s discussion of Augustine’s comparison of John 5 and Revelation 20.⁷ By comparison, there are 32 references to Matthew, 16 to Mark, and 22 to Luke. While reasons may differ as to why ancient and modern scholars would argue for a separation of John and Revelation,⁸ much of the argument for this separation remains dependent on stylistic differences between the two texts. Dionysius stated in the third century that Revelation hardly has a syllable in common with the Gospel and first epistle of John (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 7.25.23, also 7.25.8; 7.25.24–7), a comment that Jörg Frey declares “eine tendenziöse Übertreibung.”⁹ In recent discussions, stylistic differences continue to be presented as the major reason why Revelation and John are considered to have the different authors. John Ashton states, “According to tradition the book of Revelation shares a common author with the Fourth Gospel: the apostle John. But in language, form, style, and content the two works are utterly different.”¹⁰ While there are dissenters to the stylistic arguments,¹¹ the

⁴ See also the examples listed by Boxall, “Johannine ‘Apocalypse in Reverse’,” 62. ⁵ Judith Lieu and Martinus C. de Boer, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Johannine Studies (Oxford, 2018), 454. ⁶ Adela Yarbro Collins, ed., New Perspectives on the Book of Revelation, BETL, 291 (Leuven, 2015), 1, 623. ⁷ Judith L. Kovacs, “The Purpose of the Millennium: Perspectives Ancient and Modern on Revelation 20, 1-6,” in New Perspectives on the Book of Revelation, ed. by Adela Yarbro Collins, BETL, 291 (Leuven, 2015), 353–75. ⁸ Dionysius separated the texts by arguing there were two authors, but he still contended a close relationship between the Johns. See Hist. eccl. 7.25.12–16. ⁹ Frey, “Erwägungen,” 359. Henry Barclay Swete, The Apocalypse of St John: The Greek Text with Introduction Notes and Indices, 3rd edn (London, 1917; repr. Grand Rapids, MI, 1951), cxxiii, called Dionysius’ comment “courageous, but not unjust.” ¹⁰ John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 2nd edn (Oxford, 2007), 307. See also, Schüssler Fiorenza, Justice and Judgment, 107–8; Anthony Kenny, A Stylometric Study of the New Testament (Oxford, 1986), 76–9; Frey, “Erwägungen,” 326–429; David E. Aune, Revelation 1–5, WBC, 52A (Dallas, TX, 1997), liv–lvi; Craig R. Koester, Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB, 38A (New Haven, CT, 2014), 80–3; Martin Karrer, “Die Johanneischen Schriften und die Apokalypse: Beobachtungen zu einer komplizierten Beziehung,” in Spurensuche zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament: Eine Festschrift im Dialog mit Udo Schnelle, ed. by Michael Labahn (Göttingen, 2017), 373–94. ¹¹ G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI, 1999), 34–6; Paul A. Rainbow, Johannine Theology: The Gospel, the Epistles and the Apocalypse

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

170     style, grammar, and vocabulary of the Gospel and Revelation are considered by many to be too different for the two texts to have been written by the same individual; yet, ironically, similarities of style, grammar, and vocabulary do not allow many of these same scholars to push the Gospel and Revelation too far apart. R. H. Charles, after declaring that John and Revelation have different authors, proceeds to claim that the texts have a “literary connection.”¹²

Similar but Not Similar: Vocabulary, Phrases, and Themes The relationship between John and Revelation is the next closest thing to the Synoptic Problem in the New Testament. John’s and Revelation’s distinctive similarities but significant differences indicate some sort of relationship between them, even if we cannot decide what that is. An extensive comparison of the two texts cannot be attempted here,¹³ but I will offer a brief review of the commonalities and differences that have been noted between the book of Revelation and the Gospel of John. I will give attention to vocabulary, phrases, theological themes, and linguistic details, since an overreliance on one or the other can skew the conclusion.¹⁴ Considering the literary nature of John and Revelation, there will inevitably be some overlap and repetition in the following stylistic discussion.¹⁵

Vocabulary H. B. Swete noted over one hundred years ago that Revelation contains 913 words. When proper names are excluded, the number drops to 871. Of those 913 words, 108 are New Testament hapax legomena, which percentage-wise is the highest number of any New Testament text. As Swete points out, these numbers are not surprising, considering that Revelation is the only apocalypse in the New Testament and that it describes the heavenly throne room, (Downers Grove, IL, 2014), 39–51; and most strongly, Peter J. Leithart, Revelation 1–11, ITC (London, 2018), 22, who states in his recent commentary, “John and Revelation are a two-volume work.” ¹² Charles, Revelation, xxix–xxx, xxxiii; see also Frey, “Erwägungen,” 428–9. ¹³ For an extensive comparison, see Frey, “Erwägungen,” 326–429. ¹⁴ Schüssler Fiorenza, Justice and Judgment, 95, notes that too often scholars argue on the basis of imagery and theological themes because the vocabulary and syntax evidence is not decisive; Frey, “Erwägungen,” 333, views linguistic and stylistic aspects as objectively verifiable in contrast to theological judgments. ¹⁵ Otto Böcher, “Das Verhältnis der Apokalypse des Johannes zum Evangelium des Johannes,” in L’Apocalypse johannique et l’Apocalypse dans le Nouveau Testament, ed. by J. Lambrecht, BETL, 53 (Gembloux, 1980), 289–301, organizes similarities according to theological categories. Charles, Revelation, xxix–xxiv, provides the most extensive list, but there are necessary redundancies.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

“  ”      

171

heavenly beings, and beasts.¹⁶ When Revelation’s vocabulary is compared with that of the Gospel of John, Swete notes that the Gospel shares 416 of Revelation’s 913 words, but only 8 are unique to John and Revelation: ἀρνίον, Ἑβραϊστί, ἐκκεντέω, κυκλεύω,¹⁷ ὄψις, πορφυροῦς, σκηνόω, and φοῖνιξ.¹⁸ A brief comparison of the use of these terms in John and Revelation highlights similarities of theme beyond merely the vocabulary usage, while also drawing attention to differences in use. Both John and Revelation are the only New Testament texts to use the term ἀρνίον (“lamb,” John 21:15; Rev. 5:6), and both refer to Jesus as “Lamb,” although John uses ἀμνός and Revelation uses the word ἀρνίον (John 1:29, 36; Rev. 5:6, etc.). Regarding Ἑβραϊστί, Revelation and John use the term to introduce a Hebrew or Aramaic proper name (John 5:2; 19:13, 17, 20; 20:16; Rev. 9:11; 16:16; cf. Sir. pro. 1:22). Both John and Revelation use the word ἐκκεντέω (“pierce”) in their citations of the same Hebrew Bible text, Zech. 12:10 (John 19:37; Rev. 1:7). They both use the word ὄψις (“appearance”), in place of πρόσωπον (“face” or “presence”)¹⁹ (ἡ ὄψις αὐτου—John 11:44; Rev. 1:16; cf. Dan. 1:13, 15 OG). John and Revelation both use πορφυροῦς to describe “purple” garments (John 19:2, 5; Rev. 17:4; 18:16), while the word only appears in the LXX three times (Num. 4:14; Esth. 8:15; Ep. Jer. 1:11).²⁰ More significantly, only John and Revelation use the verb σκηνόω (“dwell”), and they do so to refer to the concept of God’s dwelling with his people (John 1:14; Rev. 7:15; 13:6; 21:3; cf. Rev. 12:12). The final shared word φοῖνιξ (“palm tree, branches”) is only found twice in the New Testament (John 12:13; Rev. 7:9; cf. Acts 27:12), and in both instances, the palm branches are waved in celebration and praise of Jesus or God and the Lamb. Tracing vocabulary in this way highlights interesting similarities and unique usage in both John and Revelation; however, it does not provide the best way of assessing a relationship between texts. As has been pointed out, while Revelation shares 8 unique words with the Gospel of John, it shares 39 and 34 words with the Pauline corpus and Luke, respectively.²¹ However, such vocabulary use need not indicate similarities between Revelation and Luke and Paul, since, as Ian Boxall notes, the Pauline corpus and Luke are longer texts than the Fourth Gospel.²² Additionally, the Gospel and Revelation do share ¹⁶ Swete, Apocalypse, cxx–cxxi. ¹⁷ Rev. 20:9 has κυκλεύω, and John 10:24 has κυκλόω. However, a variant reading of Vaticanus (B) in John 10:24 reads κυκλεύω. See Frey, “Erwägungen,” 341 n. 76. ¹⁸ Swete, Apocalypse, cxxvi–cxxvii; see also, Schüssler Fiorenza, Justice and Judgment, 93. ¹⁹ Charles, Revelation, xxxii. ²⁰ Mark 15:17, 20 and Luke 16:19 use πορφυρά. ²¹ Schüssler Fiorenza, Justice and Judgment, 94; Frey, “Erwägungen,” 343. ²² Boxall, “Johannine ‘Apocalypse in Reverse’,” 63.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

172     416 words in common, even if the majority of them are commonly used words.²³ Thus, the vocabulary evidence is noteworthy but nowhere near decisive.

Word Combinations and Syntax The Gospel of John and Revelation share similar word combinations and syntax that offer further evidence for determining the relationship between them.²⁴ The wording λαλέω + μετά is used exclusively in the New Testament by John and Revelation to indicate when one person “speaks with” another (John 4:27; 9:37; 14:30; 16:4; Rev. 1:12; 4:1; 10:8; 17:1; 21:9, 15). Second, in both the Gospel and Revelation, Jesus encourages his followers to “keep” his “word(s)” (τηρέω with λόγον/λόγους, John 8:51, 52, 55; 14:23, 24; 15:20; 17:6, [8]; Rev. 1:3; 3:8, 10; 22:7, 9). The only other New Testament text with this combination is 1 John 2:5.²⁵ A third phrase, also distinctive to John and Revelation is ὄνομα αὐτῷ (John 1:6; 3:1; Rev. 6:8; 9:11). The phrase is used to name a figure, and in Rev. 9:11, it is used with Ἑβραϊστί, one of the 8 words distinctly shared by John and Revelation. Fourth, Revelation and John each use the time reference χρόνον μικρόν (John 7:33; Rev. 6:11) or the reverse μικρόν χρόνον (John 12:35; Rev. 20:3). The word ἔτι precedes the phrase in John 7:33; 12:35; and Rev. 6:11. Fifth,²⁶ Revelation and the Gospel of John are the only New Testament texts to combine δύναμαι with βαστάζω, and both texts negate the phrase in the second person (οὐ δύνασθε βαστάζειν, John 16:12; οὐ δύνῃ βαστάσαι, Rev. 2:2). Sixth, both texts also depict Jesus speaking about what he receives from his Father (ταύτην τὴν ἐντολὴν ἔλαβον παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου, John 10:18; ὡς κἀγὼ εἴληφα παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου, Rev. 2:28). Seventh, Jesus uses τηρέω + ἐκ (“keep from”) in John and Revelation to speak of his followers being kept from the evil one (John 17:15; cf. 17:6, 12) or the hour of trial (Rev. 3:10; cf. 1 John 5:10). Eighth, in John 13:8 and Rev. 20:6, the verb ἔχω (“I have”) is paired with μερός (“part” or “share”) in a soteriological sense.²⁷ Ninth, the use of ποιέω for “doing the truth” or “doing a lie/practicing lying” appears in both texts (ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν, John 3:21; cf. 1 John 1:6; ποιῶν ψεῦδος, Rev. 22:15; also Rev. 21:27; cf. 1 John 3:4, 7, 8, 9, 10). Tenth, a word combination found only ²³ Swete, Apocalypse, cxxvii. ²⁴ For the next four combinations, see Charles, Revelation, xxxii; Frey, “Erwägungen,” 345–58. ²⁵ C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd edn (Philadelphia, PA, 1978), 62. In Revelation, 1:3; 21:7, 9, the combination τηρέω + λόγον/λόγους refers to keeping the written word of the revelation (Rev. 1:1–2). ²⁶ For the following six word combinations, see Boxall, “Johannine ‘Apocalypse in Reverse’,” 68–71. Four of these six are listed by Charles, Revelation, xxxii. ²⁷ Boxall, “Johannine ‘Apocalypse in Reverse’,” 69–70.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

“  ”      

173

in John and Revelation is Jesus’s call to the thirsty (διψάω) to come (ἔρχομαι) and drink or receive water, water that is salvific (τις διψᾷ ἐρχέσθω, John 7:37; cf. 6:35; ὁ διψῶν ἐρχέσθω, Rev. 22:17). These parallel word combinations add to the similarities between the Gospel of John and Revelation noted in the previous section regarding their vocabulary.²⁸ The significance of these ten combinations is that they either appear only in John and Revelation or very rarely in other New Testament texts. And even when the combinations appear elsewhere in other New Testament texts, the text they most often appear in is 1 John.

Theological Themes In addition to these detailed parallels of wording and syntax, the Gospel of John and Revelation share further similarities with regard to theological themes. While assessing theological and thematic similarities may be more subjective,²⁹ the thematic similarities shared between John and Revelation have little or no parallel with the rest of the New Testament.³⁰ Both the Gospel of John and Revelation use λόγος as a Christological term. In John, Jesus is named ὁ λόγος (“the Word,” John 1:1, 2), and in Rev. 19:3, as the rider on the white horse, he is called ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ (“the Word of God”). Although the term is used as a designation for Jesus in both texts, it is argued that the λόγος traditions differ. John’s use is said to be associated with Jesus’s preexistence and his earthly presence with “his own” (John 1:10, 14). On the other hand, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza notes that in Revelation 19 ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ is only one of four designations of Jesus, alongside “Faithful and True” (19:11), the hidden name (19:11), and “King of Kings and Lord of Lords” (19:16). As such, she understands the non-absolute phrase “the Word of God” in Revelation as emphasizing “his messianic power as the fulfillment of the words of prophecy” and not Jesus’s preexistence.³¹ So John and Revelation are the only New Testament texts to use ὁ λόγος for Jesus, but there are differences in their use.

²⁸ Additional parallels have also been noted: τηρέω with ἐντολάς or ἔργα (John 8:51–2; 14:15, 21, 23–4; 15:10, 20; Rev. 3:8, 10; 12:17; 14:12; 22:7, 9), ποιέω with σειμεῖα (John 2:11, 18, 23; 3:2; 4:54; 6:2, 14, 30; etc.; Rev. 13:13–14; 16:14; 19:20). See Barrett, Gospel, 61–2; Frey, “Erwägungen,” 355–7. ²⁹ Frey, “Erwägungen,” 333. ³⁰ For the following themes, and others, see Böcher, “Verhältnis der Apokalypse,” 295–301; Frey, “Erwägungen,” 383–415; Pierre Prigent, Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John, trans. by Wendy Pradels (Tübingen, 2004), 40–1. ³¹ Schüssler Fiorenza, Justice and Judgment, 98; see also Charles, Revelation, xxxi; Frey, “Erwägungen,” 403–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

174     In a similar way, John and Revelation are the only New Testament texts to describe Jesus as “lamb”; however, as noted in the section “Vocabulary” above, the Gospel uses ἀμνός to speak about Jesus (John 1:29, 36), while Revelation uses ἀρνίον on twenty-nine occasions³² (Rev. 5:6; etc.; cf. John 21:15). For Revelation, ἀρνίον is “the dominant christological symbol of the Apocalypse.”³³ For John, ἀμνός is one of many Christological terms. In a reversal of their Christological use of λόγος, Revelation’s Christological use of ἀρνίον is absolute (“the Lamb”), while John’s is qualified (“the Lamb of God”). In John 1:29, the qualification is more extensive, Jesus is “the Lamb of God, the one who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29, 36; cf. 1 John 3:5; 4:10). There are differences in terminology and use in John and Revelation, but both refer to Jesus as a Lamb and a Lamb who is glorified because of his suffering, death, and sacrifice (John 12:16, 23; 13:31–2; Rev. 5:9–14).³⁴ Relatedly, Jesus is depicted as a shepherd by the Gospel and Revelation (John 10:1–18; Rev. 7:17).³⁵ In John, he is called “the Good Shepherd” (ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός, John 10:11, 14–15) and in Rev. 7:17, as the Lamb, he “will shepherd” the great multitude (τὸ ἀρνίον . . . ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς, Rev. 7:17). The verb ποιμαίνω (“shepherd” or “rule”) is used elsewhere in Revelation (Rev. 12:5; 19:15) and in John (John 21:16). The portrayal of Jesus as shepherd in both John and Revelation indicates a thematic similarity, but Charles and others argue that even with these similarities the theme of shepherding functions differently in the two texts.³⁶ In John, the verb ποιμαίνω is found in Jesus’s command to Peter to “shepherd my sheep” (ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατά μου, John 21:16). While in Rev. 7:17, the Lamb will shepherd the great multitude. The other three uses of ποιμαίνω in Revelation are citations or allusions to Ps. 2:9 (Rev. 2:27; 12:5; 19:15). In these instances, Jürgen Roloff understands this ruling to refer “to the wiping out of all resistance by means of judgment,”³⁷ and Charles translates it as “destroy.”³⁸ Those who argue against a connection between John and Revelation highlight this meaning in the citations of Ps. 2:9 as the sort of rule being carried out in Revelation ³² Of the 29 uses, 28 refer to Jesus as the Lamb. In Rev. 13:11, ἀρνίον refers to the beast who comes from the earth. See Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation, NTT (Cambridge, 1993), 66–7, who emphasizes Revelation’s 28 (7  4) instances of ἀρνίον to refer to Jesus. ³³ Adela Yarbro Collins, The Apocalypse (Wilmington, DE, 1979), 40. ³⁴ See Jesper Tang Nielsen, “The Lamb of God: The Cognitive Structure of a Johannine Metaphor,” in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language, ed. by Jörg Frey, Jan G. van der Watt, and Ruben Zimmermann, WUNT, 200 (Tübingen, 2006), 217–56, for the suffering aspect of John’s Lamb of God. ³⁵ Böcher, “Verhältnis der Apokalypse,” 295. ³⁶ Charles, Revelation, xxxi. ³⁷ Jürgen Roloff, The Revelation of John, CC (Minneapolis, MN, 1993), 56. ³⁸ Charles, Revelation, xxxi.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

“  ”      

175

(“destruction” vs. “shepherding”); however, Greg Beale notes that there are possible double meanings at work in Revelation’s use of ποιμαίνω.³⁹ Either way, Revelation 7:17 uses ποιμαίνω with regard to shepherding God’s people when the Lamb shepherds the great multitude (cf. John 21:16). Not only that, John and Revelation present Jesus the Lamb as the one who shepherds or rules the people (John 10:11–16; Rev. 7:17), a thematic portrayal that may be part of a broader apocalyptic tradition (1 En. 89:45–6; 90:9b–10, 37–8).⁴⁰ Another similar theme in the Gospel of John and Revelation is the use of the phrase “water of life” or “living water” as a metaphor for salvation. In John 4:14, Jesus gives the water that will become a spring of water springing up to eternal life (πηγὴ ὕδατος ἁλλομένου εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον), and in Rev. 7:17, the Lamb will shepherd the faithful multitude and guide them to springs of the water of life (ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς καὶ ὁδηγήσει⁴¹ αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ ζωῆς πηγὰς ὑδάτων).⁴² Those who thirst will be given freely from the spring of the water of life (τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς δωρεάν, Rev. 21:6; cf. 22:17). Yet, even with these similarities, Schüssler Fiorenza argues that John makes Christological use of the “water of life” language, while Revelation looks to eschatological salvation in light of Hebrew Bible traditions (Isa. 40:10; 55:1; Ezek. 47:1–12; Zech. 14:8; 13:1; Jer. 2:13).⁴³ However, John’s and Revelation’s living water may be more similar than Schüssler Fiorenza argues. First, the same Hebrew Bible traditions are the background for the Gospel of John’s use of “living water” (e.g., Ezek. 47),⁴⁴ and second, John 7:37–9 looks forward to a fulfillment when “rivers of living water” will flow. This reference to eschatological salvation need not rule out a simultaneous Christological use, since it is through belief in Jesus that the eschatological fulfillment takes place.⁴⁵ The ambiguity in the use of the verb σκηνόω has also been given as a reason for a difference between John and Revelation, even though, as noted in the section “Vocabulary” above, John and Revelation are the only New Testament texts to use the verb. They both use it to speak of the dwelling of God among his people. John 1:14 states that the Word became flesh and dwelt (ἐσκήνωσεν) among his people. Revelation 21:3 states that God’s dwelling or tent (σκηνὴ) is ³⁹ Beale, Revelation, 267. ⁴⁰ C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1953), 230–8; Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh, 1993), 183–4. ⁴¹ Charles, Revelation, xxxiii, lists ὁδηγέω as a term that has a similar “spiritual significance” in John and Revelation (John 16:13; Rev. 7:17). ⁴² Cf. 4 Ezra 14:47; 2 Bar. 59:7. ⁴³ Schüssler Fiorenza, Justice and Judgment, 100. ⁴⁴ Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (I–XII): Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 29 (Garden City, NY, 1966), 322–3. ⁴⁵ Frey, “Erwägungen,” 398, concludes that it is unclear whether the phrase “water of life” came to John from Revelation or whether they both drew on a similar tradition but in different ways.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

176     with humanity, and he will dwell (σκηνώσει) with them (also Rev. 7:15). In his extensive exploration of this theme, Frey argues that John and Revelation derive the term σκηνόω from different backgrounds. John takes it from the wisdom tradition (i.e., Sir. 24:8), and Revelation from the eschatological prophetic traditions concerning the Lord’s dwelling (i.e., Ezek. 40–8; Zech. 2:14–15).⁴⁶ Frey also contends that the Gospel uses the vocabulary to speak of the present dwelling of God on earth in the person of Jesus, whereas Revelation sees a future, heavenly dwelling of God with his people (Rev. 21:3).⁴⁷ While Frey says that “there is virtually no hint in John of a future revelation of God’s glory or future communion between God and his people,”⁴⁸ John’s Jesus says he is going to the Father to prepare “dwellings” in his Father’s house (ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ τοῦ πατρός μου μοναὶ πολλαί εἰσιν, John 14:2). And he says that he and the Father will come (ἐλευσόμεθα) and will make their “dwelling” with the one (μονὴν παρ’ αὐτῷ ποιησόμεθα) who loves him and keeps his commands (14:23). Later, Jesus prays that his followers may be one with him and the Father (17:23–4). These references suggest that there may not be such a marked difference between the eschatological dwelling of God depicted in Revelation and that in John. A future, heavenly dwelling of God with his people appears to be expected in the Gospel, one not unlike that described in Revelation at the descending of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:1–3). The eschatology of John and Revelation may differ in some ways, but that may be due to differing perspectives on the location of Jesus, whether the Word enfleshed on earth (John 1:14) or the risen Christ in heaven before the throne (Rev. 7:15–17). Another thematic similarity is noticeable in that John and Revelation are the only New Testament texts to cite Zech. 12:10, a text that is not recognizably cited elsewhere in early Judaism. The verb ἐκκεντέω (“pierce”), used in the citation, is another of the eight words shared uniquely by John and Revelation. They both employ ἐκκεντέω for the Hebrew verb ‫( דקר‬εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν, John 19:37; οἵτινες αὐτὸν ἐξεκέντησαν, Rev. 1:7) against the Zech. 12:10 LXX reading (κατωρχήσαντο).⁴⁹ According to W. Randolph Bynum, citing Joseph Ziegler,⁵⁰ Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, all have the same reading as John and

⁴⁶ Jörg Frey, “God’s Dwelling on Earth: ‘SHEKHINA-Theology’ in Revelation 21 and in the Gospel of John,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 79–103. ⁴⁷ Frey, “God’s Dwelling,” 93–103. ⁴⁸ Frey, “God’s Dwelling,” 98. ⁴⁹ Frey, “Erwägungen,” 342, esp. n. 88; Schüssler Fiorenza, Justice and Judgment, 102–3. ⁵⁰ Joseph Ziegler, Duodecim prophetae: Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, XIII, 3rd edn (Göttingen, 1984).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

“  ”      

177

Revelation against the LXX’s reading.⁵¹ Regardless of the source behind John and Revelation’s citations, both John and Revelation cite Zech. 12:10 in reference to Jesus’s death and people seeing the “pierced one.” Schüssler Fiorenza, however, contends that the traditions are different. She notes that John’s citation of Zech. 12:10 is in relation to Jesus’s crucifixion and that Revelation cites it not in relation to Jesus’s death but his parousia. In Revelation, the text is cited alongside Dan. 7:13, which indicates some similarity with Matt. 24:30.⁵² But it seems that dismissing the citation of the same Hebrew Bible text because the context is different overlooks the fact that both Revelation and John cite Zech. 12:10 in reference to Jesus and specifically Jesus’s death. Numerous other noteworthy themes are shared by the Fourth Gospel and Revelation, but I will mention them only briefly. Both John and Revelation employ wedding imagery and portray Jesus as the bridegroom (John 3:29; Rev. 19:9; 21:2, 9; 22:17).⁵³ The Father/Son or Father/Lamb relationship is significant for both texts, as are the uses of “I am” statements and witness/testimony language. The language of victory or conquering (νικάω), while not unique to these texts, has an overtly Christological sense in both (John 16:33; Rev. 5:5; 17:14), and both make explicit mention of the defeat of the devil, ruler of this world, Satan, and/or the ancient serpent (John 12:31–2; Rev. 12:7–11; 20:7–10). All of these parallel themes, many of which are distinctive to John and Revelation, are “quite striking and theologically significant.”⁵⁴ The implication is that they point to some sort of relationship between John and Revelation. However, differences between the Fourth Gospel and Revelation, particularly in their use of pronouns, particles, conjunctions, etc., are often considered to be the deciding factor in the argument for some scholars.

Stylistic Variations and the “kleine Worte” Recently, it has been argued that stylistic choice is a better way of determining authorship than vocabulary use and shared themes.⁵⁵ Stylistic differences that include spelling, grammatical variances, and the use of “kleine Worte”⁵⁶ or

⁵¹ W. Randolph Bynum, The Fourth Gospel and the Scriptures: Illuminating the Form and Meaning of Scriptural Citation in John 19:37, NovTSup, 144 (Leiden, 2012), 97–107. Bynum, however, contends that John’s Gospel cites from a proto-MT text called “R” (167–9). ⁵² Schüssler Fiorenza, Justice and Judgment, 102–3. ⁵³ Böcher, “Verhältnis der Apokalypse,” 299. ⁵⁴ Boxall, “Johannine ‘Apocalypse in Reverse’,” 64. ⁵⁵ Ben Blatt, Nabokov’s Favorite Word Is Mauve: What the Numbers Reveal about the Classics, Bestsellers, and Our Own Writing (New York, 2017). ⁵⁶ Frey, “Erwägungen,” 347.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

178     “little words,” such as articles, adjectives, adverbs, conjunctions, and pronouns, have been easier to track with the assistance of computer-aided searches. A few examinations of the relationship between John and Revelation have argued that stylistic differences of this sort compellingly demonstrate that the two texts do not share an author.⁵⁷ John and Revelation’s stylistic variances include almost every part of speech. For instance, although both the Gospel of John and Revelation rarely use the middle voice, John prefers the active voice, while Revelation the passive.⁵⁸ The conjunction οὖν is only used 6 times in Revelation (all in Rev. 1–3) but 200 times in John.⁵⁹ Other conjunctions such as γάρ, ἵνα, and ὅτι have noticeably different uses in both texts, and the contrast between ὡς and κάθως also highlights difference.⁶⁰ Similarly the preposition πρός is used over a hundred times in John, but only eight times in Revelation (cf. 12 times in 1–3 John).⁶¹ Pronouns, adjectives, and adverbs have also been shown to include differences in use. Anthony Kenny’s comments on the “Johannine Problem” underline these stylistic variations: it is far more common to find John and Apocalypse at the opposite ends of the New Testament distribution, and certainly they are commonly on opposite sides of the New Testament mean for a particular feature. Thus, John uses nouns less than most writers, Apocalypse uses them more: there is more than an average number of indicative verbs in John, less in the Apocalypse. John is sparing with adjectives, Apocalypse uses them copiously; John likes demonstratives, and Apocalypse avoids them. John uses adverbs about the average rate, while the Apocalypse scores about half that rate. The list could be prolonged without difficulty.⁶²

Statistical arguments such as these are difficult to respond to, which is most likely why most scholars have not.⁶³ Style and grammar cannot, however, merely be a list of numbers and percentages. Careful examination of these uses in context is the best way to assess the varying uses. Considering that John and

⁵⁷ Kenny, Stylometric Study, 76–9; Frey, “Erwägungen,” 352–4; also, G. Mussies, The Morphology of Koine Greek, As Used in the Apocalypse of St. John. A Study in Bilingualism, NovTSup, 27 (Leiden, 1971), 352. ⁵⁸ Kenny, Stylometric Study, 77; Frey, “Erwägungen,” 365. ⁵⁹ Kenny, Stylometric Study, 35–6; Frey, “Erwägungen,” 348 n. 129. ⁶⁰ Kenny, Stylometric Study, 32–42; Frey, “Erwägungen,” 350–1. ⁶¹ Kenny, Stylometric Study, 46–7. ⁶² Kenny, Stylometric Study, 76. ⁶³ Frey notes (“God’s Dwelling,” 80 n. 8) that his “Erwägungen” essay has not always been addressed.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

“  ”      

179

Revelation participate in different genres, stylistic differences should not be all that surprising. John is a gospel that describes the earthly life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, yet in an apocalyptic mode. Revelation is an apocalypse that discloses the heavenly conquering Lamb and what must soon take place in an epistolary and prophetic mode (Rev. 1:3, 4–6; 22:7, 18, 21). Could their varying temporal perspectives on Jesus be enough to explain the differences in their use of grammar and “little words”? Without further, detailed examination, we can only speculate. More detailed examination of each of these stylistic differences in their narrative contexts is, therefore, needed, but there is unfortunately no space to address them here to the extent that I think is required.⁶⁴

Summary The above examination only scratches the surface of the thematic and stylistic similarities and differences that exist between the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation. As has been noted throughout the centuries, the Gospel of John and Revelation are alike and yet not alike. They share thematic and theological similarities, such as the water of life, lamb imagery, dwelling of God, witness and overcoming language, the Christological use of λόγος, and even the citation of Zech. 12:10, not to mention specific word combinations and vocabulary. On the other hand, John and Revelation share only eight words uniquely in comparison with other New Testament texts. In addition, stylistic analyses have noted statistically significant differences in their use of various parts of speech. In light of these stylistic differences, John and Revelation’s shared vocabulary, word combinations, syntax, and theological themes are even more striking.⁶⁵ As Swete noted a century ago, the vocabulary, grammar, and stylistic evidence “creates a strong presumption of affinity between the ⁶⁴ A brief example of the nuance involved in one stylistic difference is John’s and Revelation’s spellings of “Jerusalem” (Ἰεροσόλυμα, John 1:19; 2:13; 4:20, 21; 4:45; 5:1, 2; 10:22; 11:18, 55; 12:12; Ἰερουσαλήμ Rev. 3:12; 21:2, 10). Mark uses the same spelling as John. Matthew favors John’s spelling but for one instance (cf. Matt. 23:37). Luke and Acts use both spellings. The LXX has only Revelation’s spelling. John uses Ἰεροσόλυμα in the dative or accusative case and with a preposition. Revelation’s uses are in the genitive or accusative but without prepositions. In Galatians, Paul uses both spellings, but in different contexts. In his biographical narrative, Paul uses Ἰεροσόλυμα in the accusative with the preposition εἰς in a manner similar to John (Gal. 1:17, 18; 2:1). In his allegory, we find Ἰερουσαλήμ in the nominative and dative without a preposition (Gal. 4:25, 26). Without an extensive examination of the uses in Luke and Acts, a preliminary hypothesis might be that prepositions and/or case may affect spelling or vice versa, such that spelling may be part of sentence structure rather than merely a spelling choice. ⁶⁵ Boxall, “Johannine ‘Apocalypse in Reverse’,” 64.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

180     Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse, notwithstanding their great diversity both in language and in thought.”⁶⁶

Reception History and the “Apocalyptic” Gospel The affinity between the Gospel of John and Revelation is most often discussed in terms of whether the two texts share the same author or not. What is evident from the many authorship suggestions, however, is that Revelation is connected with a John who was known in Asia Minor among the seven churches, whether that be John the son of Zebedee, John the Elder, John the seer, or some associate of this known John.⁶⁷ Single authorship is not necessary for my argument but neither should it be ruled out;⁶⁸ however, I am not ultimately concerned with authorship—not least because this centuries-old question will not be solved by me here. Instead, I am concerned with whether the similar features of Revelation and the Gospel of John might provide a possible or even plausible historical explanation for my literary argument that John is an “apocalyptic” gospel. In the rest of this chapter, I will offer two explanations to illustrate how the Gospel of John could have been written with an apocalyptic framework of Jewish apocalypses. These two explanations function differently and address the criticisms raised by Rowland of Ashton’s second edition of Understanding the Fourth Gospel.⁶⁹ First, I will highlight the historically plausible idea that Revelation was written before the Gospel of John and known to the author of the Fourth Gospel. Both modern and ancient interpreters, for differing reasons, have held this view. The priority of Revelation may explain how the Gospel of John could have been written in an apocalyptic mode. The life of Jesus viewed through John the seer’s visions of the heavenly son of man who stands among the seven lampstands and is the exalted Lamb who is worthy to open the scroll might just possibly be a reasonable explanation for the revelatory framework and the spatially and temporally transcendent perspective in which the Fourth Gospel presents Jesus’s earthly life. ⁶⁶ Swete, Apocalypse, cxxx; G. B. Caird, A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine, BNTC, 2nd edn (London, 1984), 4–5; and more recently, Prigent, Apocalypse, 41. ⁶⁷ Barrett, Gospel, 133; Martin Hengel, The Johannine Question (London, 1989), 104–8; Karrer, “Johanneischen Schriften,” 376–8. Cf. Schüssler Fiorenza, Justice and Judgment, 107–8, who contends that Revelation essentially arose out of a tradition separate from the Johannine tradition, but one that was in dialogue with it; similarly, Koester, Revelation, 80–3. ⁶⁸ Ian Boxall, The Revelation of Saint John, BNTC (London, 2006), 5–7. ⁶⁹ Rowland, “Foreword,” viii.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

“  ”      

181

Second, through a history of reception approach, I will highlight the way in which the Gospel of John, particularly seen through iconography of the Apostle John writing or dictating the Gospel, was interpreted to have been received through apocalyptic revelation. While a study of iconography will not provide a first- or second-century historical reason for viewing John as “apocalyptic” Gospel, this iconographic reception indicates that the Fourth Gospel has long been viewed as a revelatory (or “apocalyptic”) text, closely related to the book of Revelation and distinct from the Synoptic Gospels.

The Chronological Priority of Revelation Before exploring some of the ancient interpreters who indicated the chronological priority of John, I want to highlight three prominent scholars from the previous one hundred years who have concluded that Revelation was written before the Gospel. First, C. K. Barrett concluded his authorship discussion by conjecturing that John the son of Zebedee emigrated from Palestine to Ephesus and “composed apocalyptic works.” This John had a group of students, and after his death, “one pupil of the apostle incorporated his written works into the canonical Apocalypse.” The epistles then came from one or more of this John’s other students, and then “another [student], a bolder thinker, one more widely read both in Judaism and Hellenism, produced John 1–20.”⁷⁰ In Barrett’s schema, John the Apostle was “the original apocalyptist” and oral teacher; his students later wrote the Johannine literature, and Revelation was written before the Gospel.⁷¹ R. H. Charles, on the other hand, reached a slightly different conclusion. He contends that John the seer was a native of Galilee who emigrated to Asia Minor. This John was not the author of the Gospel, whom Charles suggests was John the Elder. Charles concludes that “these two Johns belonged to the same religious circle, or that the author of the Gospel was a pupil of John the Seer, is not improbable.”⁷² More recently Jörg Frey has suggested two possible relationships between the Gospel of John and Revelation that are similar to Charles’s conlcusion. He concludes, on the basis of the stylistic differences between them, that either Revelation derives from the head of the Johannine school in Asia Minor and the Gospel and letters were later attributed to this figure or Revelation is a ⁷⁰ Barrett, Gospel, 133. ⁷¹ Barrett, Gospel, 62. ⁷² Charles, Revelation, xxi–xxii, xxxiii; cf. Caird, Revelation, 4–5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

182     pseudepigraphon attributed to the John from Asia Minor, while the Gospel is a historically anonymous reference to this figure.⁷³ Regardless of which option one takes, Frey understands Revelation to have been written before the Gospel. Echoing Irenaeus’s chronology of John’s life, Frey dates Revelation late in the reign of Domitian (81–96), while the Gospel and letters he dates from the middle of Trajan’s reign (98–117). Frey even allows that the Patmos exile could have been earlier than Domitian.⁷⁴ These three more recent scholars mark one end of a long history of interpretation that places Revelation chronologically prior to the Gospel of John. In this interpretation, Revelation and John do not share an author, but the authors of both texts have some sort of relationship, possibly a teacher/ disciple relationship. Although interpreters at the earlier end of this long history of interpretation primarily favor single authorship for John and Revelation, a number of these ancient and medieval interpreters regarded Revelation as having been written before the Gospel.⁷⁵ In one of our earliest records about John, Irenaeus (c.130—200) does not explicitly state that John the disciple of the Lord wrote Revelation before the Gospel, but in his various references to John and John’s testimony, Irenaeus implies the chronological priority of Revelation. In Against Heresies, Irenaeus, while writing about the Antichrist, assigns authorship of the Apocalypse to John during the reign of Domitian (Adv. haer. 5.26.1; 5.30.3; cf. 4.20.11). When he speaks about the writing of the Gospel, Irenaeus states that John wrote it during his residence in Ephesus (Adv. haer. 3.1.1.). Considering that elsewhere Irenaeus says that John received the revelation during Domitian’s reign and that John lived in Ephesus until the time of Trajan (Adv. haer. 2.22.5; cf. 3.3.4; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.18.1–3), Irenaeus gives the impression that he understood John to have written the Gospel after his exile on Patmos and during his residence in Ephesus.⁷⁶ The early Church Father Hippolytus (c.170–c.236) is our earliest example of an explicit reference to Revelation being written before the Gospel. His ⁷³ Frey, “Erwägungen,” 425. ⁷⁴ Frey, “Erwägungen,” 427–8; see also, Hengel, Johannine Question, 126–7. By way of contrast, Adela Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse (Philadelphia, PA, 1984), 25–34, 76–7, also dates Revelation to the end of Domitian’s reign, but understands the traditions of the Fourth Gospel to precede the writing of Revelation. ⁷⁵ I am deeply indebted to the excellent history of reception research done by Alan Culpepper and Ian Boxall. While Culpepper focuses on a broad range of traditions concerning the figure of John and the authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Boxall traces the reception of Patmos, my concern is with drawing attention to those traditions that indicate the chronological priority of Revelation. See Culpepper, Son of Zebedee; and Boxall, Patmos, esp. 26–55, 105–32. ⁷⁶ Jonathan Moo pointed out to me that Irenaeus’s chronology does not negate the possibility that he thought John wrote the Gospel in Ephesus before Patmos.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

“  ”      

183

Apologia pro apocalypsi et evangelio (“Defense of the Apocalypse and Gospel”), the title of which is already telling, is either quoted or summarized in Dionysius bar Salîbî’s twelfth-century Syriac commentary on Revelation. In his interpretation of Rev. 10:11, we see that Hippolytus understood the command to John to “prophesy again” as a reference to the Gospel of John. Here I quote a portion of Boxall’s English translation of Prigent’s French translation: “And he told me: ‘You must prophesy again over peoples, nations, and kings.’ ” [Rev. 10:11] Thus he indicates the preaching of the Gospel, which happened in Asia. First he gave the Apocalypse on the island of Patmos, while he was exiled there by Domitian; after he had returned to Asia, he began the Gospel. That is why he says: “You must prophesy again over peoples,” because all the nations had to hear the prophecy which is contained in the Gospel.⁷⁷

Some have questioned the authenticity of the fragment,⁷⁸ but if the description derives from Hippolytus, “it provides early evidence for belief in the chronological priority of the Apocalypse over the Fourth Gospel.”⁷⁹ Not long after Hippolytus, in the mid to late third century, Victorinus of Pettau (d. 304 ) wrote a Latin commentary on Revelation in Pannonia (modern-day Slovenia).⁸⁰ In his comments on Revelation 11:1 (“and he gave to me a reed”), Victorinus interprets the reed or measuring rod as John’s authority that he “afterward exercised in the churches after his release. For he later wrote a Gospel.”⁸¹ Jerome edited Victorinus’s commentary, and in his revision of this section, he interpreted the reed as Revelation and not John’s authority. However, Jerome maintained Victorinus’s chronology of Revelation preceding the Gospel.⁸² In the late fourth century, Epiphanius (c.310–403), who was a friend of Jerome and from 366 bishop of Salamis,⁸³ states that John had written the Gospel “in his old age when he was past ninety, after his return from Patmos . . . , ⁷⁷ Boxall, Patmos, 35. ⁷⁸ See Pierre Prigent, “Hippolyte, commentateur de l’Apocalypse,” TZ, 28 (1972), 391–412; and the discussion in Charles E. Hill, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church (Oxford, 2004), 178–85. ⁷⁹ Boxall, Patmos, 35. ⁸⁰ Culpepper, Son of Zebedee, 150. ⁸¹ Victorinus of Petovium, Latin Commentaries on Revelation, ed. by William C. Weinrich, Ancient Christian Texts (Downers Grove, IL, 2011), 14, which includes Victorinus’s original commentary (see xx–xxii). See also Culpepper, Son of Zebedee, 150. ⁸² See Victorinus of Pettau, Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, 11.1 in ANF 7. ⁸³ Epiphanius, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. Book I (Sects 1–46), trans. by Frank Williams, NHMS, 63, 2nd edn (Leiden, 2009), xiii–xx.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

184     and several years residence in Asia” (Pan. 51.12.2).⁸⁴ Later, in a section disputing with those questioning the existence of a church in Thyatira, Epiphanius says that Revelation was written on Patmos before John returned to Asia (Pan. 51.33.9).⁸⁵ Thus, Epiphanius also understood Revelation to have been written before the Gospel.⁸⁶ Another explicit example of an interpreter describing Revelation as chronologically prior to the Gospel may be found in the “anti-Marcionite” Prologue to Luke. The date of the Prologue to Luke has been debated, with suggested dates including the second century,⁸⁷ the middle to later part of the fourth century,⁸⁸ and the sixth century.⁸⁹ The prologue exists in a Greek translation and three Latin versions. The Greek of the Prologue to Luke 1:19–20, which Helmut Koester contends is earlier, reads: ὕστερον δὲ Ἰωάννης ὁ ἀπόστολος ἐκ τῶν δώδεκα ἔγραψεν τὴν Ἀποκάλυψιν ἐν τῇ νήσῳ Πάτμῳ καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον⁹⁰ (“Afterward, John the Apostle, one of the Twelve, wrote the Apocalypse on the island of Patmos, and after these things the Gospel”; the Latin text of the Prologue to Luke 1:19–20: postmodum Iohannes apostolus descripit primum revelationem in insula Pathmos, deinde evangelium in Asia).⁹¹ Whether this statement is earlier than our evidence from Hippolytus or is contemporaneous with or was written after Epiphanius, it reflects an understanding of Revelation’s chronological priority. Another source that relates the chronological priority of Revelation is the Suidas, which is a historical and literary encyclopedia compiled near the end of the tenth century. In its entry for John the Apostle, the Suidas includes the tradition that John was exiled on Patmos and wrote the Gospel when he was 100 years old after returning from exile.⁹² The Legenda aurea or “Golden Legend,” written by Jacobus de Voragine, the archbishop of Genoa (c.1229–98), was one of the most popular texts of the medieval period.⁹³ De Voragine wrote this collection of stories about the lives

⁸⁴ Epiphanius, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III. De Fide, trans. by Frank Williams, NHMS, 73, 2nd edn (Leiden, 2013), 37. ⁸⁵ Epiphanius, Panarion, Books II and III, 66. ⁸⁶ Boxall, Patmos, 41. ⁸⁷ Robert M. Grant, “The Oldest Gospel Prologues,” ATR, 23/3 (1941), 231–45. ⁸⁸ Jürgen Regul, Die antimarcionitischen Evangelienprologe, Vetus Latina; die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel. Aus der Geschichte der lateinischen Bibel, 6 (Freiburg, 1969), 266; Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (London, 1990), 243, 335. ⁸⁹ Culpepper, Son of Zebedee, 129–30. ⁹⁰ Kurt Aland, ed., Synopsis quattuor evangeliorum: locis parallelis evangeliorum apocryphorum et patrum adhibitis, 13th, rev. edn (Stuttgart, 1985), 533. ⁹¹ Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 335. ⁹² Culpepper, Son of Zebedee, 175. ⁹³ Sherry L. Reames, The Legenda Aurea: A Reexamination of its Paradoxical History (Madison, WI, 1985), 3–4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

“  ”      

185

of saints around 1260,⁹⁴ and in his entry on “John the Evangelist,” de Voragine places the writing of the Apocalypse on Patmos during the reign of Domitian. He states that John was brought to Ephesus after his exile and lived until the age of 99. Near the end of his life, John wrote the Gospel in Ephesus.⁹⁵ The preceding survey of reception indicates that in the sources I have highlighted Revelation is mentioned as having been written before the Gospel. This ordering is explicitly stated by Hippolytus, Victorinus (including Jerome’s edited version of Victorinus), Epiphanius, the anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke, and the “Golden Legend.” Additional evidence may also be noted in the implications from the commonly given chronology of John’s life: John was exiled to Patmos during the reign of Domitian. After Domitian’s death, John resided in Ephesus, serving the churches of Asia Minor until he died in his nineties during the time of Trajan. Irenaeus provides the first extant narration of this chronology, which is also reflected in Eusebius (260–340) (Hist. eccl. 3.18.1–3; 3.20.8–3.23.4.; 3.24.17–18)⁹⁶ and in Jerome (c.340–420) (Vir. ill. 9).⁹⁷ Also, Pseudo-Dionysius (c. early sixth century) alludes to John’s return from Patmos to Asia, where he passed on his “legacy,” which could refer to the writing of his legacy (i.e., Revelation or the Gospel) in Asia or that he circulated a text (Revelation or John) that was written on Patmos before he returned to Asia.⁹⁸ While the historical validity of these traditions, particularly the joint authorship of Revelation and the Gospel, is debated, Martin Hengel contends that the “report of [John of Ephesus’s] stay on Patmos is to be taken seriously in historical terms.”⁹⁹ In early Christian tradition, the Patmos exile preceded John’s ministry (whether John was apostle, disciple, or elder) in Asia Minor. In this chronology, the association of Revelation with Patmos (Rev. 1:9) and the Gospel with Ephesus implies Revelation’s chronological priority. Although more recent scholarship does not hold to joint authorship, scholars continue ⁹⁴ Eamon Duffy, “Introduction to the 2012 Edition,” in The Golden Legend: Readings on the Saints, ed. by William Granger Ryan (Princeton, NJ, 2012), xi–xx. ⁹⁵ Jacobus de Voragine, The Golden Legend: Readings on the Saints, ed. by William Granger Ryan (Princeton, NJ, 2012), 51–5. William Granger Ryan based his translation on the Latin text of T. Graesse from 1843, which attributes the Gospel writing tradition to Helinandus. F. S. Ellis based his edition on Caxton’s 1483 English translation, which attributes the Gospel writing tradition to Bede. See F. S. Ellis, ed., The Golden Legend or Lives of the Saints as Englished by William Caxton, Temple Classics (London, 1900), , 161–72; also, Culpepper, Son of Zebedee, 175–6. ⁹⁶ See Culpepper, Son of Zebedee, 151–3. ⁹⁷ Saint Jerome, On Illustrious Men, ed. by Thomas P. Halton, Fathers of the Church, 100 (Washington, D.C., 1999), 19–21; see also, Culpepper, Son of Zebedee, 162; Jonathan J. Armstrong, “Victorinus of Pettau as the Author of the Canon Muratori,” Vigiliae Christianae, 62/1 (2008), 1–34. ⁹⁸ See Boxall, Patmos, 45. I am indebted to Ian Boxall for his clarification of Pseudo-Dionysius’s ambiguity. ⁹⁹ Hengel, Johannine Question, 126.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

186     to note the strong thematic and theological connections between the texts. These scholars, often because of the more Semitic language of Revelation and/ or the presumed “high Christology” of John, understand that Revelation is chronologically prior to the Gospel.¹⁰⁰ However one arrives at this chronology, the surprisingly common understanding of Revelation’s priority provides an explanation for describing the Fourth Gospel as “apocalyptic” Gospel, that is, the revelatory apocalyptic framing of the life of Jesus. If John the disciple of Jesus did write both texts, as the vast majority of the early traditions relate, a visionary revelation on Patmos could easily have caused him to frame his testimony of Jesus’s earthly life in a revelatory manner that differed from the Synoptic Gospels.¹⁰¹ Or if, as some recent scholarship has suggested, there was a John who was a teacher resident in Asia Minor (whether the Apostle, a disciple of Jesus, “the Elder,” or the Seer) who was “the original apocalyptist” and had followers who wrote Revelation and the Gospel, the writing of Revelation by one of them could easily have shaped the writing of the Gospel.¹⁰² Thus, it is conceivable that the Gospel of John was formed in a manner in which the life of Jesus was viewed in light of the heavenly, revelatory visions of the risen Christ in the book of Revelation. This apocalyptic framing is a reasonable explanation of the Gospel of John’s apocalyptic mode.

The Apocalyptic Revelation of the Gospel While the apocalyptic coloring of the Gospel of John may reasonably derive from its being written after Revelation, the visual representations of John writing or dictating the Gospel of John offer intriguing insight into the history of reception. They present an interpretation of the Gospel that is relevant for my argument that the Fourth Gospel is an “apocalyptic” gospel. Throughout the reception history of Revelation, Patmos came to be understood not just as a place of exile but as a place of divine revelation (cf. Rev. 1:9).¹⁰³ According to some early tradition, as we have just seen, it was on Patmos during his exile

¹⁰⁰ Caird, Revelation, 5; Aune, Revelation 1–5, lvi. ¹⁰¹ Not unlike the manner in which Paul’s visionary experiences may have shaped his writings (cf. Acts 26:19; Gal. 1:15–16; 2 Cor. 12:2–4). See Christopher Rowland and Christopher R. A. MorrayJones, The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament, CRINT, 12 (Leiden, 2009), 137–56. ¹⁰² Barrett, Gospel, 62; Hengel, Johannine Question, 102–8; see also, Karrer, “Johanneischen Schriften,” 390–3. ¹⁰³ Boxall argues this throughout his excellent book Patmos.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

“  ”      

187

that John wrote the book of Revelation (Rev. 1:9); the Gospel, on the other hand, was written later, after John’s return to Ephesus. Iconographic portrayals, particularly in eastern Christianity, of the writing of the Gospel highlight a tradition of reception in which the Gospel, like Revelation, was also received through apocalyptic revelation. These iconographic traditions rely on earlier written traditions, and one early written tradition concerning the origin of the Gospel appears in the Muratorian Fragment (c.170–90).¹⁰⁴ The Muratorian Fragment records that the disciples and bishops urged John to write, and, in response, he suggested that after three days of fasting and prayer they share what was revealed to them. It was revealed to Andrew that John should write down everything and that they review it. Jerome, in the preface to his Commentary on Matthew, recounts a similar narrative and also mentions the three-day fast after John was asked to write a gospel. Jerome then states, “When this had been carried out and he had been abundantly filled with revelation, he poured forth that heaven-sent prologue.”¹⁰⁵ Both the Muratorian Fragment and Jerome indicate that heavenly revelation is the impetus for the writing of the Gospel. Jerome specifically speaks of John being filled with revelation before he wrote. One of the most influential examples of John’s heavenly reception of the Gospel comes in the Acts of John by Prochorus (fifth century¹⁰⁶). According to the Prochorus Acts of John, John is exiled to Patmos, where he has an extensive ministry of preaching the gospel, casting out demons, and raising the dead over the course of fifteen years. Toward the end of his stay on Patmos, after the death of the emperor who exiled John and after all of the island’s inhabitants believed in Christ (ἐπίστευσαν πάντες οἱ ἐν Πάτμῳ τῇ νήσῳ τῷ Χρίστῳ), John intended to return to Ephesus. When the believers heard this, they tried to convince John to stay, but when he would not stay, they asked for a written version of his testimony about Jesus. John and his companion Prochorus (cf. Acts 6:5) went up a mountain, and John fasted and prayed for three days (note the similarity with the Muratorian Fragment and Jerome). After the three days, John requested Prochorus to get ink and papyrus but to remain in the city for two days. After Prochorus returned, thunder, lightning, and an earthquake took place, and John told Prochorus to write what he was to ¹⁰⁴ Armstrong, “Victorinus of Pettau,” 30, argues that Victorinus of Pettau authored the fragment and it thus has a third-century date. ¹⁰⁵ Saint Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, ed. by Thomas P. Scheck, Fathers of the Church, 117 (Washington, DC, 2008), 54–5 (emphasis mine). Armstrong, “Victorinus of Pettau,” 6–8, argues that Jerome is dependent on the Muratonian Fragment. ¹⁰⁶ Éric Junod and Jean-Daniel Kaestli, Acta Iohannis, Corpus Christianorum. Series Apocryphorum, 1–2 (Turnhout, 1983), 744–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

188     speak. Then John, with his face to heaven and Prochorus on his right with ink and papyrus, began to dictate the opening lines of the Gospel (John 1:1–5 is quoted). John dictates for two days and six hours, which suggests that the Gospel was completed on the seventh day (or the beginning of the eighth) from when John went up the mountain.¹⁰⁷ The Prochorus Acts’ depiction of the reception of the Gospel on Patmos is recognizably similar to the reception of the Apocalypse (Rev. 1:1–2, 9–11), but some of the elements—going up a mountain, thunder, lightning, and an earthquake—obviously echo Moses’s reception of the Law on Mount Sinai (Exod. 19; 24).¹⁰⁸ There are further similarities with 4 Ezra 14 and Jubilees 1 in the transcription of heavenly revelation. Yet, while the Acts of John by Prochorus reflects similarities with the reception of Revelation and portrays a fifteen-year ministry of John on Patmos, it does not mention the writing of Revelation, even though Revelation is the canonical text associated specifically with Patmos (Rev. 1:9).¹⁰⁹ Éric Junod and Jean-Daniel Kaestli contend that although the tradition of the Patmos exile was accepted, the author was either ignorant of or contests the book of Revelation, from which the Patmos tradition itself derives.¹¹⁰ Either way, the revelatory reception and composition of the Gospel on Patmos remain intriguing. A later interpolation in the Acts of John by Prochorus, however, adds a scene in which Revelation is dictated in a manner clearly dependent on the scene of the Gospel’s reception and dictation.¹¹¹ In the interpolation, which was placed after the dictation of the Gospel, John and Prochorus do not go up a mountain but to a cave three miles from the city. They fast ten days. Prochorus returns to the city, but John stays in the cave fasting and praying for ten more days and sees and hears many great things that the angel of God explains to him. Prochorus returns to the cave, and for two days John dictates while Prochorus writes.¹¹² The mention of the cave in the interpolation may reflect biblical cave traditions, including Moses (Exod. 33:19–23) and Elijah (1 Kgs 19:3), who both had visions of God on Mount Sinai. ¹⁰⁷ For the Greek text, see Theodor Zahn, ed., Acta Joannis (Erlangen, 1880), esp. 150–8 for the Gospel scene. For a summary of the narrative, see Culpepper, Son of Zebedee, 206–22. ¹⁰⁸ Boxall, Patmos, 110–14. ¹⁰⁹ The second-century Acts of John recounts John’s life in Ephesus and mentions the writing of neither Revelation nor the Gospel. Pieter J. Lalleman, The Acts of John: A Two-Stage Initiation into Johannine Gnosticism, SAAA, 4 (Leuven, 1998), 15–17, suggests that the missing beginning of the Acts of John described the end of John’s exile on Patmos. ¹¹⁰ Junod and Kaestli, Acta Iohannis, 741 n. 5. See Nancy Patterson Ševčenko, The Celebration of the Saints in Byzantine Art and Liturgy, Variorum Collected Studies Series, CS975 (Farnham, 2013), XV.5, who relates the absence of Revelation to the Eastern Church’s aversion to it. ¹¹¹ Junod and Kaestli, Acta Iohannis, 741 n. 4. ¹¹² Zahn, Acta Joannis, 184–5. Zahn places the interpolation at p. 160, line 5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

“  ”      

189

Although there is Greek evidence for the interpolation by the eleventh century,¹¹³ the Prochorus Acts of John without the addition was a prominent source for later tradition in the East, so much so, states Nancy Ševčenko, “that the association of the Fourth Gospel with Patmos came to overshadow both the Gospel’s earlier association with Ephesus and the island’s role in the composition of the Apocalypse.”¹¹⁴ The dictation of the Gospel of John on Patmos is part of the reason Christodoulos gives for founding the monastery of St. John the Theologian on Patmos. In his Hypotyposis dated to May 1091, Christodoulos states: In short, desire for this island completely took possession of me, a desire made more acute because here had dwelt the Apostle that Christ loved, [St. John] the virgin Evangelist. Here he had his famous vision, his all-blessed ecstasy and change, here his exalted and heavenly initiation into theology. Here the Gospel was dictated in the thunder of God’s voice. Taking all this into consideration, when I compare Patmos to Sinai, I set the former as far above the latter, and account it first, as I set grace above the shadow, truth above appearances, the spirit above the letter and the Gospel above the Law of the Tablets.¹¹⁵

His wording may hint at his awareness of the addition concerning the writing of the Apocalypse (cf. “his famous vision,” “ecstasy,” “his . . . heavenly initiation into theology”),¹¹⁶ but Christodoulos’s language more evidently reflects the heavenly revelation of the Gospel in the Acts of John by Prochorus, particularly in his reference to the thunder of God’s voice, the comparison with Sinai, and his mention of “grace,” “truth,” “Gospel,” and “Law,” which clearly echo John 1:16–17. Christodoulos may not be directly dependent on the Prochorus Acts but rather on Simeon Metaphrastes, who wrote about a century before Christodoulos (c. late tenth century). In his “Remembrance of St John the Theologian” (c. late tenth century), Simeon makes an explicit connection between John and Moses and between Patmos and Sinai, and he

¹¹³ Both Ševčenko, Celebration, XV.7; and Boxall, Patmos, 117, note the existence of ninth-century Armenian and Coptic manuscripts and eleventh-century Greek manuscripts containing the interpolation. I have been unable to find the forthcoming source by Junod and Kaestli to which Ševčenko refers. ¹¹⁴ Ševčenko, Celebration, XV.5. ¹¹⁵ Christodoulos, Rule, A9; Patricia Karlin-Hayter, “Christodoulos: Rule, Testament and Codicil of Christodoulos for the Monastery of St. John the Theologian on Patmos,” in Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments, ed. by John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero, DOS, 35 (Washington, DC, 2000), , 582. ¹¹⁶ Boxall, Patmos, 130.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

190     appears dependent on the Acts of John by Prochorus.¹¹⁷ These writings indicate that by the late eleventh century the revelation and writing of the Gospel of John was so closely connected with Patmos that the Gospel was a primary reason why Christodoulos established a monastery on the island. This literary tradition of John’s reception of the Gospel as heavenly or apocalyptic revelation and its occurrence on Patmos shaped the Eastern iconographic tradition of St. John the Theologos and Prochorus. In many illuminated gospel manuscripts from the Eastern Church, the gospels are often preceded by an image of the evangelists writing their respective gospel. Commonly, the evangelists are depicted seated at their writing desks, and they are either holding a copy of their respective gospel or writing its opening line, while surrounded by writing tools. The background of these scenes may include additional scenery or gold leaf. When the images of all four evangelists from these manuscripts are compared, the distinctiveness of the Fourth Gospel and its evangelist is quite clear. John and Matthew are often both portrayed as older, with white hair and beards, which is not always the case with Mark and Luke. John, as is evident throughout this iconographic tradition, is named “St. John, the Theologos” (ὁ ἅ[γιος] Ἰω[άννης] ὁ θεολόγος), while the other three evangelists are not given descriptive titles. In a number of these images, John tends to be portrayed as pensive and more thoughtful than the other evangelists, with his hands at rest and holding a stylus¹¹⁸ or he is pictured looking to the hand of God in the upper corner of the image, while Matthew, Mark, and Luke are depicted as busily writing their gospels.¹¹⁹ From about the late tenth century to the eleventh century, the influence of the Acts of John by Prochorus on the iconography of John becomes evident. John is no longer alone but is pictured dictating to Prochorus. Hugo Buchthal argues that one of the earliest examples of John dictating to Prochorus comes from the tenth century and is now found in a fourteenth century manuscript located in Athens. The image portrays both John and Prochorus seated, with John looking over his shoulder at the hand of God in the upper corner. Buchthal contends that John’s positioning, while possibly reflecting Rev. 1:12 (“I turned to see the voice which was speaking with me”), has its visual roots in

¹¹⁷ Ševčenko, Celebration, XV.6; Boxall, Patmos, 113; S. M. Pelekanidis, P. C. Christou, C. Tsiomis, and S. N. Kadas, eds., The Treasures of Mount Athos: Illuminated Manuscripts, 2 vols (Athens, 1973), , 294. ¹¹⁸ Monastery of Dionysiou, 11th/12th cent. cod. 20, fol. 1r; 12th cent. cod. 36, fol. 249v; 13th cent. cod. 40, fol. 243v. in Pelekanidis, Christou, Tsiomis, and Kadas, Treasures, , 71, 91, 99. ¹¹⁹ Monastery of Dionysiou, 12th cent. cod. 38 in Pelekanidis, Christou, Tsiomis, and Kadas, Treasures, , 94–5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

“  ”      

191

fifth-century images of Greek poets looking behind them to their muses.¹²⁰ As the iconographic tradition progresses into the eleventh century and after, John dictates while standing and Prochorus sits on John’s right. They are located in the open air, often with a mountain in the background, and John looks heavenward (or turns his head heavenward while eyeing the viewer), where a ray or hand in a ray points to him. An early example of this image may be found in an eleventh-century (1059) lectionary from the Monastery of Dionysiou on Mount Athos (cod. 587 m., fol. 1v; see Fig. 7.1).¹²¹ A similar image may be seen in the Burney Gospels, which includes twelfth-century images in a tenth-century codex.¹²² When the words being transcribed are legible, Prochorus writes the opening words of the Gospel of John. Not surprisingly, many of the features in these icons, which date from near the time when Christodoulos founded the monastery on Patmos (1088),¹²³ match in quite significant detail the narrative in the Prochorus Acts—John standing, directing his attention to heaven, Prochorus typically to his right, outside, on a mountain.¹²⁴ A noteworthy wall painting from the last twenty years of the twelfth century is located in the cave of revelation on Patmos. In the painting, John and Prochorus are portrayed outside, near a mountain with no cave; John is standing and Prochorus is sitting. Elias Kollias notes the irony that in this painting in the cave of revelation itself the painter did not attempt to paint the actual scenery of the cave.¹²⁵ Due to the deterioration of the painting, it is difficult to make out what text Prochorus is transcribing. However, both Nancy Ševčenko and Ian Boxall cite E. Papatheophanous-Tsouri, who contends that the fresco depicts the writing of Revelation.¹²⁶ If this assessment is correct, it is the only image of its type that I am aware of in which Revelation is ¹²⁰ Hugo Buchthal, “A Byzantine Miniature of the Fourth Evangelist and its Relatives,” DOP, 15 (1961), 127–39. ¹²¹ See Pelekanidis, Christou, Tsiomis, and Kadas, Treasures, , 162, 435. The images of the other three evangelists in cod. 587 portray them seated inside at writing desks and without scribes. See also M. St. Panteleimon, 12th cent. cod. 25, fol. 143 (, 197); M. Dionysiou, 13th cent. cod. 4, fol. 278v (, 55). Robert S. Nelson, The Iconography of Preface and Miniature in the Byzantine Gospel Book, Monographs on Archaeology and the Fine Arts, 36 (New York, 1980), 86–7, describes a late 11th-cent/ early 12th-cent. Naples Bibl. Naz. Suppl. gr. 6, fol. 316v in which the Gospel according to John was written by Prochorus. ¹²² Burney Gospels, Burney MS 19, British Library. Kokkinobaphos Master (illustrator) https:// www.bl.uk/collection-items/the-burney-gospels, accessed April 8, 2020. ¹²³ Karlin-Hayter, “Christodoulos,” , 565. ¹²⁴ Pelekanidis, Christou, Tsiomis, and Kadas, Treasures, , 228. ¹²⁵ Elias Kollias, Byzantine Art in Greece, Patmos (Athens, 1986), 36. ¹²⁶ Evangelia Papatheophanous-Tsouri, “Οἱ Τοιχογραφίες τοῦ σπηλαίου τῆς Ἀποκάλψης,” in ΔΙΕΘΝΕΣ ΣΥΜΠΟΣΙΟ ΠΡΑΚΤΙΚΑ Ι ΜΟΝΗ ΑΓ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΛΟΓΟΣ 900 ΧΡΟΝΙΑ ΙΣΤΟΡΙΚΗΣ ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑΣ (1088–1988) (Athens, 1989), 181–91; Ševčenko, Celebration, XV.8; Boxall, Patmos, 124 n. 84.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

192    

Fig. 7.1 St. John the Evangelist and Prochorus, 11th century (1059), Codex 587 m., fol. 1v, Monastery of Dionysiou, Mount Athos, Greece. Reproduced courtesy of the Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies in Thessaloniki.

transcribed by Prochorus, but it is also the earliest extant John and Prochorus image located on Patmos. By the fourteenth century, a noticeable shift may be discerned in the iconography, reflecting an apparent knowledge of the addition to the Acts of John by Prochorus. John continues to dictate to Prochorus while standing, but in this time period, a cave is evident in the background. At the Monastery of St. John the Theologos on Patmos, Codex 81 (1334/35) contains an icon that depicts John standing outside with Prochorus seated to John’s right (Fig. 7.2). John looks to heaven and gestures to Prochorus, while a hand from heaven gestures to him. The mountain has a cave, in which Prochorus appears to be

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

“  ”      

193

Fig. 7.2 The Evangelist John and Prochoros, 1334/35, Codex 81, fol. 238v, St. John the Theologian Monastery on the island of Patmos. Reproduced courtesy of Katheloumenos and Patriarachikos Exarchos Patmos, Kurillos.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

194     partially seated.¹²⁷ Although the cave most likely reflects the interpolation from the Prochorus Acts,¹²⁸ which narrates the reception of Revelation in a cave, the text that is being written by Prochorus in these images is the opening line of the Gospel of John. Either the original narrative of the Acts of John by Prochorus concerning the writing of the Gospel has been conflated with the interpolation, which mentions the reception of Revelation in a cave, or the tradition of the actual cave on Patmos became part of the iconographic tradition.¹²⁹ As the iconographic tradition continues, John is again pictured sitting down, but now he is seated alongside Prochorus inside the cave. An early example of this image may be seen in a thirteenth- or fourteenth-century codex from the Monastery of Dionysiou on Mount Athos (cod. 33, fol. 104v),¹³⁰ while a later example may be seen in the early fifteenth-century icon on a panel housed in the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art (Fig. 7.3).¹³¹ This visual depiction represents a merging of the narrative in the Acts of John by Prochorus concerning the reception of the Gospel and the interpolation which tells of the reception of the Apocalypse in the cave. John is primarily presented on the left side of the cave, with Prochorus now on his left. His head is tilted over his right shoulder toward the divine hand in the upper left corner of the icon, although his eyes look at the viewer. Prochorus writes the opening line of the Gospel as John dictates. In these images, John is again pictured seated at a writing table, although the table is inside the cave and Prochorus is the one writing the Gospel that John dictates. These iconographic depictions of both John and Prochorus in the cave are much more common in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.¹³² By the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century, the conflation of the original Prochorus Acts narrative with its interpolation becomes complete. The earliest form of this image that I have found (Fig. 7.4) was painted by

¹²⁷ M. St. John on Patmos, 1334/35 cod. 81 fol. 238v in Athanasios D. Kominis, ed., Patmos: Treasures of the Monastery (Athens, n.d.), 293–5; fig. 41 on 319; Ševčenko, Celebration, XV.1–3. ¹²⁸ The epigram on Cod. 81 appears to refer to the events of the Prochorus Acts: “Βροντείης θεόφωνος.” Ioannes Sakkelion, Πατμιακὴ βιβλιοθήκη, ἤτοι Ἀναγραφὴ τῶν ἐν τῇ βιβλιοθήκη. τῆς κατὰ τὴν νῆσον Πάτμον . . . μονῆς . . . Ἰωάννου τοῦ Θεολόγου τεθησαυρισμένων χειρογράφων τεύχων (Athens, 1890), 56. See Fig. 7.2. ¹²⁹ Ševčenko, Celebration, XV.10. ¹³⁰ Pelekanidis, Christou, Tsiomis, and Kadas and others, Treasures, , 87. ¹³¹ https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/479796, accessed April 8, 2020. ¹³² Royal Doors, Vologda, first half of 15th cent.; M. St. Catherine, Mount Sinai, mid. 15th cent. in Alfredo Tradigo, Icons and Saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church, trans. by Stephen Sartarelli (Los Angeles, 2006), 15, 263. See also the wall painting, although with John standing on the left, in the Katholikon of the Monastery of St. John on Patmos (c. 1600) in Kominis, Patmos, 73.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

“  ”      

195

Fig. 7.3 John the Theologian and Prochoros, one panel from Four Icons from a Pair of Doors (Panels), Possibly Part of a Polyptych: John the Theologian and Prochoros, the Baptism (Epiphany), Harrowing of Hell (Anastasis), and Saint Nicholas, 15th century, possibly Cretan, in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. © Cultural Archive/Alamy Stock Photo.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

196    

Fig. 7.4 St John the Evangelist and Prochoros, by Emmanuel Lambardos, 1602, in the Museum of Icons, the Hellenic Institute for Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Studies in Venice, http://www.istitutoellenico.org/english/museo/index.html. © the History Collection/Alamy Stock Photo.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

“  ”      

197

Emmanuel Lambardos (1602).¹³³ It is extremely similar to the icons just mentioned in the previous paragraph— the thirteenth- or fourteenth-century codex from the Monastery of Dionysiou on Mount Athos (cod. 33, fol. 104v), the mid-fifteenth-century Monastery of St. Catherine icon, and the early fifteenth-century icon on a panel housed in the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art (Fig. 7.3).¹³⁴ In the Lambardos icon, the mountain and cave have the same shape and detail as in these icons. John has his left hand raised and he looks to the divine hand depicted in the rays from the upper left. His right hand, which rests on his leg, makes a sign reflecting the two natures of Christ. Both John and Prochorus are seated on benches, and Prochorus has a writing bench with the tools of his trade. Prochorus writes the opening line of the Gospel, but there are a few additions. The first and most significant addition rests on a writing stand placed between John and Prochorus in the center of the image. Draped over this writing stand is a completed manuscript that contains the opening line of the book of Revelation.¹³⁵ The image implies the chronological priority of Revelation and simultaneously depicts the apocalyptic revelation of the Gospel of John. A second addition may be seen in a basket of seven scrolls hanging at the back of the cave. I would argue that these seven scrolls represent the seven completed copies of Revelation that will be sent to the seven churches. Earlier iconographic depictions that do not portray a Revelation manuscript in the background typically have fewer than seven scrolls (usually four or five).¹³⁶ Since the inclusion of seven scrolls becomes more common once the manuscript of Revelation is included in the image, it would seem that Revelation’s seven letters are intended. A third addition may be seen in the more recent icon on the cover of this volume.¹³⁷ Seated on John’s left shoulder is an angel who speaks directly into John’s ear. The angel appears to be an explicit interpretation of the opening line of the Apocalypse cited on the

¹³³ David Rice and Tamara Talbot Rice, Icons and their Dating: A Comprehensive Study of their Chronology and Provenance (London, 1974), 73, plate 61. The icon is now housed in the Museum of Icons, Hellenic Institute of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Studies in Venice near the Church of San Giorgio dei Greci (http://www.istitutoellenico.org/english/museo/index.html, accessed April 8, 2020). ¹³⁴ See nn. 130, 131, and 132 above. ¹³⁵ Rice and Rice, Icons and their Dating, 73, fig. 61, incorrectly state that the completed manuscript contains Acts 2:1. Although the image reproduced in their volume is not clear, I can make out the beginning of Rev. 1:1, which is even more discernible here in Fig. 7.4. ¹³⁶ e.g., M. Koutloumousiou on Athos, 16th cent. cod. 291, fol. 1v in Pelekanidis, Christou, Tsiomis, and Kadas, Treasures, , 282; and the c. 1600 wall painting at Patmos in Kominis, Patmos, 73. ¹³⁷ “St. John the Theologian in the Cave of Revelation with Prochorus,” by the hagiographic atelier of the Holy Monastery of Dormition of Theotokos Zerbitsis, Lakonia, Greece. Aperges & Co. (www. aperges.com). The wording across the top of the icon reads, ὁ ἅ[γιος] Ἰω[άννης] ὁ θεολόγος ἐν τῷ σπηλαίῳ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως (“Saint John the Theologian [Divine], in the cave of revelation”).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

198     draped manuscript: “The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him to show his servants what must take place quickly and which he signified by sending his angel to his servant John” (Rev. 1:1). In the icon, the angel on John’s shoulder appears to represent the angel who tells the “apocalypse” to John, since John is still looking to the hand in the upper left. These postByzantine icons combine in visual form the reception of the apocalyptic disclosure of the Fourth Gospel on Patmos and the older tradition of Revelation’s chronological priority.

Conclusion The icon of John and Prochorus in “the cave of revelation,” in which the completed text of Revelation is visible while Prochorus transcribes the Gospel, brings us full circle in the reception of Revelation and the Gospel of John. We have seen that the iconographic tradition in the East represents the reception of the Gospel of John on the island of Patmos. The Acts of John by Prochorus was instrumental in this understanding of the Gospel’s reception as a heavenly revelation from God. The idea that the Fourth Gospel is revelation, not unlike the Apocalypse, echoes earlier tradition (e.g., the Muratorian Fragment) that prayer and fasting preceded the reception of the Gospel. Iconographic traditions of the pensive John suggest this as well, especially when contrasted with the other three evangelists busily writing at their writing tables.¹³⁸ This image of John and Prochorus also brings together the reception history of the Gospel and Revelation, since it also places the writing of Revelation chronologically prior to the Gospel. As was noted in the section “John and the Book of Revelation”, many sources either explicitly state that Revelation came first (e.g., Hippolytus, Epiphanius) or their chronology of John’s life suggests that this was the case without explicitly saying so (e.g., Irenaeus). While these later iconographic traditions cannot answer our historical questions about the relationship of the Fourth Gospel and the book of Revelation, they at least reflect an apocalyptic (or revelatory) reading of the Gospel of John that may suggest a shaping of the Gospel from the perspective of the Apocalypse of John. Much of this reception of the Gospel assumes joint authorship of the Gospel and Revelation, but Johannine scholars, even when ¹³⁸ Similarly, Western medieval representations merge the earthly and heavenly experiences of John in their depictions of one who knew mysteries at Jesus’s side (John 13:23) and in heaven (Rev. 4:1). See Jeffrey F. Hamburger, St. John the Divine: The Deified Evangelist in Medieval Art and Theology (Berkeley, CA, 2002), 30–2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

“  ”      

199

arguing against joint authorship, have long contended that some sort of relationship exists between the two texts. The vocabulary, syntax, and stylistic arguments concerning the authorship of the Gospel and Revelation, in modern scholarship at least, point away from single authorship; however, I have also drawn attention to thematic and theological similarities where the evidence is mixed and where other factors need to be considered in future examinations. At the least, some sort of relationship exists between the two texts, which the history of reception makes plain.¹³⁹ My argument throughout this book has been primarily a literary examination of the Gospel of John among the apocalypses, and the argument should stand on its own merits apart from the discussions of this chapter concerning the relationship between the Gospel of John and Revelation and the reception history of their authorship. The purpose of this chapter has been to trace these two issues that Christopher Rowland critiqued John Ashton for leaving unaddressed. I have explored both issues in order to discover if they might shed light on a historical explanation of how the Gospel of John could have been written in the mode of an apocalypse. The relationship between John and Revelation and the reception history of their authorship present just such a possible historical explanation for understanding John as “apocalyptic” Gospel. If C. K. Barrett’s explanation of the relationship between the Gospel and Revelation contains some measure of historical plausibility, namely that the authors of Revelation and the Gospel were both students of John,¹⁴⁰ and if Revelation was written first, as Barrett and a significant strand of the reception history has maintained, then it is not far-fetched to consider that the writing of the Gospel of John was influenced by apocalyptic visions of Jesus, the Lamb and Word of God. John’s distinctiveness from the Synoptic Gospels might then be explained in terms of this apocalyptic, revelatory nature of the Fourth Gospel’s presentation of Jesus’s earthly life refracted through the heavenly, apocalyptic vision of Jesus Christ. If the author of the Fourth Gospel, whoever that might be, had one eye on (or ear attuned to) the traditions of Jesus of Nazareth and another on the Apocalypse of John, that author might reasonably have written an “apocalyptic” gospel in which the life of Jesus was qualified by the influence of the Apocalypse. The Gospel of John is a gospel written in the mode of an apocalypse, and the reception history of John’s Gospel, the Gospel of St. John the Theologos, indicates that this revelatory reading has a long pedigree. ¹³⁹ Hill, Johannine Corpus, 455–61.

¹⁴⁰ Barrett, Gospel, 62, 133.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi

Conclusion The Gospel of John presents the life of Jesus as a revelatory narrative in which Jesus is the one who has descended from heaven and speaks heavenly things. I have argued throughout this book that the best explanation of the Fourth Gospel’s presentation of Jesus is in terms of the Gospel’s affinity with Jewish apocalypses. The Gospel of John introduces Jesus as the Word who was with God in the beginning and through whom all things have come into being (John 1:1–4, 17). He became flesh, dwelt among his people, and revealed his glory (1:14; 2:11). The Father sent Jesus into the world, and Jesus has descended from heaven and made the Father known (1:18; 3:13, 17, 31–2). As the only one who has seen the Father and come from heaven, Jesus reveals heavenly things (3:12; 6:46). His signs and discourses reveal his identity, and in Jesus the vision of the Father may be seen (12:45; 14:9). Revelation is thus at the heart of the Gospel of John, just as Rudolf Bultmann contended almost one hundred years ago. This theme of revelation, which is evident in Jesus’s otherworldly origin and his role as mediator, is John’s most significant difference from Matthew, Mark, and Luke and reflects John’s similarity with the genre of “apocalypse.” In Chapter 1, I began by examining modern genre theory because comparing the Gospel of John with Jewish apocalypses involves defining the genre of “gospel” and “apocalypse.” Modern genre theory uses cognitive prototypes to assess genre, since as human beings we tend to categorize things in relation to a prototype and not to a taxonomic list of features. Modern genre theory no longer understands genre to be static. Rather, texts extend the genres they participate in as the texts and genres interact with one another and shape readers’ expectations. One way texts extend a genre is through modes, which are a “thematic and tonal qualification or ‘colouring’ of genre”¹ by another genre. In other words, a text may participate in a genre (e.g., the “novel”) but be qualified by another in an adjectival sense (e.g., “comic”).² The extension and

¹ John Frow, Genre: The New Critical Idiom, 2nd edn (London, 2015), 73. ² Alastair Fowler, Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes (Cambridge, MA, 1982), 106–8. John among the Apocalypses: Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the “Apocalyptic” Gospel. Benjamin E. Reynolds, Oxford University Press (2020). © Benjamin E. Reynolds. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198784241.001.0001

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi

202     modification of genre continually leads to shifts in the way texts participate in genres.³ The standard definition of the genre of “apocalypse” began with an examination of prototype apocalypses: 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, Daniel, and Revelation. From this examination, a “master-paradigm” of elements was compiled that reflected the elements of form and content in these apocalypses, and the core elements of these apocalypses were drawn together to create the Semeia 14 definition. Together, the Semeia 14 definition of “apocalypse” and its “master-paradigm” serve as a prototype model for assessing the participation of texts in the genre of “apocalypse.”⁴ For these reasons, I used the “master-paradigm” for comparing Jewish apocalypses with the Gospel of John’s revelation and portrayal of Jesus’s otherworldly origin. Numerous scholars have dismissed the idea that John may be considered “apocalyptic,” but their dismissal most often arises because they conflate eschatology with the term “apocalyptic.” Jewish apocalypses obviously contain eschatological content, but they also reveal a spatially transcendent reality, since they are revelatory narratives framed by the mediation of revelation by an otherworldly being.⁵ “Apocalyptic” cannot and should not be narrowly defined only in terms of certain eschatological features, such as judgment and the end of the world. If we understand the adjective “apocalyptic” to refer to the genre of “apocalypse,” the Gospel of John cannot be so easily dismissed from being considered “apocalyptic.” John Ashton recognized the Fourth Gospel’s “intimations of apocalyptic” and explained the theme of revelation in the Gospel as deriving from Jewish “apocalyptic,” but he shied away from comparing the Gospel to the Semeia 14 definition of “apocalypse.” Instead, he compared John to four “apocalyptic” themes that function as a brief taxonomic list of features, and he contended that the Gospel is an apocalypse “in reverse, upside down, inside out.” Ashton’s four themes—two ages, two stages, riddles, and correspondence— are essentially content features that, while they do address temporal and spatial content, leave aside the other two genre dimensions of form and function.⁶ Ashton has since argued against each of these four themes as ³ Heta Pyrhönen, “Genre,” in The Cambridge Companion to Narrative, ed. by David Herman (Cambridge, 2007), 109–23. ⁴ John J. Collins, “Introduction: Toward the Morphology of a Genre,” Semeia, 14 (1979), 1–20; Leslie Baynes, The Heavenly Book Motif in Judeo-Christian Apocalypses, 200 –200 , JSJSup, 152 (Leiden, 2012), 68–70. ⁵ John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 3rd edn (Grand Rapids, MI, 2016), 5. ⁶ John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 2nd edn (Oxford, 2007), 307–29.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi



203

evidence that the Gospel may be described as “apocalyptic” or similar to Jewish apocalypses, but he still contends that the Gospel’s presentation of Jesus as an otherworldly being and Jesus’s revelation of heavenly things reflects the Gospel’s affinity with Jewish apocalyptic tradition.⁷ Since Ashton observed the Gospel of John’s similarity with Jewish apocalypses but did not compare John with the Semeia 14 definition, I sought to explain that similarity in terms of a generically (i.e., having to do with genre) informed understanding of “apocalypse” and its adjectival descriptor “apocalyptic.” I demonstrated in Chapters 2–4 that the Gospel of John aligns closely with the Semeia 14 definition of “apocalypse” and its “master-paradigm” in terms of form, content, and function. In Chapter 2, I compared the form elements of the “master-paradigm” with the Gospel of John. Concerning the medium of revelation (1),⁸ which is the first element of the manner of revelation, the Gospel of John reflects both visual (1.1) and auditory (1.2) revelation. The Gospel does not contain the sort of visions found in Jewish apocalypses that typically occur in dreams or waking visions, but the vision of God is seen in the person of Jesus (John 12:41; 14:9–10). In addition, the beginning of Jesus’s public ministry is introduced with Jesus’s statement that his disciples will see “greater things” and that they will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man (1:50-51). The concepts of the “opening of heaven” and the seeing of “greater things” are both at home within Jewish apocalypses. The Fourth Gospel also has a marked emphasis on sight and on seeing Jesus in particular. For example, when the man born blind is healed, Jesus introduces the identity of the Son of Man as the one whom the man sees (9:37). One of the most significant aspects of sight in John is the visual revelation that takes place in Jesus’s signs. Auditory revelation (1.2) often follows and clarifies visual revelation in Jewish apocalypses, and a similar pattern is evident in the Gospel of John, especially in the dialogues (1.2.2) and discourses (1.2.1) that follow Jesus’s signs (John 5; 6). The Gospel of John also reflects the second element of the “masterparadigm” of apocalypses, the otherworldly mediator (2). Jesus descends from heaven and reveals the things of heaven, especially the Father. Although Jesus is not an angel, as are most otherworldly mediators in Jewish apocalypses, he acts and speaks as an otherworldly mediator. Viewing Jesus as similar to an otherworldly mediator explains his speaking and acting on behalf of the Father and his being sent, not to mention his revealing of things ⁷ John Ashton, The Gospel of John and Christian Origins (Minneapolis, MN, 2014), 97–114. ⁸ This numbering follows the numbering of the “master-paradigm.”

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi

204     previously unknown. The Fourth Gospel also narrates that Jesus mediates the revelation to a human recipient (3). The beloved disciple functions as the privileged recipient of the revelation, and he is the one who writes down the revelation for future generations. In addition, Jesus mediates the revelation to others. Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, and the man born blind are three examples of recipients of Jesus’s visual and auditory revelation. In Chapter 3, I highlighted how the content of revelation in Jewish apocalypses is also noticeable in John. No Jewish apocalypse contains every content element of the “master-paradigm,” but each apocalypse contains a common core of elements that center on transcendence. The Semeia 14 definition notes that eschatological salvation (9) and the recognition of a supernatural world (10) are core content elements present in all apocalypses. These two elements, and others, are also present in the Gospel of John. The Fourth Gospel contains protology (4.1) in its references to creation (John 1:1–5) and in other references to primordial events (4.2), such as the implications of Adam and Eve’s deception (8:44) and the references to events preceding creation (1:1; 17:5). The Gospel also reflects evidence of persecution (7.1) of the righteous (15:20; 16:2), the judgment of those who do evil (8.1) by the Son of Man (5:27; also 3:21; 9:39; 12:48), and the expectation of eschatological salvation (9), especially in the resurrection of the dead (9.2.1; John 5:28–9; 6:39–40; 11:25–6). The spatial content evident in John includes its revelation of otherworldly regions (10.1) and otherworldly beings (10.2), namely angels, God, the devil, and the Son of Man. The presence of these content elements of the “master-paradigm” in the Gospel of John indicates that the Gospel shares not only the form and framework of an apocalypse but also its content. In Chapter 4, I described the function or purpose of apocalypses in relation to Adela Yarbro Collins’s addition to the Semeia 14 definition.⁹ Yarbro Collins’s addition defines the function of apocalypses without specifying the situation. Some scholars have wanted to define the present circumstances of apocalypses in terms of crisis, but apocalypses reflect present circumstances that include numerous situations, including imperial oppression, localized challenges, conflict within a group, or even religious, ethnic, or socioeconomic conflicts. Apocalypses also use divine authority to influence understanding and behavior. The authority of an angelic mediator or heavenly tablets can act to encourage the audience to understand their present situation in a new light and then to act accordingly. Some apocalypses call for renewed piety, while others call for armed revolt. Experience or knowledge of God’s provision ⁹ Adela Yarbro Collins, “Introduction: Early Christian Apocalypses,” Semeia, 36 (1986), 7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi



205

in the past also plays a part in the function of apocalypses. In the Enoch traditions, God’s judgment of the wicked and the salvation of Noah through the flood serve as a way to envision and expect God’s future judgment and redemption. The Gospel of John reflects a similar purpose and interplay of past, present, and future. As with Jewish apocalypses, the Gospel of John frames the difficulties of the present in terms of the supernatural world and the future. God the Father, who spoke to Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, now acts and has sent an otherworldly mediator, his Son, who “exegetes” the Father and reveals heavenly mysteries (John 1:18; 3:12). The revelation that is disclosed by Jesus also points forward to the ongoing work of God in the future, specifically the redemption of believers and the judgment of those who do not believe (3:18; 5:24; 6:39–40). The struggles faced by John’s audience are indicative of the believers’ unity with Jesus and the Father (15:18–19). The “apocalyptic” Gospel, like Jewish apocalypses, offers hope, comfort, and “truth” in the midst of “present, earthly circumstances.” It seeks to influence its audience to believe in Jesus the Messiah, Son of God (20:30–1), and to love one another (13:34). In Chapter 4, I also drew attention to the similarities between Jewish apocalypses and the Gospel of John with regard to paraenesis (11), “instructions to the recipient” (12), and “narrative conclusion” (13). Although these elements are not determinative for the genre of apocalypse, they are present in a number of Jewish apocalypses. John has something like paraenesis or exhortation in the farewell discourse, and John 20 and John 21 serve as the conclusion of the narrative, giving ethical charges and instructions about what the recipients of revelation are to do afterward. The references to the writing down of the revelation in John 20:30–1; 21:24–5 reflect added similarity with the concluding elements of Jewish apocalypses.¹⁰ The argument of Chapters 2–4 exhibits the close affinity that the Gospel of John has with Jewish apocalypses as defined by the Semeia 14 definition of “apocalypse.” The Gospel arguably contains elements from the genre’s three dimensions of form, content, and function. The Fourth Gospel looks similar to apocalypses and different from the Synoptic Gospels because it is “revelatory literature with a narrative framework in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly mediator to a human recipient.”¹¹ Revelation is central to the Gospel. Jesus has come from heaven and makes the Father known through ¹⁰ See Judith M. Lieu, “Text and Authority in John and Apocalyptic,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 235–53. ¹¹ Collins, “Morphology,” 9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi

206     what is seen and heard, and the beloved disciple receives this revelation and passes it along in written form. Yet, even for all this similarity, as I explained in Chapter 5, the Gospel of John is not an apocalypse. The details of the three elements of form—medium of revelation (1), otherworldly mediator (2), and human recipient (3)—expose telling differences between the definitions of these elements in the “masterparadigm” and what is found in John. First, concerning the medium of revelation (1), revelation in the Fourth Gospel is disclosed in Jesus’s signs, but the Gospel does not contain visions (1.1.1) or epiphanies (1.1.2) like those in Jewish apocalypses. The vision of God is possible, but in John the vision of God takes place on earth in the person of Jesus. These realities draw attention to the second, third, and fourth differences, which all have to do with the otherworldly mediator (2). Second, John’s otherworldly mediator is a human being. Third, John’s otherworldly mediator is one with God, and, fourth, Jesus is the content of the revelation. Fifth, the human recipient (3) in the Gospel of John is not a hero of Israel’s past and is not pseudonymous (3.1). The fourth evangelist, like the implied author of Jewish apocalypses, is the privileged recipient of revelation and a character within the narrative, but in the Fourth Gospel, the evangelist is not the sole recipient of revelation and, apart from being described as the disciple whom Jesus loved, is unnamed within the Gospel’s narrative. Thus, even though the Gospel discloses revelation through the mediation of an otherworldly being to a human recipient, closer analysis indicates that the Gospel does not align with these three elements of the manner of revelation (i.e., the form of an apocalypse). Rather, Jesus’s identity extends beyond that of the otherworldly mediators of Jewish apocalypses, and the portrayal of the human recipient of revelation implies that all may see the revelation through the eyes of faith (20:29).¹² The Fourth Gospel, without question, participates in the gospel genre in its form, content, and function. John’s Gospel is a narrative of the life of Jesus that proclaims the “good news” (εὐαγγέλιον) that comes through him to those who believe. Thus, John is a gospel, but the features of apocalypse have been blended with the Gospel’s proclamatory narrative of the life of Jesus. One could consider this John’s “bending” or “skewing” of the gospel genre through the lens of the apocalypse genre.¹³ I contend that in generic terms the Fourth Gospel’s narration of the life of Jesus is presented in an apocalyptic mode. ¹² Jörg Frey, The Glory of the Crucified One: Christology and Theology in the Gospel of John, trans. by Wayne Coppins and Christoph Heilig, BMSEC (Waco, TX, 2018), 309–11. ¹³ Harold W. Attridge, “The Gospel of John: Genre Matters?,” in The Gospel of John as Genre Mosaic, ed. by Kasper Bro Larsen, SANt, 3 (Göttingen, 2015), 27–45; Ruth Sheridan, “John’s Gospel

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi



207

In other words, John’s similarity with Jewish apocalypses and its revelatory framing of the life of Jesus represent the qualification of the gospel genre in terms of the genre of apocalypse. The framework of Jewish apocalypses in which an otherworldly being mediates revelation to a human recipient shapes the gospel genre so that John’s Gospel is a revelatory telling of Jesus’s life. The Fourth Gospel’s apocalyptic qualification is discernible in the manner of the revelation, the content of the revelation, and the function of the revelation. For this reason, John may be described as an “apocalyptic” gospel. In Chapters 6–7, I explored two different implications arising from understanding the Gospel of John as “apocalyptic” Gospel. In Chapter 6, I examined the Torah in the Gospel of John and argued that the apparent replacement of the Torah by Jesus reflects some notable similarities with the place and interpretation of the Torah in Jewish apocalypses. In Jewish apocalypses, the revelation mediated by the otherworldly mediator can be viewed as a replacement of the Mosaic Torah; however, these same apocalypses depend upon Israel’s Scriptures and enter into “inspired interpretation” or “revelatory exegesis” of those scriptures.¹⁴ A number of these apocalypses engage in Mosaic discourse, that is, they claim the authority of Moses. Their revelation complements and accompanies the Mosaic Torah rather than replacing it. Appeals to heavenly tablets in Jewish apocalypses are part of this Mosaic discourse because Moses himself received tablets from God on Mount Sinai, and thus the tablets and their contents existed before Moses. Ultimately, the authority that the Jewish apocalypses claim derives from God as the source of all revelation, whether the Sinai revelation or that disclosed in apocalypses.¹⁵ The authors of apocalypses did not disregard the scriptures; they actually cared about them deeply and sought to understand them within their own contexts. The Gospel of John may likewise be understood to claim Mosaic authority, since the Gospel claims that Moses spoke about Jesus and that the study of Israel’s Scriptures points to the revelation of Jesus (John 5:39, 46), not to mention that Abraham saw Jesus’s day (8:56) and Isaiah saw his glory (12:41). From our perspective, something new seems to have been revealed in both Jewish apocalypses and the Gospel of John that contradicts the Torah, and Modern Genre Theory: The Farewell Discourse (John 13—17) as a Test Case,” ITQ, 75/3 (2010), 287–99. ¹⁴ Markus N. A. Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity, WUNT, II/36 (Tübingen, 1990), 31; Alex P. Jassen, Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism, STDJ, 68 (Leiden and Boston, MA, 2007), 203–7. ¹⁵ Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism, JSJSup, 77 (Leiden and Atlanta, GA, 2003), 125.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi

208     but from the perspective of those writing these texts, it is not obvious that they thought they were revealing something new. The revelation in Jewish apocalypses, and similarly in John, discloses something that Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, and others knew and oftentimes had access to. In John, Jesus as the one from the Father is the only one to have seen the Father and his knowledge of him precedes creation (1:1; 17:5), making Jesus the Revealer par excellence. The Gospel’s revelation, therefore, does not negate, reject, or replace Israel’s Scriptures (at least from the perspective of the evangelist); rather, as in many Jewish apocalypses, the revelation disclosed in the Gospel of John complements and provides “revelatory exegesis” of the Torah. The “apocalyptic” Gospel claims the authority of Moses and other heroes of Israel as evidence that Jesus and the revelation he brings ultimately derive from God. Interpreting John as “apocalyptic” Gospel makes this relationship with the Torah more evident and indicates that rejection of past tradition is in the eye of the beholder. In Chapter 7, I addressed the relationship between the “apocalyptic” Gospel and the Apocalypse of John. Rather than merely providing a literary comparison between Jewish apocalypses and the Gospel, I sought to explore whether we might find a possible historical explanation for John’s apocalyptic mode in the Gospel’s relationship with the book of Revelation. I began by noting the numerous similarities and differences between the Gospel of John and Revelation in terms of vocabulary, word combinations, syntax, theological themes, and stylistic variation. Many modern scholars think that John and Revelation differ too greatly to have been written by the same author. At the same time, even those who discount joint authorship view John and Revelation as related in some way. Some have suggested that the authors of John and Revelation were both taught by the same Palestinian immigrant to Ephesus, who was a writer of “apocalyptic works.”¹⁶ Others have suggested that the author of the Gospel was taught by the author of Revelation, or that the authorship of both John and Revelation was later attributed to the same person. What is intriguing about these various authorship suggestions, which are also reflected in a significant strand of the reception history, is that the Gospel and Revelation, for all their differences, are related in some way and that the Gospel is thought to have been written after Revelation. Such a historical situation, in which Revelation was written prior to the Gospel and in which the author of the Gospel knew Revelation or at least its theological ¹⁶ C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd edn (Philadelphia, PA, 1978), 133.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi



209

themes, would present a plausible explanation for the Gospel of John being written in an apocalyptic mode. In addition, the history of reception also presents a strand of tradition that viewed the writing of the Gospel as a revelatory experience, not unlike the reception of Revelation (Rev. 1:9). The Muratorian Fragment and the Acts of John by Prochorus are two early traditions where divine revelation plays a part in the writing of the Gospel. Visual depictions of this revelatory reception of the Gospel are reflected in Byzantine iconography, particularly in illuminated manuscripts from the tenth to seventeenth centuries. These images portray John receiving the Gospel from heaven as he dictates it to Prochorus. The revelatory nature of the Gospel’s writing became more pronounced in later centuries, when it was associated with the cave of revelation on the island of Patmos where John received Revelation. By the sixteenth century, the revelatory reception of the Gospel was blended with the tradition of the chronological priority of Revelation, and icons were produced that depict John dictating the Gospel in the cave of revelation while a completed scroll of Revelation rests in the background. The chronological priority of Revelation and the reception of the Gospel through heavenly revelation together offer reasonable explanations for the Gospel’s framing of Jesus’s earthly life and work as a revelatory narrative. My argument that the Gospel of John is an “apocalyptic” gospel is primarily a literary and genre argument, and my intention in exploring John’s relationship with Revelation and the history of reception was to offer a possible historical explanation of how the Fourth Gospel’s apocalyptic mode could have taken place. At the very least, the reception history indicates that a revelatory understanding of the Gospel of John is nothing new in the history of interpretation. Placed among the four Gospels, the Fourth Gospel has long been recognized for its distinctiveness. The presentation of Jesus as a figure who descends from heaven and discloses heavenly revelation tops the list of its distinctive features. Also on the list is John’s cosmological and temporal perspective, which begins with Jesus as the otherworldly mediator in heaven before creation (1:1–2) and looks toward Jesus’s return to his Father in heaven (14:2–3; 20:17) and his eventual coming again to earth (21:22–3). The centrality of revelation in the Gospel of John and its revelatory telling of the life of Jesus also highlight the Gospel’s place among the apocalypses. John reflects numerous similarities with the form, content, and function of the Semeia 14 definition of an apocalypse, but there are enough differences in the detailed examination of John to indicate that the Fourth Gospel participates in the genre of gospel and not the genre of apocalypse. However, the similarities with Jewish apocalypses

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/9/2020, SPi

210     indicate that John’s Gospel has been influenced and shaped by the genre of apocalypse (and possibly by the book of Revelation in particular). In genre theory terms, the Gospel of John has extended the gospel genre through its thematic and tonal qualification of Jesus’s life in light of the apocalypse genre. The Fourth Gospel’s revelatory framework, content, and function can be explained by describing John as a gospel in kind and an apocalypse in mode. Understanding the Fourth Gospel as “apocalyptic” Gospel explains John’s differences from the Synoptic Gospels and its “intimations of apocalyptic.”

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

APPENDIX A

The Jewish Apocalypses*

Concluding Elements 12 Instructions to recipient 13 Narrative Conclusion

Apoc. of Weeks (1 En. 93:1–10; 91:11–17)

Spatial Axis 10.1 Otherworldly regions 10.2 Otherworldly beings Paraenesis by Revealer 11

Daniel 7–12 Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 85–90)

Temporal Axis 4.1 Cosmogony 4.2 Primordial events 5.1 Recollection of past 5.2 Ex eventu prophecy 6 Present salvation 7.1 Persecution 7.2 Other eschatological upheavals 8.1 Judgment/destruction of wicked 8.2 of world 8.3 of otherworldly beings 9.1 Cosmic transformation 9.2.1 Resurrection 9.2.2 Other forms of afterlife

Jubilees 23 4 Ezra 2 Baruch Apoc. Abraham Book of the Watchers (1 En. 1–36) Heavenly Luminaries (1 En. 72–82)

Manner of Revelation 1.1.1 Visions 1.1.2 Epiphanies 1.2.1 Discourse 1.2.2 Dialogue 1.3 Otherworldly journey 1.4 Writing 2 Otherworldly mediator 3.1 Pseudonymity 3.2 Disposition of recipient 3.3 Reaction of recipient

Parables of Enoch (1 En.37–71) 2 Enoch Test. Levi 2–5 3 Baruch Test. Abraham 10–15 Apoc. Zephaniah

Asterisks indicate either (1) that an element is possibly, but not certainly, present, or (2) is implicit, or (3) is present in a very minor way.

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x

x x x x x x x x x* x x x x x x x x x* x x x x

x x x x x x x* x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x* x x* x x x* x x x* x

x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x

x x x x x

x x x

* This table is a replica of the table in John J. Collins, “The Jewish Apocalypses,” Semeia, 14 (1979), 28.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

APPENDIX B

The Jewish Apocalypses and the Gospel of John Book of the Watchers (1 En. 1–36)

Jubilees 23 4 Ezra 2 Baruch Apoc. Abraham

Apoc. of Weeks (1 En. 93:1–10; 91:11–17)

Daniel 7–12 Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 85–90)

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x x x

x

x x x

x x

x x x x x x

x x x x x

x

x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

x x x x x

x

x

x

x x x x

x x x x x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x x

x x x x x

x x x

x x x x x x x x

x

Temporal Axis 4.1 Cosmogony 4.2 Primordial events 5.1 Recollection of past 5.2 Ex eventu prophecy 6 Present salvation 7.1 Persecution 7.2 Other eschatological upheavals 8.1 Judgment/destruction of wicked 8.2 of world 8.3 of otherworldly beings 9.1 Cosmic transformation 9.2.1 Resurrection 9.2.2 Other forms of afterlife

x x x x x x* x x x x x x x x x x x* x x

x x x* x x x x

x

x

x x x x x x x x* x x x x x*

Spatial Axis 10.1 Otherworldly regions 10.2 Otherworldly beings

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x x x x

x x

x

x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x

x

x x

Paraenesis by Revealer 11 Concluding Elements 12 Instructions to recipient 13 Narrative Conclusion

x

x x

x x

x x

x x x x x

x x* x x x x x x x x x x x x

x

x

x

x

x x x

x x x x x

x x x x* x x* x x x x x

x x x x x

Gospel of John

Heavenly Luminaries (1 En. 72–82)

Manner of Revelation 1.1.1 Visions 1.1.2 Epiphanies 1.2.1 Discourse 1.2.2 Dialogue 1.3 Otherworldly journey 1.4 Writing 2 Otherworldly mediator 3.1 Pseudonymity 3.2 Disposition of recipient 3.3 Reaction of recipient

Parables of Enoch (1 En.37–71) 2 Enoch Test. Levi 2–5 3 Baruch Test. Abraham 10–15 Apoc. Zephaniah

Asterisks indicate either (1) that an element is possibly, but not certainly, present, or (2) is implicit, or (3) is present in a very minor way

x x x x x*

x

x x x x

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

References Adler, William, “Introduction,” in Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity, ed. by James C. VanderKam and William Adler, CRINT, 3 (Assen, 1996), 1–31. Aland, Kurt, ed., Synopsis quattuor evangeliorum: locis parallelis evangeliorum apocryphorum et patrum adhibitis, 13th, rev. edn (Stuttgart, 1985). Alexander, Loveday, “What Is a Gospel?,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Gospels, ed. by Stephen C. Barton, CCR (Cambridge, 2006), 13–33. Alexander, Philip S., “Retelling the Old Testament,” in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF, ed. by D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (Cambridge, 1988), 99–121. Andersen, F. I., “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. by James H. Charlesworth, 2 vols (New York, 1983), , 91–221. 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. Armstrong, Jonathan J., “Victorinus of Pettau as the Author of the Canon Muratori,” Vigiliae Christianae, 62/1 (2008), 1–34. Ashton, John The Gospel of John and Christian Origins (Minneapolis, MN, 2014). Ashton, John, “Intimations of Apocalyptic: Looking Back and Looking Forward,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 3–35. Ashton, John, “The Johannine Son of Man: A New Proposal,” NTS, 57/4 (2011), 508–29. Ashton, John, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 1st edn (Oxford, 1991). Ashton, John, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 2nd edn (Oxford, 2007). Attridge, Harold W., “Genre,” in How John Works: Storytelling in the Fourth Gospel, ed. by Douglas Estes and Ruth Sheridan (Atlanta, GA, 2016), 7–22. Attridge, Harold W., “Genre Bending in the Fourth Gospel,” JBL, 121/1 (2002), 3–21. Attridge, Harold W., “The Gospel of John: Genre Matters?,” in The Gospel of John as Genre Mosaic, ed. by Kasper Bro Larsen, SANt, 3 (Göttingen, 2015), 27–45. Augenstein, Jörg, “ ‘Euer Gesetz’—Ein Pronomen und die Johanneische Haltung zum Gesetz,” ZNW, 88/3–4 (1997), 311–13. Aune, David E., “The Apocalypse of John and the Problem of Genre,” Semeia, 36 (1986), 65–96. Aune, David E., The New Testament in its Literary Environment, LEC, 8 (Philadelphia, PA, 1987). Aune, David E., Revelation 1–5, WBC, 52A (Dallas, TX, 1997). Aune, David E., “Understanding Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic,” in Apocalypticism, Prophecy, and Magic in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI, 2008), 1–12. Bakhtin, M. M., “The Problem of Speech Genres,” in Modern Genre Theory, ed. by David Duff (New York, 2000), 82–97. Barrett, C. K., The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd edn (Philadelphia, PA, 1978). Barrett, C. K., The Gospel of John and Judaism: The Franz Delitzsch Lectures, University of Münster, 1967, trans. by D. Moody Smith (London, 1975).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

214  Bauckham, Richard, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh, 1993). Bauckham, Richard, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd edn (Grand Rapids, MI, 2017). Bauckham, Richard, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids, MI, 2008). Bauckham, Richard, The Theology of the Book of Revelation, NTT (Cambridge, 1993). Bautch, Kelley Coblentz, “The Heavenly Temple, the Prison in the Void and the Uninhabited Paradise: Otherworldly Sites in the Book of the Watchers,” in Other Worlds and their Relation to This World: Early Jewish and Ancient Christian Traditions, ed. by Tobias Nicklas, Joseph Verheyden, Erik M. M. Eynikel, and Florentino García Martínez, JSJSup, 143 (Leiden, 2010), 37–53. Bautch, Kelley Coblentz, A Study of the Geography of 1 Enoch 17–19: “No One Has Seen What I Have Seen,” JSJSup, 81 (Leiden, 2003). Baynes, Leslie, The Heavenly Book Motif in Judeo-Christian Apocalypses, 200 –200 , JSJSup, 152 (Leiden, 2012). Beale, G. K., The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI, 1999). Bedenbender, Andreas, “The Place of the Torah in the Early Enoch Literature,” in The Early Enoch Literature, ed. by Gabriele Boccaccini and John J. Collins, JSJSup, 121 (Leiden, 2007), 65–79. Bendoraitis, Kristian, “Apocalypticism, Angels, and Matthew,” in Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the Shaping of New Testament Thought, ed. by Benjamin E. Reynolds and Loren T. Stuckenbruck (Minneapolis, MN, 2017), 31–51. Bernstein, Moshe J., “The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the History of Early Biblical Interpretation,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, ed. by Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman, JSJSup, 83 (Leiden, 2004), 215–38. Beutler, Johannes, A Commentary on the Gospel of John, trans. by Michael Tait (Grand Rapids, MI, 2017). Blank, Josef, Krisis: Untersuchungen zur johanneischen Christologie und Eschatologie (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1964). Blatt, Ben, Nabokov’s Favorite Word Is Mauve: What the Numbers Reveal about the Classics, Bestsellers, and Our Own Writing (New York, 2017). Boccaccini, Gabriele, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: An Intellectual History, from Ezekiel to Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI, 2002). Böcher, Otto, “Das Verhältnis der Apokalypse des Johannes zum Evangelium des Johannes,” in L’Apocalypse johannique et l’Apocalypse dans le Nouveau Testament, ed. by J. Lambrecht, BETL, 53 (Gembloux, 1980), 289–301. Bockmuehl, Markus N. A., Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity, WUNT, II/36 (Tübingen, 1990). Boice, James M., Witness and Revelation in the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI, 1970). Borgen, Peder, “God’s Agent in the Fourth Gospel,” in Philo, John, and Paul: New Perspectives on Judaism and Early Christianity, BJS, 131 (Atlanta, GA, 1987), 171–84. Böttrich, Christfried, “The ‘Book of the Secrets of Enoch’ (2 En): Between Jewish Origin and Christian Transmission. An Overview,” in New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only, ed. by Andrei A. Orlov, Gabriele Boccaccini, and Jason M. Zurawaski, SJs, 4 (Leiden, 2012), 37–67.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi



215

Boxall, Ian, “From the Apocalypse to the Johannine ‘Apocalypse in Reverse’: Intimations of Apocalyptic and the Quest for a Relationship,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 58–78. Boxall, Ian, Patmos in the Reception History of the Apocalypse, OTRM (Oxford, 2013). Boxall, Ian, The Revelation of Saint John, BNTC (London, 2006). Boyarin, Daniel, “The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John,” HTR, 94/3 (2001), 243–84. Boyarin, Daniel, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ (New York, 2012). Brant, Jo-Ann A., Dialogue and Drama: Elements of Greek Tragedy in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA, 2004). Brant, Jo-Ann A., John, Paideia (Grand Rapids, MI, 2011). Brant, Jo-Ann A., “John among the Ancient Novels,” in The Gospel of John as Genre Mosaic, ed. by Kasper Bro Larsen, SANt, 3 (Göttingen, 2015), 157–68. Brooke, George J., “Prophetic Interpretation in the Pesharim,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, ed. by Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids, MI, 2012), 235–54. Brown, Raymond E., The Community of the Beloved Disciple: The Life, Loves, and Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times (New York, 1979). Brown, Raymond E., The Gospel according to John (I–XII): Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 29 (Garden City, NY, 1966). Brown, Raymond E., The Gospel according to John (XIII–XXI): Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 29A (Garden City, NY, 1970). Brown, Raymond E., An Introduction to the Gospel of John, ed. by Francis J. Moloney, ABRL (New York, 2003). Brown, Raymond E., “Qumran Scrolls and the Johannine Gospel and Epistles: Other Similarities,” CBQ, 17/4 (1955), 559–74. Brown, Sherri, and Christopher W. Skinner, eds., Johannine Ethics: The Moral World of the Gospel and Epistles of John (Minneapolis, MN, 2017). Buchthal, Hugo, “A Byzantine Miniature of the Fourth Evangelist and its Relatives,” DOP, 15 (1961), 127–39. Bühner, Jan-Adolf, Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4. Evangelium: die kultur- und religionsgeschichtlichen Grundlagen der johanneischen Sendungschristologie sowie ihre traditionsgeschichtliche Entwicklung, WUNT, II/2 (Tübingen, 1977). Bultmann, Rudolf, “Die Bedeutung der neuerschlossenen mandäischen und manichäischen Quellen für das Verständnis des Johannesevangeliums,” ZNW, 24 (1925), 100–46. Bultmann, Rudolf, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. by G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia, PA, 1971). Bultmann, Rudolf, Theology of the New Testament, trans. by Kendrick Grobel, 2 vols (New York, 1951). Burridge, Richard A., What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography, 2nd edn (Grand Rapids, MI, 2004). Byers, Andrew J., Ecclesiology and Theosis in the Gospel of John, SNTSMS, 166 (Cambridge, 2017). Bynum, W. Randolph, The Fourth Gospel and the Scriptures: Illuminating the Form and Meaning of Scriptural Citation in John 19:37, NovTSup, 144 (Leiden, 2012). Cadman, W. H., The Open Heaven: The Revelation of God in the Johannine Sayings of Jesus, ed. by G. B. Caird (Oxford, 1969). Caird, G. B., A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine, BNTC, 2nd edn (London, 1984).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

216  Carey, Greg, Apocalyptic Literature in the New Testament, CBS (Nashville, TN, 2016). Carey, Greg, Ultimate Things: An Introduction to Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic Literature (St. Louis, MO, 2005). Carter, Warren, John and Empire: Initial Explorations (New York, 2008). Charles, R. H., The Book of Enoch, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1912). Charles, R. H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, with Introduction, Notes, and Indices, ICC, 2 vols (New York, 1920). 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. by J. Mrazek and J. Roskovec (London, 2004), 223–39. Charlesworth, James H., and Raymond E. Brown, eds., John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York, 1990). Cirafesi, Wally V., “John within Judaism: Religion, Ethnicity, and the Shaping of JesusOriented Jewishness in the Fourth Gospel” (Ph.D. diss., University of Oslo, 2018). Collins, John J., Apocalypse, Prophecy, and Pseudepigraphy: On Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids, MI, 2015). Collins, John J., “Apocalyptic Eschatology as the Transcendence of Death,” CBQ, 36/1 (1974), 21–43. Collins, John J., The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 3rd edn (Grand Rapids, MI, 2016). Collins, John J., Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN, 1993). Collins, John J., “The Danielic Son of Man,” in The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2nd edn (Grand Rapids, MI, 2010), 191–214. Collins, John J., “Genre, Ideology and Social Movements in Jewish Apocalypticism,” in Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism (Leiden, 2001), 25–38. Collins, John J., “Introduction: Toward the Morphology of a Genre,” Semeia, 14 (1979), 1–20. Collins, John J., “The Jewish Apocalypses,” Semeia, 14 (1979), 21–49. Collins, John J., Seers, Sibyls, and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism (Boston, MA, 2001). Collins, John J., “What Is Apocalyptic Literature?,” in The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature, ed. by John J. Collins (Oxford and New York, 2014), 1–16. Coloe, Mary L., “Creation in the Gospel of John,” in Creation Is Groaning: Biblical and Theological Perspectives, ed. by Mary L. Coloe (Collegeville, MN, 2013), 71–90. Coloe, Mary L., God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville, MN, 2001). Coloe, Mary L., and Tom Thatcher, eds., John, Qumran, and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Sixty Years of Discovery and Debate, EJL, 32 (Atlanta, GA, 2011). Conzelmann, Hans, The Theology of St. Luke, trans. by Geoffrey Buswell (New York, 1961). Cooper, James, and Arthur John Maclean, Testament of Our Lord: Translated into English from the Syriac with Introduction and Notes (Edinburgh, 1902). Coutinho, Maria Antónia, and Florencia Miranda, “To Describe Genres: Problems and Strategies,” in Genre in a Changing World, ed. by Charles Bazerman, Adair Bonini, and Débora Figueiredo (West Lafayette, IN, 2009), 35–55. Culpepper, R. Alan, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia, PA, 1983). Culpepper, R. Alan., John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend (Minneapolis, MN, 2000). Culpepper, R. Alan, “The Plot of John’s Story of Jesus,” in Gospel Interpretation: NarrativeCritical and Social-Scientific Approaches, ed. by Jack Dean Kingsbury (Harrisburg, PA, 1997), 188–99.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi



217

Davies, J. P., Paul among the Apocalypses?: An Evaluation of the Apocalyptic Paul in the Context of Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic Literature, LNTS, 562 (London, 2016). Davies, Margaret, Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel, JSNTSup, 69 (Sheffield, 1992). Davila, James R., “Seven Theses Concerning the Use of Scripture in 4 Ezra and the Latin Vision of Ezra,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures, ed. by Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, BETL, 270 (Leuven, 2014), 305–26. DeConick, April D., Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the Gospels of John and Thomas and Other Ancient Christian Literature, JSNTSup, 157 (Sheffield, 2001). DeConick, April D., “Why Are the Heavens Closed? The Johannine Revelation of the Father in the Catholic-Gnostic Debate,” in The Gospel of John and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 147–79. DeLong, Kindalee Pfremmer, “Angels and Visions in Luke-Acts,” in Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the Shaping of New Testament Thought, ed. by Benjamin E. Reynolds and Loren T. Stuckenbruck (Minneapolis, MN, 2017), 79–107. Derrida, Jacques, “The Law of Genre,” in Modern Genre Theory, ed. by David Duff (New York, 2000), 219–31. Dewey, Arthur J., “The Eyewitnesses of History: Visionary Consciousness in the Fourth Gospel,” in Jesus in Johannine Tradition, ed. by Robert T. Fortna and Tom Thatcher (Louisville, KY, 2001), 59–70. DiTommaso, Lorenzo, “Apocalypse,” in T&T Clark Encyclopedia of Second Temple Judaism, ed. by Daniel M. Gurtner and Loren T. Stuckenbruck (London, 2020), , 36–9. DiTommaso, Lorenzo, “Apocalypses and Apocalypticism in Antiquity (Part I),” CurBR, 5/2 (2007), 235–86. Docherty, Susan, “New Testament Scriptural Interpretation in its Early Jewish Context: Reflection on the Status Quaestionis and Future Directions,” NovT, 57 (2015), 1–19. Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1953). Dodd, C. H., More New Testament Studies (Grand Rapids, MI, 1968). Duff, David, “Introduction,” in Modern Genre Theory, ed. by David Duff (New York, 2000), 1–24. Duff, David, ed., Modern Genre Theory (New York, 2000). Duffy, Eamon, “Introduction to the 2012 Edition,” in The Golden Legend: Readings on the Saints, ed. by William Granger Ryan (Princeton, NJ, 2012), xi–xx. Dunn, James D. G., “Let John Be John: A Gospel for its Time,” in The Gospel and the Gospels, ed. by Peter Stuhlmacher (Grand Rapids, MI, 1991), 293–322. du Rand, Jan A., “The Creation Motif in the Fourth Gospel: Perspectives on its Narratological Function within a Judaistic Background,” in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar, ed. by Gilbert Van Belle, J. G. van der Watt, and P. Maritz, BETL, 184 (Leuven, 2005), 21–46. Edwards, Ruth B., “ΧΑΡΙΝ ΑΝΤΙ ΧΑΡΙΤΟΣ (John 1.16): Grace and the Law in the Johannine Prologue,” JSNT, 32 (1988), 3–15. Ellis, F. S., ed., The Golden Legend or Lives of the Saints as Englished by William Caxton, Temple Classics (London, 1900). Endo, Masanobu, Creation and Christology: A Study on the Johannine Prologue in the Light of Early Jewish Creation Accounts, WUNT, II/149 (Tübingen, 2002). Engberg-Pedersen, Troels, John and Philosophy: A New Reading of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford, 2017). Epiphanius, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. Book I (Sects 1–46), trans. by Frank Williams, NHMS, 63, 2nd edn (Leiden, 2009).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

218  Epiphanius, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III. De Fide, trans. by Frank Williams, NHMS, 73, 2nd edn (Leiden, 2013). Esler, Philip F., “Social-Scientific Approaches to Apocalyptic Literature,” in The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature, ed. by John J. Collins (Oxford, 2014), 123–44. Estes, Douglas, and Ruth Sheridan, eds., How John Works: Storytelling in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta, GA, 2016). Fallon, Francis T., “The Gnostic Apocalypses,” Semeia, 14 (1979), 123–58. Fletcher-Louis, Crispin, “Jewish Apocalyptic and Apocalypticism,” in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 4 vols (Leiden, 2011), , 1569–607. Forestell, J. Terence, The Word of the Cross: Salvation as Revelation in the Fourth Gospel, AnBib, 57 (Rome, 1974). Fossum, Jarl E., The Image of the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence of Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology, NTOA, 30 (Göttingen, 1995). Fowler, Alastair, Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes (Cambridge, MA, 1982). Freed, Edwin D., Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John, NovTSup, 11 (Leiden, 1965). Frey, Jörg, “Die Apokalyptik als Herausforderung der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft. Zum Problem: Jesus und die Apokalyptik,” in Apokalyptik als Herausforderung neutestamentlicher Theologie, ed. by Michael Becker and Markus Öhler, WUNT, II/214 (Tübingen, 2006), 23–94. Frey, Jörg, “Erwägungen zum Verhältnis der Johannesapokalypse zu den übrigen Schriften des Corpus Joanneum,” in Die johanneische Frage: Ein Lösungsversuch, mit einem Beitrag zur Apokalypse von Jörg Frey, by Martin Hengel, WUNT, 67 (Tübingen, 1993), 326–429. Frey, Jörg, “Eschatology in the Johannine Circle,” in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar, ed. by Gilbert Van Belle, J. G. van der Watt, and P. Maritz, BETL, 184 (Leuven, 2005), 47–82. Frey, Jörg, “God’s Dwelling on Earth: ‘SHEKHINA-Theology’ in Revelation 21 and in the Gospel of John,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 79–103. Frey, Jörg, The Glory of the Crucified One: Christology and Theology in the Gospel of John, trans. by Wayne Coppins and Christoph Heilig, BMSEC (Waco, TX, 2018). Frey, Jörg, Die johanneische Eschatologie, WUNT, 97, 110, 117, 3 vols (Tübingen, 1997, 1998, 2000). Frey, Jörg, Ruben Zimmermann, J. G van der Watt, and Gabriele Kern, eds., Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language, WUNT, 200 (Tübingen, 2006). Frow, John, Genre: The New Critical Idiom, 2nd edn (London, 2015). Frow, John, “ ‘Reproducibles, Rubrics, and Everything You Need’: Genre Theory Today,” PMLA, 122/5 (2007), 1626–34. García Martínez, Florentino, Between Philology and Theology: Contributions to the Study of Ancient Jewish Interpretation, ed. by Hindy Najman and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, JSJSup, 162 (Leiden, 2013). García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2 vols (Leiden, 1997). Gathercole, Simon J., “The Alleged Anonymity of the Canonical Gospels,” JTS, 69/2 (2018), 447–76. Gathercole, Simon J., The Apostolic Message and the Earliest Christian Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI, forthcoming)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi



219

Gaylord, Jr., H. E., “3 (Greek Apocalypse of) Baruch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. by James H. Charlesworth, 2 vols (New York, 1983), , 653–79. Gieschen, Charles A., Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence, AGJU, 42 (Leiden, 1998). Gieschen, Charles A., “The Divine Name That the Son Shares with the Father in the Gospel of John,” in Reading the Gospel of John’s Christology as Jewish Messianism: Royal, Prophetic, and Divine Messiahs, ed. by Benjamin E. Reynolds and Gabriele Boccaccini, AJEC, 106 (Leiden, 2018), 387–410. Grabbe, Lester L., “4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Social and Historical Perspective,” in Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction after the Fall, ed. by Matthias Henze and Gabriele Boccaccini, JSJSup, 164 (Leiden, 2013), 221–35. 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. by Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Gabriele Boccaccini, EJL, 44 (Atlanta, GA, 2016), 169–97. Grabbe, Lester L., and Robert D. Haak, eds., Knowing the End from the Beginning: The Prophetic, Apocalyptic, and their Relationship, JSPSup, 46 (London, 2003). Grant, Robert M., “The Oldest Gospel Prologues,” ATR, 23/3 (1941), 231–45. Guelich, Robert, “The Gospel Genre,” in The Gospel and the Gospels, ed. by Peter Stuhlmacher (Grand Rapids, MI, 1991), 173–208. Gundry, Robert H., “In My Father’s House Are Many Monai (John 14:2),” ZNW, 58/1–2 (1967), 68–72. Gundry, Robert H., Jesus the Word according to John the Sectarian: A Paleofundamentalist Manifesto for Contemporary Evangelicalism, Especially its Elites, in North America (Grand Rapids, MI, 2002). Haenchen, Ernst, John: A Commentary on the Gospel of John, trans. by Robert Walter Funk, Hermeneia, 2 vols (Philadelphia, PA, 1984). Hagner, Donald A., “Apocalyptic Motifs in the Gospel of Matthew: Continuity and Discontinuity,” HBT, 7/2 (1985), 53–82. Hamburger, Jeffrey F., St. John the Divine: The Deified Evangelist in Medieval Art and Theology (Berkeley, CA, 2002). Hamid-Khani, Saeed, Revelation and Concealment of Christ: Theological Inquiry into the Elusive Language of the Fourth Gospel, WUNT, II/120 (Tübingen, 2000). Hanneken, Todd R., The Subversion of the Apocalypses in the Book of Jubilees, EJL, 34 (Atlanta, GA, 2012). Hanson, Anthony Tyrrell, The Prophetic Gospel: A Study of John and the Old Testament, Scholars’ Editions in Biblical Studies (London, 2006). Hanson, Paul D., “Apocalypse, Genre and Apocalypticism,” IDBSup, 1976, 27–34. Hanson, Paul D., The Dawn of the Apocalyptic, rev. edn (Philadelphia, PA, 1979). Hare, Douglas R. A., The Son of Man Tradition (Minneapolis, MN, 1990). Hartman, Lars, “Survey of the Problem of Apocalyptic Genre,” in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12–17, 1979, ed. by David Hellholm (Tübingen, 1983), 329–43. Hartvigsen, Kirsten Marie, Aseneth’s Transformation, DCLS, 24 (Berlin, 2018). Heede, Philippe van den, Der Exeget Gottes. Eine Studie zur johanneischen Offenbarungstheologie, HBibSt, 88 (Freiburg im Breisgau, 2017). Hellholm, David, ed., Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12–17, 1979 (Tübingen, 1983).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

220  Hellholm, David, “The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John,” Semeia, 36 (1986), 13–64. Hengel, Martin, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels, trans. by John Bowden (Harrisburg, PA, 2000). Hengel, Martin, The Johannine Question (London, 1989). Henze, Matthias, Jewish Apocalypticism in Late First Century Israel: Reading Second Baruch in Context, TSAJ, 142 (Tübingen, 2011). Henze, Matthias, “Torah and Eschatology in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch,” in The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, ed. by George J. Brooke, Hindy Najman, and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, TBN, 12 (Leiden, 2008), 201–15. Henze, Matthias, “The Use of Scripture in the Book of Daniel,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, ed. by Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids, MI, 2012), 279–307. Hill, Charles E., The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church (Oxford, 2004). Himmelfarb, Martha, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York, 1993). Hogan, Karina Martin, “The Meanings of Tôrâ in 4 Ezra,” JSJ, 38/4–5 (2007), 530–52. Hogan, Karina Martin, Theologies in Conflict in 4 Ezra: Wisdom, Debate, and Apocalyptic Solution, JSJSup, 130 (Leiden, 2008). Holmes, Laura C. S., “Review of John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, Edited by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland,” RBL, 2015, https://www.bookreviews. org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=9697, accessed April 3, 2020. Hooker, Morna D., “Creative Conflict: The Torah and Christology,” in Christology, Controversy, and Community: Essays in Honour of David Catchpole, ed. by David G. Horrell and Christopher M. Tuckett, NovTSup, 99 (Leiden, 2000), 117–36. Horsley, Richard A., Revolt of the Scribes: Resistance and Apocalyptic Origins (Minneapolis, MN, 2010). Hoskyns, Edwyn C., The Fourth Gospel, ed. by Francis Noel Davey (London, 1947). Huber, Hugo H., Der Begriff der Offenbarung im Johannes-Evangelium: ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Eigenart des vierten Evangeliums (Göttingen, 1934). Hurtado, Larry W., One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism, 2nd edn (London, 2005). Jassen, Alex P., Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism, STDJ, 68 (Leiden and Boston, MA, 2007). Jerome, Saint, Commentary on Matthew, ed. by Thomas P. Scheck, Fathers of the Church, 117 (Washington, DC, 2008). Jerome, Saint, On Illustrious Men, ed. by Thomas P. Halton, Fathers of the Church, 100 (Washington, DC, 1999). Johnson, Timothy Jay, Now My Eye Sees You: Unveiling an Apocalyptic Job (Sheffield, 2009). Jones, Larry Paul, The Symbol of Water in the Gospel of John, JSNTSup, 145 (Sheffield, 1997). Jonge, Marinus de, Jesus: Stranger from Heaven and Son of God: Jesus Christ and the Christians in Johannine Perspective, trans. by John E. Steely, SBLSBS (Missoula, MT, 1977). Junod, Éric, and Jean-Daniel Kaestli, Acta Iohannis, Corpus Christianorum. Series Apocryphorum, 1–2 (Turnhout, 1983).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi



221

Kanagaraj, Jey J., “Mysticism” in the Gospel of John: An Inquiry into its Background, JSNTSup, 158 (Sheffield, 1998). Karlin-Hayter, Patricia, “Christodoulos: Rule, Testament and Codicil of Christodoulos for the Monastery of St. John the Theologian on Patmos,” in Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments, ed. by John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero, DOS, 35 (Washington, DC, 2000), , 564–606. Karrer, Martin, “Die Johanneischen Schriften und die Apokalypse: Beobachtungen zu einer komplizierten Beziehung,” in Spurensuche zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament: Eine Festschrift im Dialog mit Udo Schnelle, ed. by Michael Labahn (Göttingen, 2017), 373–94. Käsemann, Ernst, The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17 (London, 1968). Keddie, Anthony, Revelations of Ideology: Apocalyptic Class Politics in Early Roman Palestine, JSJSup, 189 (Leiden, 2018). Keener, Craig S., The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2 vols (Grand Rapids, MI, 2003). Kenny, Anthony, A Stylometric Study of the New Testament (Oxford, 1986). Kerr, Alan, The Temple of Jesus’ Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John, JSNTSup, 220 (London, 2002). Klijn, A. F., “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. by James H. Charlesworth, 2 vols (New York, 1983), , 615–52. Knibb, Michael A., “Apocalyptic and Wisdom in 4 Ezra,” in Essays on the Book of Enoch and Other Early Jewish Texts and Traditions, SVTP, 22 (Leiden, 2009), 271–88. Knowles, Michael P., “Moses, the Law, and the Unity of 4 Ezra,” NovT, 31/3 (1989), 257–74. Koch, Klaus, “Die Bedeutung der Apokalyptik für die Interpretation der Schrift,” in Die Reiche der Welt und der kommende Menschensohn: Studien zum Danielbuch. Gesammelte Aufsätze 2, ed. by Martin Rösel (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1995), 16–45. Koch, Klaus, The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic, trans. by Margaret Kohl, SBT, Second Series, 22 (London, 1972). Koester, Craig R., “Hearing, Seeing, and Believing in the Gospel of John,” Bib, 70/3 (1989), 327–48. 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 Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar, ed. by Gilbert Van Belle, J. G. van der Watt, and P. Maritz, BETL, 184 (Leuven, 2005), 117–33. Koester, Craig R., Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB, 38A (New Haven, CT, 2014). Koester, Craig R., Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community, 2nd edn (Minneapolis, MN, 2003). Koester, Helmut, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (London, 1990). Kok, Kobus, “As the Father Has Sent Me, I Send You: Towards a Missional-Incarnational Ethos in John 4,” in Moral Language in the New Testament: The Interrelatedness of Language and Ethics in Early Christian Writings, ed. by Ruben Zimmermann, J. G. van der Watt, and Susanne Luther, WUNT, II/296 (Tübingen, 2010), 168–93. Kollias, Elias, Byzantine Art in Greece, Patmos (Athens, 1986). Kominis, Athanasios D., ed., Patmos: Treasures of the Monastery (Athens, n.d.). Kovacs, Judith L., “ ‘Now Shall the Ruler of This World Be Driven Out’: Jesus’ Death as Cosmic Battle in John 12:20–36,” JBL, 114/2 (1995), 227–47.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

222  Kovacs, Judith L., “The Purpose of the Millennium: Perspectives Ancient and Modern on Revelation 20, 1–6,” in New Perspectives on the Book of Revelation, ed. by Adela Yarbro Collins, BETL, 291 (Leuven, 2015), 353–75. Kugel, James L., “The Beginnings of Biblical Interpretation,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, ed. by Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids, MI, 2012), 3–23. Kugel, James L., Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era, rev. edn (Cambridge, MA, 1998). Kugel, James L., and Rowan A. Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation, LEC, 3, (Philadelphia, PA, 1986). Kulik, Alexander, 3 Baruch: Greek-Slavonic Apocalypse of Baruch, CEJL (Berlin; New York, 2010). Kvanvig, Helge S., “Enochic Judaism—a Judaism without the Torah and the Temple?,” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees, ed. by Gabriele Boccaccini and Giovanni Ibba (Grand Rapids, MI, 2009), 163–77. Kvanvig, Helge S., “The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. by Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids, MI, 2007), 179–215. Kysar, Robert, John, the Maverick Gospel, 3rd edn (Louisville, KY, 2007). Labahn, Michael, Offenbarung in Zeichen und Wort: Untersuchungen zur Vorgeschichte von Joh 6,1-25a und seiner Rezeption in der Brotrede, WUNT, II/117 (Tübingen, 2000). Lakoff, George, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind (Chicago, 1987). Lalleman, Pieter J., The Acts of John: A Two-Stage Initiation into Johannine Gnosticism, SAAA, 4 (Leuven, 1998). Lange, Armin, “Interpretation als Offenbarung: Zum Verhältnis von Schriftauslegung und Offenbarung in apokalyptischer und nichtapokalyptischer Literatur,” in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition, ed. by Florentino García Martínez, BETL, 168 (Leuven, 2003), 17–33. La Potterie, Ignace de, “The Truth in Saint John,” in The Interpretation of John, ed. by John Ashton, IRT, 9 (London, 1986), 53–66. Larsen, Brian, Archetypes and the Fourth Gospel: Literature and Theology in Conversation, T&T Clark Biblical Studies (London, 2018). Larsen, Kasper Bro, ed., The Gospel of John as Genre Mosaic, SANt, 3 (Göttingen, 2015). Larsen, Kasper Bro, Recognizing the Stranger: Recognition Scenes in the Gospel of John, BIS, 93 (Leiden, 2008). Law, Timothy Michael, and Charles Halton, eds., Jew and Judean: A MARGINALIA Forum on Politics and Historiography in the Translation of Ancient Texts (Los Angeles, 2014), http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/jew-judean-forum/, accessed April 6, 2020. Lee, Dorothy A., The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel: The Interplay of Form and Meaning, JSNTSup, 95 (Sheffield, 1994). Leithart, Peter J., Revelation 1–11, ITC (London, 2018). Lentzen-Deis, Fritzleo, “Das Motiv der ‘Himmelsöffnung’ in verschiedenen Gattungen der Umweltliteratur des Neuen Testaments,” Bib, 50 (1969), 301–27. Leonhardt-Balzer, Jutta, “The Johannine Literature and Contemporary Jewish Literature,” in The Oxford Handbook of Johannine Studies, ed. by Judith M. Lieu and Martinus C. de Boer (Oxford, 2018), 155–70. Leonhardt-Balzer, Jutta, “The Ruler of the World, Antichrists and Pseudo-Prophets: Johannine Variations on an Apocalyptic Theme,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi



223

Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 180–99. Levenson, Jon D., Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life (New Haven, CT, 2006). Lied, Liv Ingeborg, The Other Lands of Israel: Imaginations of the Land in 2 Baruch, JSJSup, 129 (Leiden, 2008). Lied, Liv Ingeborg, “Die syrische Baruchapokalypse und die ‘Schriften’: Die syrische Baruchapokalypse als ‘Schrift’,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures, ed. by Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, BETL, 270 (Leuven, 2014), 327–49. Lieu, Judith M., “Gnosticism and the Gospel of John,” ExpT, 90/8 (1979), 233–7. Lieu, Judith M., “Text and Authority in John and Apocalyptic,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 235–53. Lieu, Judith M., and Martinus C. de Boer, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Johannine Studies (Oxford, 2018). Lincoln, Andrew T., “The Beloved Disciple as Eyewitness and the Fourth Gospel as Witness,” JSNT, 24/3 (2002), 3–26. Lincoln, Andrew T., The Gospel according to Saint John, BNTC (London and New York, 2005). Lincoln, Andrew T., Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA, 2000). Loader, William R. G., The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Structure and Issues, BBET, 23 (Frankfurt am Main, 1989). Loader, William R. G., Jesus’ Attitude towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels, WUNT, 97 (Tübingen, 1997). Loader, William R. G., Jesus in John’s Gospel: Structure and Issues in Johannine Christology (Grand Rapids, MI, 2017). Löfstedt, Torsten, “The Ruler of This World,” SEÅ, 74 (2009), 55–79. Logan, Alastair H. B., “The Johannine Literature and the Gnostics,” in The Oxford Handbook of Johannine Studies, ed. by Judith M. Lieu and Martinus C. de Boer (Oxford, 2018), 171–85. Louw, J. P., and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2 vols (New York, 1988). Macaskill, Grant, “Apocalypse and the Gospel of Mark,” in Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the Shaping of New Testament Thought, ed. by Benjamin E. Reynolds and Loren T. Stuckenbruck (Minneapolis, MN, 2017), 53–77. Macaskill, Grant, Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, JSJSup, 115 (Leiden, 2007). McHugh, John F., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on John 1–4, ICC (London, 2009). Manning, Gary T., Echoes of a Prophet: The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John and in Literature of the Second Temple Period, JSNTSup, 270 (London, 2004). Markschies, Christoph, and Jens Schröter, eds., Antike christliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung. I. Band. Evangelien und Verwandtes (Tübingen, 2012). Martin, Francis, and William M. Wright, IV, The Gospel of John, CCSS (Grand Rapids, MI, 2015). Martyn, J. Louis, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB, 33A (New York, 1997). Martyn, J. Louis, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, NTL, 3rd edn (Louisville, KY, 2003).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

224  Meeks, Wayne A., “The Ethics of the Fourth Evangelist,” in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith, ed. by R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black (Louisville, KY, 1996), 317–26. Meeks, Wayne A., “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,” JBL, 91/1 (1972), 44–72. Menken, Maarten J. J., Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form, CBET, 15 (Kampen, 1996). Michaelis, Wilhelm, Einleitung in das Neue Testament: die Entstehung, Sammlung und Überlieferung der Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 3rd edn (Bern, 1961). Moloney, Francis J., “The Parables of Enoch and the Johannine Son of Man,” in Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift, ed. by Darrell L. Bock and James H. Charlesworth, Jewish and Christian Texts, 11 (London and New York, 2013), 269–93. Morgen, Michèle, “La Promesse de Jésus à Nathanaël (Jn 1,51) éclairée par la haggadah de Jacob-Israël,” RSR, 67 (1993), 3–21. Murphy, Frederick J., Apocalypticism in the Bible and its World: A Comprehensive Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI, 2012). Mussies, G., The Morphology of Koine Greek, As Used in the Apocalypse of St. John. A Study in Bilingualism, NovTSup, 27 (Leiden, 1971). Myers, Alicia D., and Bruce G. Schuchard, eds., Abiding Words: The Use of Scripture in the Gospel of John, SBLRBS, 81 (Atlanta, GA, 2015). Najman, Hindy, “The Exemplary Protagonist: The Case of 4 Ezra,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures, ed. by Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, BETL, 270 (Leuven, 2014), 261–87. Najman, Hindy, “How to Make Sense of Pseudonymous Attribution: The Cases of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation, ed. by Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids, MI, 2012), 308–36. Najman, Hindy, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism, JSJSup, 77 (Leiden and Atlanta, GA, 2003). Nelson, Robert S., The Iconography of Preface and Miniature in the Byzantine Gospel Book, Monographs on Archaeology and the Fine Arts, 36 (New York, 1980). Newsom, Carol A., “The Rhetoric of Jewish Apocalyptic Literature,” in The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature, ed. by John J. Collins (Oxford, 2014), 201–17. Newsom, Carol A., “Spying out the Land: A Report from Genology,” in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. by Ronald L. Troxel, Kelvin G. Friebel, and Dennis R. Magary (Winona Lake, IN, 2005), 437–50. Nicholson, G. C., Death as Departure: The Johannine Descent-Ascent Schema, SBLDS, 63 (Chico, CA, 1983). Nickelsburg, George W. E., “Enochic Wisdom and its Relationship to the Mosaic Torah,” in The Early Enoch Literature, ed. by Gabriele Boccaccini and John J. Collins, JSJSup, 121 (Leiden, 2007), 81–94. Nickelsburg, George W. E., 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN, 2001). Nickelsburg, George W. E., Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity, HTS, 56, 2nd edn (Cambridge, MA, 2006). Nickelsburg, George W. E., “Social Aspects of Palestinian Jewish Apocalypticism,” in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12–17, 1979, ed. by David Hellholm (Tübingen, 1983), 641–54.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi



225

Nickelsburg, George W. E., and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation (Minneapolis, MN, 2012). Nickelsburg, George W. E., and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 37–82, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN, 2012). Niditch, Susan, “The Visionary,” in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms, ed. by George W. E. Nickelsburg and John J. Collins, SCS, 12 (Chico, CA, 1980), 153–79. Nielsen, Jesper Tang, “The Lamb of God: The Cognitive Structure of a Johannine Metaphor,” in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language, ed. by Jörg Frey, Jan G. van der Watt, and Ruben Zimmermann, WUNT, 200 (Tübingen, 2006), 217–56. O’Day, Gail R., Revelation in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Mode and Theological Claim (Philadelphia, PA, 1986). Odeberg, Hugo, The Fourth Gospel: Interpreted in its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World (Uppsala, 1929). Orlov, Andrei A., Dark Mirrors: Azazel and Satanael in Early Jewish Demonology (Albany, NY, 2011). Orlov, Andrei A., Heavenly Priesthood in the Apocalypse of Abraham (Cambridge, 2013). Orlov, Andrei A., “On the Polemical Nature of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch: A Reply to C. Böttrich,” JSJ, 34 (2003), 274–303. Orlov, Andrei A., “Primordial Lights: The Logos and Adoil in the Johannine Prologue and 2 Enoch,” in Revealed Wisdom: Studies in Apocalyptic in Honour of Christopher Rowland, ed. by John Ashton, AJEC, 88 (Leiden, 2014), 99–115. Ossandón Widow, Juan Carlos, The Origins of the Canon of the Hebrew Bible: An Analysis of Josephus and 4 Ezra, JSJSup, 186 (Leiden, 2019). Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford, 2000), http://dictionary.oed.com/entrance.dtl, accessed April 9, 2020. Pancaro, Severino, The Law in the Fourth Gospel: The Torah and the Gospel, Moses and Jesus, Judaism and Christianity according to John, NovTSup, 42 (Leiden, 1975). Papatheophanous-Tsouri, Evangelia, “Οἱ Τοιχογραφίες τοῦ σπηλαίου τῆς Ἀποκάλψης,” in Διεθνες συμποσιο. Πρακτικα Ι. Μονη Αγ Ιωαννου του θεολογου 900 χρονια ιστορικης μαρτυριας (1088–1988) (Athens, 1989), 181–91. Parsenios, George L., Departure and Consolation: The Johannine Farewell Discourses in Light of Greco-Roman Literature, NovTSup, 117 (Leiden, 2005). Parsenios, George L., Rhetoric and Drama in the Johannine Lawsuit Motif, WUNT, I/258 (Tübingen, 2010). Patte, Daniel, Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine, SBLDS, 22 (Missoula, MT, 1975). Pelekanidis, S. M., P. C. Christou, Ch. Tsiomis, and S. N. Kadas, eds., The Treasures of Mount Athos: Illuminated Manuscripts, 2 vols (Athens, 1973). Perkins, Pheme, Gnosticism and the New Testament (Minneapolis, MN, 1993). Petersen, Anders, “Generic Docetism: From the Synoptic Narrative Gospels to the Johannine Discursive Gospel,” in The Gospel of John as Genre Mosaic, ed. by Kasper Bro Larsen, SANt, 3 (Göttingen, 2015), 99–124. Pierce, Chad T., “Satan and Related Figures,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids, MI, 2010), 1196–200. Piper, Ronald A., “Satan, Demons and the Absence of Exorcisms in the Fourth Gospel,” in Christology, Controversy, and Community: New Testament Essays in Honour of David R. Catchpole, ed. by David Horrell and C. M. Tuckett, NovTSup, 99 (Leiden, 2000), 253–78.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

226  Portier-Young, Anathea E., Apocalypse against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI, 2011). Portier-Young, Anathea E., “Jewish Apocalyptic Literature as Resistance Literature,” in The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature, ed. by John J. Collins (Oxford, 2014), 145–62. Prigent, Pierre, Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John, trans. by Wendy Pradels (Tübingen, 2004). Prigent, Pierre, “Hippolyte, commentateur de l’Apocalypse,” TZ, 28 (1972), 391–412. Pyrhönen, Heta, “Genre,” in The Cambridge Companion to Narrative, ed. by David Herman (Cambridge, 2007), 109–23. Quispel, G., “L’Évanglile de Jean et la Gnose,” in L’Évangile de Jean: études et problèmes, RechBib, 3 (Leuven, 1958), 197–208. Rainbow, Paul A., Johannine Theology: The Gospel, the Epistles and the Apocalypse (Downers Grove, IL, 2014). Reames, Sherry L., The Legenda Aurea: A Reexamination of its Paradoxical History (Madison, WI, 1985). Reed, Annette Yoshiko, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature (Cambridge, 2005). Reed, Annette Yoshiko, “Messianism between Judaism and Christianity,” in Rethinking the Messianic Idea in Judaism, ed. by Michael L. Morgan and Stephen Weitzman (Bloomington, IN, 2014), 23–62. Regul, Jürgen, Die antimarcionitischen Evangelienprologe, Vetus Latina; die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel. Aus der Geschichte der lateinischen Bibel, 6 (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1969). Reinhartz, Adele, “Building Skyscrapers on Toothpicks: The Literary-Critical Challenge to Historical Criticism,” in Anatomies of Narrative Criticism: The Past, Present, and Futures of the Fourth Gospel as Literature, ed. by Tom Thatcher and Stephen D. Moore, RBS, 55 (Atlanta, GA, 2008), 55–76. Reinhartz, Adele, Cast out of the Covenant: Jews and Anti-Judaism in the Gospel of John (Lanham, MD, 2018). Reinhartz, Adele, The Word in the World: The Cosmological Tale in the Fourth Gospel, SBLMS, 45 (Atlanta, GA, 1992). Reynolds, Benjamin E., “Apocalyptic Revelation in the Gospel of John: Revealed Cosmology, the Vision of God, and Visionary Showing,” in The Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the Shaping of New Testament Thought, ed. by Benjamin E. Reynolds and Loren T. Stuckenbruck (Minneapolis, MN, 2017), 109–28. Reynolds, Benjamin E., The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John, WUNT, II/249 (Tübingen, 2008). Reynolds, Benjamin E., “The Lamb of God in the Gospel of John and the Lambs of the Animal Apocalypse and Revelation,” in a Festschrift for James H. Charlesworth, ed. by Loren T. Stuckenbruck, Lorenzo DiTommaso, Gerbern S. Oegema, and Henry Rietz (Tübingen, forthcoming). Reynolds, Benjamin E., “The Otherworldly Mediators in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: A Comparison with Angelic Mediators in Ascent Apocalypses and in Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah,” in Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction after the Fall, ed. by Matthias Henze and Gabriele Boccaccini (Leiden, 2013), 175–93. Reynolds, Benjamin E., “Review of Apocalypticism in the Bible and its World by Frederick J. Murphy,” TJ, 36/1 (2015), 137–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi



227

Reynolds, Benjamin E., and Gabriele Boccaccini, eds., Reading the Gospel of John’s Christology as Jewish Messianism: Royal, Prophetic, and Divine Messiahs, AJEC, 106 (Leiden, 2018). Reynolds, Benjamin E., and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Introduction,” in The Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the Shaping of New Testament Thought, ed. by Benjamin E. Reynolds and Loren T. Stuckenbruck (Minneapolis, MN, 2017), 1–12. Reynolds, III, Bennie H., Between Symbolism and Realism: The Use of Symbolic and NonSymbolic Language in Ancient Jewish Apocalypses 333–63 , JAJSup, 8 (Göttingen, 2011). Rice, David, and Tamara Talbot Rice, Icons and their Dating: A Comprehensive Study of their Chronology and Provenance (London, 1974). Richey, Lance Byron, Roman Imperial Ideology and the Gospel of John, CBQMS, 43 (Washington, DC, 2007). Ridderbos, Herman, The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary, trans. by John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI, 1997). Roloff, Jürgen, The Revelation of John, CC (Minneapolis, MN, 1993). Rosch, Eleanor, “Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104/3 (1975), 192–233. Rowland, Christopher, “Apocalyptic Literature,” in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF, ed. by D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (Cambridge, 1988), 170–86. Rowland, Christopher, “Apocalyptic, Mysticism, and the New Testament,” in Geschichte— Tradition—Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by Hubert Cancik, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Peter Schäfer, 3 vols (Tübingen, 1996), , 405–30. Rowland, Christopher, “Foreword,” in Understanding the Fourth Gospel, by John Ashton, 2nd edn (Oxford, 2007), vii–ix. Rowland, Christopher, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (London, 1982). Rowland, Christopher, and Christopher R. A. Morray-Jones, The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament, CRINT, 12 (Leiden, 2009). Rowland, Christopher, and Catrin H. Williams, “Introduction,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), ix–xvi. Rubinkiewicz, R., “The Apocalypse of Abraham,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. by James H. Charlesworth (New York, 1983), , 681–705. Ruiten, Jacques van, “Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, ed. by Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids, MI, 2012), 121–56. Sabourin, Leopold, “Apocalyptic Traits in Matthew’s Gospel,” RSB, 3/1 (1983), 19–36. Sacchi, Paolo, Jewish Apocalyptic and its History, trans. by William J. Short, JSPSup, 20 (Sheffield, 1996). Sakkelion, Ioannes, Πατμιακὴ βιβλιοθήκη, ἤτοι Ἀναγραφὴ τῶν ἐν τῇ βιβλιοθήκῃ τῆς κατὰ τὴν νῆσον Πάτμον . . . μονῆς . . . Ἰωάννου τοῦ Θεολόγου τεθησαυρισμένων χειρογράφων τεύχων (Athens, 1890). Samely, Alexander, Profiling Jewish Literature in Antiquity: An Inventory, from Second Temple Texts to the Talmuds (Oxford, 2012). Schiffman, Lawrence H., “The Book of Jubilees and the Temple Scroll,” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees, ed. by Gabriele Boccaccini and Giovanni Ibba (Grand Rapids, MI, 2009), 99–115.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

228  Schnelle, Udo, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, THKNT, 4 (Leipzig, 2004). Schöpflin, Karin, “God’s Interpreter: The Interpreting Angel in Post-Exilic Prophetic Visions of the Old Testament,” in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings—Origins, Developments and Reception, ed. by Friedrich V. Reiterer, Tobias Nicklas, and Karin Schöpflin, DCLY, 2007 (Berlin, 2007), 189–203. Schuchard, Bruce G., Scripture within Scripture: The Interrelationship of Form and Function in the Explicit Old Testament Citations in the Gospel of John, SBLDS, 133 (Atlanta, GA, 1992). Schulz, Siegfried, Untersuchungen zur Menschensohn-Christologie im Johannesevangelium. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Methodengeschichte der Auslegungdes 4. Evangeliums (Göttingen, 1957). Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment, 2nd edn (Minneapolis, MN, 1998). Scott, Martin, Sophia and the Johannine Jesus, JSNTSup, 71 (Sheffield, 1992). Segovia, Fernando F., The Farewell of the Word: The Johannine Call to Abide (Minneapolis, MN, 1991). Ševčenko, Nancy Patterson, The Celebration of the Saints in Byzantine Art and Liturgy, Variorum Collected Studies Series, CS975 (Farnham, 2013). Shemesh, Aharon, “Biblical Exegesis and Interpretations from Qumran to the Rabbis,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, ed. by Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids, MI, 2012), 467–89. Sheridan, Ruth, “John’s Gospel and Modern Genre Theory: The Farewell Discourse (John 13–17) as a Test Case,” ITQ, 75/3 (2010), 287–99. Shively, Elizabeth E., Apocalyptic Imagination in the Gospel of Mark: The Literary and Theological Role of Mark 3:22–30, BZNW, 189 (Berlin, 2012). Shively, Elizabeth E., “Recognizing Penguins: Audience Expectation, Cognitive Genre Theory, and the Ending of Mark’s Gospel,” CBQ, 80 (2018), 273–92. Sinding, Michael, “Framing Monsters: Multiple and Mixed Genres, Cognitive Category Theory, and ‘Gravity’s Rainbow’,” Poetics Today, 31/3 (2010), 465–505. Sinding, Michael, “From Fact to Fiction: The Question of Genre in Autobiography and Early First-Person Novels,” SubStance, 39/2 (2010), 107–30. Skinner, Christopher W., “Overcoming Satan, Overcoming the World: Exploring the Cosmologies of Mark and John,” in Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. by Christopher Keith and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, WUNT, II/417 (Tübingen, 2016), 101–21. Smalley, Stephen S., John: Evangelist and Interpreter (London, 1978). Smith, D. Moody, John among the Gospels, 2nd edn (Columbia, SC, 2001). Sosa Siliezar, Carlos Raúl, Creation Imagery in the Gospel of John, LNTS, 546 (London, 2015). Stibbe, Mark W. G., John as Storyteller: Narrative Criticism and the Fourth Gospel, SNTSMS, 73 (Cambridge, 1992). Stibbe, Mark W. G., John’s Gospel, NTR (New York, 1994). Stokes, Ryan E., The Satan: How God’s Executioner Became the Enemy (Grand Rapids, MI, 2019). Stone, Michael E., Ancient Judaism: New Visions and Views (Grand Rapids, MI, 2011). Stone, Michael E., Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN, 1990). 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

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi



229

Wright, ed. by Frank Moore Cross, Werner E. Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller (Garden City, NY, 1976), 414–52. Stone, Michael E., Secret Groups in Ancient Judaism (Oxford, 2018). Stone, Michael E., and Matthias Henze, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: Translations, Introductions, and Notes (Minneapolis, MN, 2014). Stovell, Beth M., Mapping Metaphorical Discourse in the Fourth Gospel: John’s Eternal King, LBS, 5 (Leiden, 2012). Stuckenbruck, Loren T., “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids, MI, 2010), 143–62. Stuckenbruck, Loren T., “Coping with Alienating Experience: Four Strategies from the Third and Second Centuries ,” in Rejection: God’s Refugees, ed. by Stanley E. Porter, MNTS (Eugene, OR, 2015), 57–83. Stuckenbruck, Loren T., “Evil in Johannine and Apocalyptic Perspective: Petition for Protection in John 17,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 200–32. Stuckenbruck, Loren T., “Ezra’s Vision of the Lady: The Form and Function of a Turning Point,” in Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction after the Fall, ed. by Matthias Henze and Gabriele Boccaccini, JSJSup, 164 (Leiden, 2013), 137–50. Stuckenbruck, Loren T., “Overlapping Ages at Qumran and ‘Apocalyptic’ in Pauline Theology,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature, ed. by J.-S. Rey, STDJ, 102 (Leiden, 2014), 309–26. Sullivan, Kevin P., Wrestling with Angels: A Study of the Relationship between Angels and Humans in Ancient Jewish Literature and the New Testament, AGJU, 55 (Leiden, 2004). Swales, John M., Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings, Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series (Cambridge, 1990). Swales, John M., “Worlds of Genre—Metaphors of Genre,” in Genre in a Changing World, ed. by Charles Bazerman, Adair Bonini, and Débora de Carvalho Figueiredo (West Lafayette, IN, 2009), 3–16. Swete, Henry Barclay, The Apocalypse of St John: The Greek Text with Introduction Notes and Indices, 3rd edn (London, 1917 repr. Grand Rapids, MI, 1951). Talbert, Charles H., What Is a Gospel?: The Genre of the Canonical Gospels (Philadelphia, PA, 1977). Thatcher, Tom, Greater than Caesar: Christology and Empire in the Fourth Gospel (Minneapolis, MN, 2009). Thatcher, Tom, The Riddles of Jesus in John: A Study in Tradition and Folklore, SBLMS, 53 (Atlanta, GA, 2000). Theobald, Michael, Das Evangelium nach Johannes. Kapitel 1–12, RNT (Regensburg, 2009). Thomaskutty, Johnson, Dialogue in the Book of Signs: A Polyvalent Analysis of John 1:19–12:50, BIS, 136 (Leiden, 2015). Thompson, Marianne Meye, The Incarnate Word: Perspectives on Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA, 1993). Thompson, Marianne Meye, “Jesus: ‘The One Who Sees God’,” in Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity, ed. by David B. Capes, April D. DeConick, and Helen K. Bond (Waco, TX, 2007), 215–26. Thompson, Marianne Meye, John: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville, KY, 2015). Thompson, Marianne Meye, “Signs and Faith in the Fourth Gospel,” BBR, 1 (1991), 89–108. Thyen, Hartwig, Das Johannesevangelium, HNT, 6 (Tübingen, 2005).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

230  Tilborg, Sjef van, “Cosmological Implications of Johannine Christology,” in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar, ed. by Gilbert Van Belle, J. G. van der Watt, and P. Maritz, BETL, 184 (Leuven, 2005), 483–502. Todorov, Tzvetan, Genres in Discourse (Cambridge, 1990). Todorov, Tzvetan, “The Origin of Genres,” in Modern Genre Theory, ed. by David Duff (New York, 2000), 193–209. Tradigo, Alfredo, Icons and Saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church, trans. by Stephen Sartarelli (Los Angeles, 2006). Trozzo, Lindsey M., Exploring Johannine Ethics: A Rhetorical Approach to Moral Efficacy in the Fourth Gospel Narrative, WUNT, 449 (Tübingen, 2017). Turner, John D., “Sethian Gnosticism and Johannine Christianity,” in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar, ed. by Gilbert Van Belle, J. G. van der Watt, and P. J. Maritz, BETL, 184 (Leuven, 2005), 399–433. Unnik, Cornelis van, “Die ‘geöffneten Himmel’ in der Offenbarungsvision des Apokryphons des Johannes,” in Apophoreta: Festschrift für Ernst Haenchen zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag am 10. Dezember 1964, ed. by W. Eltester and F. H. Ketller (Berlin, 1964), 269–80. Vahrenhorst, Martin, “Johannes und die Tora: Überlegungen zur Bedeutung der Tora im Johannesevangelium,” KD, 54 (2008), 14–36. VanderKam, James C., The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, 2nd edn (Grand Rapids, MI, 2010). VanderKam, James C., Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, CBQMS, 16 (Washington, DC, 1984). Victorinus of Petovium, Apringius of Beja, Caesarius of Arles, and Bede the Venerable, Latin Commentaries on Revelation, ed. by William C. Weinrich, Ancient Christian Texts (Downers Grove, IL, 2011). Vielhauer, Philipp, “Introduction,” in New Testament Apocrypha, ed. by Wilhelm Schneemelcher, trans. by R. M. Wilson (London, 1965), , 581–607. Vines, Michael E., “The Apocalyptic Chronotype,” Semeia, 63 (2007), 109–17. Von Wahlde, Urban C., Gnosticism, Docetism, and the Judaisms of the First Century: The Search for the Wider Context of Johannine Literature and Why It Matters, LNTS, 517 (London, 2015). Von Wahlde, Urban C., The Gospel and Letters of John, ECC, 3 vols (Grand Rapids, MI, 2010). Voragine, Jacobus de, The Golden Legend: Readings on the Saints, ed. by William Granger Ryan (Princeton, NJ, 2012). Vorster, Willem S., “Gospel Genre,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. by David Noel Freedman (New York, 1992), , 1077–9. Warren, Meredith J. C., My Flesh Is Meat Indeed: A Nonsacramental Reading of John 6:51–58 (Minneapolis, MN, 2015). Watson, Francis, The Fourfold Gospel: A Theological Reading of the New Testament Portraits of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI, 2016). Watt, Jan G. van der, “Eschatology in John: A Continuous Process of Realizing Events,” in Eschatology of the New Testament and Some Related Documents, ed. by Jan G. van der Watt, WUNT, II/315 (Tübingen, 2011), 109–40. Watt, Jan G. van der, “Ethics and Ethos in the Gospel according to John,” ZNW, 97/2 (2006), 147–76. Watt, Jan G. van der, “Ethics through the Power of Language: Some Explorations in the Gospel according to John,” in Moral Language in the New Testament: The Interrelatedness of Language and Ethics in Early Christian Writings, ed. by Ruben Zimmermann, Jan G. van der Watt, and Susanne Luther, WUNT, II/296 (Tübingen, 2010), 139–67. Watt, Jan G. van der, Family of the King: Dynamics of Metaphor in the Gospel according to John, BIS, 47 (Leiden, 2000).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi



231

Watt, Jan G. van der, “The Gospel of John’s Perception of Ethical Behaviour,” In Die Skriflig, 45/2–3 (2011), 431–47. Weiss, Bernhard, Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Berlin, 1868). Weiss, Bernhard, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, trans. by James E. Duguid, 2 vols (Edinburgh, 1883). Williams, Catrin H., I Am He: The Interpretation of ‘Anî Hû‘ in Jewish and Early Christian Literature, WUNT, II/113 (Tübingen, 2000). Williams, Catrin H., “Johannine Christology and Prophetic Traditions: The Case of Isaiah,” in Reading the Gospel of John’s Christology as Jewish Messianism: Royal, Prophetic, and Divine Messiahs, ed. by Benjamin E. Reynolds and Gabriele Boccaccini, AJEC, 106 (Leiden, 2018), 92–123. Williams, Catrin H., “John’s Gospel and Jewish Apocalyptic: Some Recent Trends and Possibilities” (Presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 2014). Williams, Catrin H., “Seeing the Glory: The Reception of Isaiah’s Call-Vision in Jn 12.41,” in Judaism, Jewish Identity and Gospel Tradition, ed. by James G. Crossley (London, 2010), 186–206. Williams, Catrin H., “Unveiling Revelation: The Spirit-Paraclete and Apocalyptic Disclosure in the Gospel of John,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 104–27. Williams, Catrin H., and Christopher Rowland, eds., John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic (London, 2013). Wills, Lawrence M., The Quest of the Historical Gospel: Mark, John and the Origins of the Gospel Genre (London, 1997). Wintermute, O. S., “Jubilees,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. by James H. Charlesworth, 2 vols (New York, 1985), , 35–142. Witherington, III, Ben, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Louisville, KY, 1995). Wright, N. T., The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis, MN, 1992). Yarbro Collins, Adela, The Apocalypse (Wilmington, DE, 1979). Yarbro Collins, Adela, The Beginning of the Gospel: Probings of Mark in Context (Minneapolis, MN, 1992). Yarbro Collins, Adela, Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse (Philadelphia, PA, 1984). Yarbro Collins, Adela, “The Early Christian Apocalypses,” Semeia, 14 (1979), 61–121. Yarbro Collins, Adela, “Epilogue,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland (London, 2013), 300–7. Yarbro Collins, Adela, “Introduction: Early Christian Apocalypses,” Semeia, 36 (1986), 1–11. Yarbro Collins, Adela, Mark: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN, 2007). Yarbro Collins, Adela, ed., New Perspectives on the Book of Revelation, BETL, 291 (Leuven, 2015). Zahn, Theodor, ed., Acta Joannis (Erlangen, 1880). Zelyck, Lorne R., John among the Other Gospels: The Reception of the Fourth Gospel in the Extra-Canonical Gospels, WUNT, II/347 (Tübingen, 2013). Ziegler, Joseph, Duodecim prophetae: Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, XIII, 3rd edn (Göttingen, 1984). 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. by Jörg Frey, Jan G. van der Watt, and Ruben Zimmermann, WUNT, 200 (Tübingen, 2006), 1–43.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Index of Authors Adler, William 104 Aland, Kurt 184 Alexander, Loveday 135 Alexander, Philip S. 156 Andersen, F. I. 87, 98 Anderson, Paul 59 Armstrong, Jonathan J. 185, 187 Ashton, John 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 32–36, 37, 39, 40, 50, 52, 56, 59, 61, 62, 66, 70, 85, 86, 90, 102, 105, 116, 117, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 129, 130–1, 133, 135, 136, 143, 158, 167, 169, 180, 199, 202, 203 Attridge, Harold 2, 3, 31, 36, 206 Augenstein, Jörg 159, 160, 162 Aune, David E. 20, 23, 51, 94–6, 135, 169, 186 Bahktin, M. M. 24 Barrett, C. K. 13–14, 31–32, 49, 53, 60, 74, 112, 172, 173, 180, 181, 186, 199, 208 Bauckham, Richard 64, 125, 128, 174, 175 Bautch, Kelley Coblentz 80, 81, 147 Baynes, Leslie 30, 36, 46, 104, 153, 202 Beale, G. K. 169, 175 Bendenbender, Andreas 148 Bendoraitis, Kristian 140 Berstein, Moshe J. 145, 146 Beutler, Johannes 49, 111 Blank, Josef 75 Blatt, Ben 177 Boccaccini, Gabriele 148 Böcher, Otto 170, 173, 174, 177 Bockmuehl, Markus N. A. 7, 152, 153, 154–5, 156, 162, 207 Boice, James M. 5, 7, 8, 9 Borgen, Peder 58–9 Böttrich, Christfried 98 Boxall, Ian 167, 168, 169, 171, 172, 177, 179, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191

Boyarin, Daniel 157 Brant, Jo-Ann 2, 53, 136, 142 Brooke, George J. 145, 146 Brown, Raymond E. 6, 13, 64, 70, 88, 101–2, 112, 121, 175 Brown, Sherri 106 Buchthal, Hugo 190–1 Bühner, Jan-Adolf 59, 124 Bultmann, Rudolf 1, 4–5, 6, 7, 12–13, 15, 32, 39, 58, 59, 66, 72, 77, 90, 125, 133, 201 Burridge, Richard A. 135–6, 137, 138 Byers, Andrew J. 78 Bynum, W. Randolph 176–7 Cadman, W. H. 9 Caird, G. B. 62, 180, 181, 186 Carey, Greg 24, 29–30, 67, 109, 120, 141, 164 Carter, Warren 100–1 Charles, R. H. 89, 168, 170–1, 172, 173, 174, 181, 183 Charlesworth, James H. 13, 89 Christodoulos 189–90, 191 Cirafesi, Wally V. 13 Clement of Alexandria 1, 168 Collins, John J. 14, 20–3, 25, 26–7, 30, 33, 36, 38, 41, 42–3, 67, 68, 72, 74, 77, 79, 84, 93, 94, 98, 108–9, 113, 118–19, 132, 164, 202 Coloe, Mary L. 13, 70, 86 Conzelmann, Hans 140 Cooper, James 129 Coutinho, Maria Antónia 15, 139 Culpepper, Alan R. 39, 134, 182–5, 188 Davies, J. P. 26, 34 Davies, Margaret 2, 39 Davila, James R. 149 Deconick, April D. 2, 46, 70, 88 DeLong, Kindalee Pfremmer 140 Derrida, Jacques 16, 22, 135

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

234    Dewey, Arthur 49 Dionysius of Alexandria 168–9 DiTommaso, Lorenzo 26, 28, 29 Docherty, Susan 152 Dodd, C. H. 51, 53, 142, 164, 165, 175 Duff, David 16, 136 Dunn, James D. G. 31, 134–5, 163 du Rand, Jan A. 70 Edwards, Ruth A. 161 Ellis, F. S. 185 Endo, Masanobu 70 Engberg-Pederson, Troels 2, 4, 79, 115, 163, 164, 165 Epiphanius 183–4, 185, 198 Esler, Philip F. 96 Estes, Douglas 39 Eusebius 168, 185 Fallon, Francis T. 43, 72, 109 Fletcher-Louis, Crispin 28 Forestell, J. Terrence 8, 11 Fossum, Jarl E. 122 Fowler, Alastair 2–3, 16, 19–20, 22, 24, 36, 134, 138–9, 141, 144, 201 Freed, Edwin D. 159 Frey, Jörg 3, 6, 10, 35, 50, 61, 62, 65, 71, 77, 78–9, 83, 86–7, 90, 102–3, 128, 168, 169–70, 171–3, 175, 176, 177–8, 181–2, 206 Frow, John 3, 16, 18–19, 22, 37, 118, 136, 138, 141–2 García Martínez, Florentino 155, 161 Gathercole, Simon J. 127–8, 142, 160 Gaylord, Jr., H. E. 87 Gieschen, Charles A. 60, 122, 124 Grabbe, Lester L. 32, 83, 99, 126 Grant, Robert M. 184 Guelich, Robert 134, 135 Gundry, Robert H. 86, 125 Haenchen, Ernst 51 Hagner, Donald A. 139–40 Halton, Charles 48, 102, 157 Hamburger, Jeffrey F. 198 Hamid-Khani, Saeed 3, 8, 11, 40, 90 Hanneken, Todd R. 23, 26, 30, 83, 121, 132, 146, 151

Hanson, Anthony Tyrell 1, 3 Hanson, Paul D. 20, 29, 95, 97, 141 Hare, Douglas R. A. 165 Hartman, Lars 23 Hartvigsen, Kirsten Marie 30 Heede, Philippe van den 5, 8, 10, 11, 40, 47, 58, 90, 125, 161–2 Hellholm, David 23, 93–5, 103 Hengel, Martin 135–6, 180, 182, 185, 186 Henze, Matthias 76, 79, 96, 99–100, 110, 112, 146, 149, 150–1, 152, 154, 155, 156 Hill, Charles E. 183, 199 Himmelfarb, Martha 41, 76, 78, 81, 84, 103, 123, 133 Hippolytus 182–3, 184, 185, 198 Hogan, Karina Martin 44, 149, 150 Holmes, Laura C. S. 6–7 Hooker, Morna D. 162 Horsley, Richard A. 95, 97, 98, 103 Hoskyns, Edwyn C. 65 Huber, Hugo H. 5, 8, 9 Hurtado, Larry W. 126 Irenaeus 168, 182, 185, 198 Jassen, Alex P. 147, 154, 155, 156, 161, 162, 207 Jerome 183, 185, 187 Johnson, Timothy Jay 36, 37 Jones, Larry Paul 164 Jonge, Marinus de 10, 58 Junod, Éric 187, 188, 189 Kaestli, Jean-Daniel 187, 188, 189 Kanagaraj, Jey J. 2, 31, 46, 89 Karlin-Hayter, Patricia 189, 191 Karrer, Martin 169, 180, 186 Käsemann, Ernst 125, 141 Keddie, Anthony 96 Keener, Craig 3, 10, 12, 13, 70, 134, 136 Kenny, Anthony 169, 178 Kerr, Alan 86 Klijn, A. F. 100 Knibb, Michael A. 44 Knowles, Michael P. 149 Koch, Klaus 20–1, 24, 29, 30, 34, 118, 154, 164 Koester, Craig 10, 48, 50, 90, 123, 164–5, 169, 180

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

   Koester, Helmut 184 Kok, Kobus 107 Kollias, Elias 191 Kominis, Athanasios D. 194, 197 Kovacs, Judith L. 32, 75, 88, 141, 169 Kugel, James L. 145, 146, 152, 155 Kulik, Alexander 85 Kvanvig, Helge S. 126, 148 Kysar, Robert 1 Labahn, Michael 5 Lakoff, George 16, 17, 22 Lalleman, Pieter J. 188 Lange, Armin 154 La Potterie, Ignace de 52, 105, 112 Larsen, Brian 2, 39 Larsen, Kaspar Bro 2, 3, 36, 50, 136, 142 Law, Timothy Michael 48, 102, 157 Lee, Dorothy A. 51, 164 Leithart, Peter J. 170 Lentzen-Deis, Fritzleo 42 Leonhardt-Balzer, Jutta 13, 31, 88 Levenson, Jon D. 76 Lied, Liv Ingeborg 97. 150 Lieu, Judith M. 12, 35, 46, 65, 73, 105, 114, 157, 169, 205 Lincoln, Andrew T. 2, 49, 64, 66, 128, 136, 157, 158 Loader, William R. G. 2, 3, 4, 59–60, 62, 157, 158–9, 160 Löfstedt, Torsten 36, 88, 165 Logan, Alastair H. B. 13 Louw, J. P. 74

235

Mussies, G. 178 Myers, Alicia D. 3 Najman, Hindy 132, 146 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 207 Nelson, Robert S. 191 Newsom, Carol A. 21–3, 25 Nicholson, G. C. 6 Nickelsburg, George W. E. 27, 41, 52, 56, 76, 81, 83, 84, 87, 94, 98, 103, 104, 115, 147–8 Niditch, Susan 43, 129 Neilsen, Jesper Tang 165, 174 O’Day, Gail R. 5, 7, 40, 90 Odeberg, Hugo 32, 48, 162 Orlov, Andrei A. 35, 69, 76–7, 83, 84, 98 Origen 168 Ossandón Widow, Juan Carlos 150 Pancaro, Severino 52, 157 Papatheophanous-Tsouri, Evangelica 191 Parsenious, George L. 2, 51, 136, 142 Patte, Daniel 152, 154, 155 Pelekiandis, S. M. 190–1, 194, 195 Perkins, Pheme 72 Petersen, Anders 106 Pierce, Chad T. 83 Piper, Ronald A. 88 Portier-Young, Anathea 25, 95–6, 97, 99, 103, 148 Prigent, Pierre 173, 180, 183 Pyrhönen, Heta 2, 16, 19, 137, 138, 202 Quispel, G. 32

Macaskill, Grant 69, 103–4, 140 McHugh, John F. 10 Manning, Gary T. 47 Miranda, Florencia 15, 139, 182 Markschies, Christoph 142 Martin, Francis 5 Martyn, J. Louis 31, 34, 71–2, 85, 101–2 Meeks, Wayne A. 9, 12, 54, 58, 106 Menken, Maarten J. J. 160 Michaelis, Wilhelm 13 Moloney, Francis J. 92 Morgen, Michèle 47 Murphy, Frederick J. 26, 29–30, 67, 107, 118, 120, 130

Rainbow, Paul A. 5, 169 Reames, Sherry L. 184 Reed, Annette Yoshiko 74, 76, 83, 157 Regul, Jürgen 184 Reinhartz, Adele 3, 9, 39, 71–2, 102, 105 Reynolds, Benjamin E. 6, 9, 13, 29, 35, 51, 56, 77, 124, 126, 157, 165 Reynolds, III, Bennie H. 24, 148, 164 Rice, David 197 Rice, Tamara Talbot 197 Richey, Lance Bryon 100–1 Ridderbos, Herman 10, 47, 61, 112 Roloff, Jürgen 174

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

236    Rosch, Eleanor 17, 22 Rowland, Christopher 9, 14, 25–6, 28–9, 35, 40, 42, 46, 56, 57, 62, 84, 85, 89, 90–1, 113, 124–5, 126, 130–1, 132–3, 148, 153, 155, 167, 180, 186, 199 Rubinkiewicz, R. 62 Ruiten, Jacques van 151 Sabourin, Leopold 139–40 Sacchi, Paolo 20 Sakkelion, Ioannes 194 Samely, Alexander 20 Schiffman, Lawrence H. 151 Schnelle, Udo 53, 158 Schöpflin, Karin 57 Schröter, Jens 142 Schuchard, Bruce G. 3, 159 Schulz, Siegfried 47 Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth 168, 169, 170, 171, 173, 175, 176, 177, 180 Scott, Martin 2 Segovia, Fernando F. 142 Ševčenko, Nancy Patterson 188, 189–90, 191, 194 Shemesh, Aharon 145, 155 Sheridan, Ruth 2, 3, 36, 39, 137, 206 Shively, Elizabeth E. 30, 36, 140–1 Sinding, Michael 17–18 Skinner, Christopher W. 88, 106, 140 Smalley, Stephen S. 12 Smith, D. Moody 1, 134, 135 Sosa Siliezar, Carlos Raúl 70 Stibbe, Mark W. G. 39, 136 Stokes, Ryan E. 82–3 Stone, Michael E. 26, 39, 41, 45, 56, 57, 69, 84, 98, 99, 105, 113, 114, 125, 131, 149–50 Stovell, Beth M. 164 Stuckenbruck, Loren E. 25, 29, 54, 62, 74, 75, 79, 88, 92, 95, 97–8, 99, 103 Sullivan, Kevin P. 123, 125, 133 Swales, John M. 15, 16–18, 19, 24, 118, 141 Swete, Henry Barclay 169, 170–1, 172, 179–80

Talbert, Charles H. 135 Thatcher, Tom 13, 52, 53, 100–1 Theobald, Michael 1, 5, 71 Thomaskutty, Johnson 51–2 Thompson, Marianne Meye 10, 50, 112, 123 Thyen, Hartwig 51 Tilborg, Sjef van 90 Todorov, Tzvetan 16, 138, 141 Tradigo, Alfredo 194 Trozzo, Lindsey M. 106, 107 Turner, John D. 72 Unnik, Cornelis van 42 Vahrenhorst, Martin 159, 161 VanderKam, James C. 27, 41, 76, 83, 104, 115, 146, 156, Victorinus of Pettau 183, 185, 187 Vielhauer, Philipp 20–1, 24, 31, 34 Vines, Michael E. 24 Von Wahlde, Urban C. 31, 102 Voraigne, Jacob de 184–5 Vorster, Willem S. 135 Warren, Meredith J. C. 2 Watson, Francis 128 Watt, Jan G. van der 75, 102, 106–7, 164 Weiss, Bernhard 5 Williams, Catrin H. 9, 11, 35, 37, 48, 49, 61–2, 90, 112, 130, 133, 144 Wills, Lawrence M. 135 Wintermute, O. S. 132 Witherington, III, Ben 2 Wright, N. T. 140 Wright, IV, William 5 Yarbro Collins, Adela 6–7, 11, 23, 25, 38–9, 61, 86, 94–5, 96, 100, 103, 115, 120, 127, 129, 130, 140, 141, 169, 174, 182, 204 Zahn, Theodor 188 Zelyck, Lorne R. 1 Ziegler, Joseph 176 Zimmermann, Ruben 163

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

Index of Ancient Sources Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Genesis 1 70 1:1 LXX 70 3 141 n. 111 5–6 152 5–9 146 5:21–4 146 5:24 146 6:1–4 82 12–17 146 16 56 18 56, 141 n. 111 21 56 27:35 59 28 29 28:12 47, 58 31:11–13 56 34:13 59 34:25–9 111 35 29

Exodus 3 29 19 141 n. 111, 188 24 84, 141 n. 111, 188 24:12 144 24:18 149 31:18 144 32–4 141 n. 111 32:15–16 144, 152 33:18 84 33:18–20 49 33:19–20 188 34:1 152 34:27–8 152 40:34–5 49

Leviticus 16 83 24:7 160

Numbers 4:14 171 24:15–17 147, 152 n. 40, 154

Deuteronomy 5:1 146 18:26 159 31:12 159 31:26 159 31:28 159 33 154 33:1 147 33:1–3 147, 152 n. 40

Judges 6 56 13 56

1 Kings 6:2 81 6:3 81 6:5 81 19:3 188 19:9–18 84 19:13 84 22 29, 84

Ezra 7–10 149

Esther 8:15 171

Job 1–2 141 n. 111 3:11 44 9:8 LXX 49 10:18–19 44 37:14–39:30 45

Psalms 1:5–6 29 2 146 2:9 174

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

238     Psalms (cont.) 76:17–20 LXX 49 90 146 139 141 n. 111

Proverbs 18:4 149

Isaiah 1:1 43 6 29, 84 6:1–5 89 6:8–13 57 6:10 48, 89 11 146, 152 n. 40 11:6–9 76 40:3 155 40:10–11 175 49 146 53:1 8, 11, 48 63:11–12 148 63:19 LXX 42

Jeremiah 2:13 175 13:1 148 25:3–14 154 25:11 154 25:12 154

Ezekiel 1 29, 81, 84, 89 1:1 42, 43, 149 1:13–14 LXX 81 1:22 LXX 81 2:1 57 40–8 81, 176 40:48 81 41:1 81 47 175 47:1–12 175

Daniel 14, 22, 28, 39, 43, 68, 132, 163, 202 1:13 OG 171 1:15 OG 171 2 71 2:44 76 7 71, 140, 146, 152 n. 40, 154, 164 7–9 149 7–12 42, 79 7:1 41, 149 7:2 41 7:7–8 154

7:9 60 7:9–10 82, 84 7:13 51, 83, 177 7:13–14 26 7:16 44 7:17 165 7:21 73 7:23 165 7:25 73 7:28 41 8 71 8:1–14 41, 43 8:15–17 43, 56 8:15–26 122 8:16 42 8:17 63 8:26 111 9 103, 140, 154, 161 9:2 154 9:3–19 154 9:20–7 131, 154 9:21 43 10 123 n. 22 10:2–3 62 10:2–17 43, 50 10:5–6 44, 60 10:5–14 41 10:8–10 63 10:10–11 44, 126 10:12 126 10:13 123 n. 22 10:18–19 126 10:18–12:4 43, 50 10:19–12:4 44 10:21 44, 46, 52 11:2 44, 52, 112 11:2a Θ 44 n. 34 12:2 51, 76, 77–8 12:4 104, 111 12:9 111

Amos 1:1 44

Obadiah 1 44

Micah 1:1 44

Nahum 1:1 44

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

    Habakkuk 3:15 49

Zechariah 1:7–8 44 2:14–15 176 12:10 171, 176–7, 179 n. 64 12:10 LXX 176 13:1 175 14:48 175

Apocrypha Tobit 97 12:19 123

Sirach 1:11, prologue 171 24:8 176 24:30 149

Epistle of Jeremiah 1:11 171

1 Maccabees 1:45 96 1:48 96 1:49 96 1:60–1 96 2:15–28 96

2 Maccabees 6:6 96 6:10 96 7 96

Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Abraham 14, 39, 60, 83, 146 3:1–3 62 10 124 10:2 63 10:3 56, 60, 124 10:3–17 126 10:4 56, 59, 124 10:6 59 10:6–16 56 10:8 56, 60, 124 10:13 56, 59 11:1–6 124 11:4–17:7 44 13:7 77 13:14 77 13:15 78

239

15:1–7 82 15:4 46 16:3 84 17–18 56 17–19 42 17–29 81 17:13 56, 60 17:2 124 17:2–5 63 18 84 19:1–3 42, 57, 125 19:4 42 20–9 42 20:1 57 21:6 69 23–6 103 23:4–11 69 27:1–5 73

Apocalypse of Zephaniah 14, 63 n. 116 5:1–6 82 6:4–7 63 64:9–10 63 10:2–11:6 42

2 Baruch 14, 22, 28, 36, 60, 68, 79, 99–100, 131, 132, 202 1:1 57 3:2 62 13:1–20:6 57 21:4 70 21:4–7 68 22:1 42, 57 22:1–35:4 57 29–30 126 29:3 84 30:1 84 31:2 146 35:1–3 63 36–40 165 39 71 39–40 152 n. 40 39:7 84 40:1–3 84 41:3 106 42:2 106 42:8 76 43:1–3 110 44:3 150 46:1–3 150

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

240     2 Baruch (cont.) 48:7–8 68 48:8 70 50–1 78 50:1 110 50:2–51:5 76, 76 n. 43 52:51 106 53 41, 164 53–74 57, 71 53:12 41 55–76 44 55:1–2 63 55:2 65 55:3 55, 57, 59, 126 55:4–74:4 44 56:1 57 56:3–4 68 56:5–6 70 59:7 149, 175 n. 42 70:9 76 72 126 72:2 84 72:2–3 76 72:2–73:1 78 73:1–74:4 76 73:6–7 76 75:1–8 44 76:1–5 44, 110 76:5 111 77:13 112 78–87 113 84:1–9 150–1 85:1–5 146 87:5–6 105

3 Baruch 14, 28 1:1–3 62 1:6 47 2–17 42 2:1 46, 122 2:2 51 2:5 122 3–16 81 4:2 Slavonic 85 6:12 85 7:2 85 8:3 82 9:5 87 11:2 85

16:6 Slavonic 85 17:1–4 113 17:3 63

1 Enoch 14, 22, 146–8, 151–2, 202 Book of the Watchers 14, 20, 22, 28, 39, 41, 45, 56, 57, 69, 76, 80, 81–3, 84, 98–9, 120, 147, 152, 154, 162, 164, 202 1–36 56 1:1 147, 154 1:1–3 152 n. 40 1:2 51 1:2–3 147 1:4 147 6–7 98 6–8 69 6:1–7:8 82 6:3 82 6:7 82 7:3–5 99 8:1–2 83 8:3 82 8:3–4 83 8:4 99 9–11 82 9:1–3 99 9:4–11 99 9:6 83 9:7 82 10 74 10–11 71 10:1–15 99 10:4 83 10:4–6 83 10:11 82 10:16–11:2 99 13:10 52 14 164 14:4 51 14:8 45, 80, 81 14:8–25 41 14:9 81 14:9–12 80 14:10 52 14:10–13 81 14:15 81 14:18–20 84 14:18–21 81

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

    14:19 84 14:20 82, 165 14:21 84 14:24 63 14:24–16:3 57 15:1 52 16 27 17–19 80 18:10–19:3 74 19:1–2 82 20:1–8 56, 122 20:8 56 n. 80 21–34 80 21–36 56, 56 n. 80 21:1–2 41 21:7 41 22 27, 74, 76 22:1 41 23:1–2 41 24:2 41 26:1 41 26:6 63 28:1 41 28:1–32:6 69 29:1–2 41 30:1 41 31:1 41 31:2 41 32:1 41 32:3 41 32:6 70 33:1 41 34:1 41 35:1 41 36:1 41 36:2 41 36:4 63

Parables of Enoch 37–71 75 38 83 39:3 41, 45 39:3–4 86 n. 93 39:4 41 39:4–5 86, 86 n. 93 39:5 86 n. 93 39:6 41 39:7 41, 86 n. 93 39:3–40:10 41 39:12–14 82

40:1 41, 82 40:2–10 44, 82 41:1 41 41:2 41, 86, 86 n. 93 41:3 41 41:4 41 41:5 41 41:7 41 43:1 41 44:1 41 45:3 86 n. 93, 87 46 83, 126, 146 46–8 84 46:1 41 48 152 n. 40 48–9 146 48:1 149 48:6 84 51:1–5 76, 78 52:1 45 53:3 83 54:5 83 54:6 83 55:4 83 56:8 73 62 83, 84, 146, 162 62–3 74 62:13–16 87 64:1–2 74 67:2 84 69:2–12 83 69:27 51, 89 70:1 126 n. 35 71 84 71:9 82 71:11 63 71:11b 63 71:14 78, 126, 126 n. 35, 133 71:16 86 n. 93, 87

Book of the Luminaries 72–80 164 72–82 80, 119, 122 72:1 39 73:1 39 74:1 39 80:1–8 44 80:2–8 27 81–2 61, 112, 113 81:1–2 46

241

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

242     Book of the Luminaries (cont.) 81:1–6 145 81:4 74 81:5 45, 111 81:5–6 104, 114 81:7–9 74 81:7–10 105 81:10 63, 114 81:19 27 82:1 104, 114, 115 82:1–2 104 82:4 104, 105 82:5–7 27

Book of Dreams 83–90 71, 119 83:1 41 83:1–2 39 83:5–6 63 83:11 63 84:1–6 63 84:59–68 73 85–6 69 85–90 165 85:1–2 41 85:3 41 89:1 148 89:1–12 148 89:29 148 89:29–35 148 89:32 148 89:36 148 89:45–6 175 90:2–4 73 90:6–19 73 90:8–19 103 90:9b–10 175 90:37–8 175 90:39–42 39 90:40–2 113

Apocalypse of Weeks 132 91:11–17 71 91:11 103 91:12 74 91:15 74 93:1 147 93:1–2 104, 114 93:1–3 147, 152 n. 40 93:1–10 71

93:2 46 93:6 147 93:10 103

Epistle of Enoch 92:1 104 108:1 104

2 Enoch 14, 43, 68, 94, 98, 111 n. 80 1:2–3 63 3–22 42, 81 3:1 45 4:1 J 82 5:1 82 7 74 7:1–5 83 8:1–8 86 n. 93 9:1 86 n. 93 8:8 82 10 74 18:3–6 83 18:4 J 83 22 76, 84 22:4 63 22:8–10 78, 82 22:9–10 133 23:1–3 44 23:1–6 110, 114 24:2–33:4 J 69 24:2–36:3 44 24:4 A 70 33:5 114 33:8 105 33:8–9 103–4, 114 35:2 104, 114 36:1 104, 105, 110, 114 39–66 112 40:2 114 40:12–42:2 74 42 104 47–8 70 47:2b-48:5 69 61:1–2 86 n. 93 61:2 86 n. 93, 87 64:2–6 113 65–7 113 65:9–10 86 n. 93 65:10 87 67:3 A 114 68–73 113

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

    4 Ezra 14, 22, 36, 39, 60, 68, 97, 131, 132, 163, 202 3:1 41 3:1–2 146, 149 3:1b-3 63 3:4 69, 70 3:14 150, 153 3:28–5:20 44 4 54, 139 4:1 47, 54, 56, 59, 122 4:1–11 54 4:1–12 45 4:1–5:13 99 4:1–12:39 57 4:2–3 45 4:5–11a 45 4:6 54 4:7–11 60 4:8 55 4:10 54 4:12 45, 54 4:21 54 4:22–5 45 4:23 150 5:13 47, 63, 109 5:19 56 5:20 63 5:21–6:34 44 5:31 56, 125 n. 29 5:31–40 54 5:35 44 5:36–40 45 5:38 56 5:38–56 125 n. 29 5:43 57 5:45 57 n. 84 6:6 57 6:11 57 n. 84 6:11–16 125 n. 29 6:30–2 125 n. 29 6:31 109 6:31–55 45 6:31 47 6:33 47, 57 6:33–4 109 6:35 63 6:35–6 41 6:35–9:25 44 6:38 69, 70

6:38–54 69 7:1 56, 57 7:1–17 125 n. 29 7:11 57 7:17 56 7:19 57 7:21–22a 70 7:32 76 7:32–6 78 7:33–6 76 7:45 56 7:106–11 146 8:20–1 85 n. 85 8:21 131 8:36 56 9 164 9:10–11 57 9:27–8 41 9:38 41 10:25–59 54 10:28–9 56 10:37–40 44 11–13 84, 99, 152 n. 40 11:1 41 12 71 12:7–9 56 12:7–10 44 12:10 56 12:10–12 154 12:31–2 84 12:32 84 12:32–4 84 12:37–8 109 12:37–9 149 12:39 56 13 78, 126, 164 13:1 41 13:14 56 13:14–15 44 13:20b 56 13:21 44 13:26 84 13:29 57 13:32 57 13:37 57, 84 13:44 57 13:47 57 13:51–3 44 13:52 84

243

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

244     4 Ezra (cont.) 14 54, 57, 99, 109, 149–50, 188 14:1–2 41 14:1–3 57 14:1–5 153 14:3–4 149 14:5–6 149 14:9 113 14:13–15 109 14:21 104, 114 14:21–2 150 14:22 105, 150 14:23 149 14:24 111 14:26 111 14:30 150 14:37 111 14:42 57 14:42–4 149 14:44–6 114 14:45 150 14:45–6 104, 111 14:45–8 99 14:47 149, 175 n. 42 14:48 113 14:49–50 113, 131 14:50 113

Jubilees 14, 55, 60, 63 n. 116, 131–2 1 188 1–2 122, 124 1:1 104, 114, 145 1:4 132 1:22 125 n. 29 1:26 125 n. 29 1:27 125 n. 29 1:27–8 46 1:27–9 132 1:29 153 1:29–2:1 57 2:1 56, 125 n. 29, 132 2:4 151 4:1–18 151 6:17–22 132 6:20 125 n. 29 6:32 125 n. 29 6:32–8 151 10:8–13 83 10:11 83 n. 71 13:26 132

15:25–7 132 23 146 33:10–14 132 33:18 125 n. 29 49:1–50:13 132 50:1–2 125 n. 29

Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs 31 Testament of Levi 2–5 46 2:4 63 2:6 42 3:1 51 3:3 83 n. 70 3:4 165 4:1 73 5 76, 82, 133 5:1 42, 84 5:3 111 5:7 63, 113

Testament of Abraham 14, 81 1:4 55 1:4–7 124 2:1 55 4:9–10 A 123 7:3 A 42 7:8–12 65 n. 124

Dead Sea Scrolls Damascus Document (CD) I, 14-II, 1 156

1QpHab 145 1QpNah 1.1–3 156

1QS VIII, 14–16 155 VIII, 15 161

1QH XI.19–23 79 XIX.3–14 79

4Q252 (4QCommentary on Genesis) 145 4Q381 69.1–5 155

4Q390 I, 4–7 155

Ancient Jewish Writers Josephus

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

    Jewish War 5.402 159

Philo De confusione linguarum 146 58 Legum allegoriae 1.14 (1:43) 58 De opificio mundi 24–5 151 n. 39

New Testament Matthew 1–2 3 n. 27 10:3 128 23:37 179 n. 64 24–5 140 24:30 177

Mark 1:1 135 13 140 7:1–23 156 12:13–27 156 14:51–2 128 15:17 171 n. 20 15:20 171 n. 20 16:19 1

Luke 1:1–4 128, 128 n. 43 16:19 171 n. 20 24:25–7 3 n. 27 24:22–6 3 n. 27 24:51 1

John 1–12 11 1:1 9, 122. 124, 125, 139, 162, 163, 173, 204, 207 1:1–2 58, 85, 105, 162, 209 1:1–3 70 1:1–4 12, 201 1:1–5 188, 204 1:2 9, 173 1:3 122 1:3–4 58, 119, 161 1:4–5 11, 70 1:5 12 1:6 172 1:9 9, 11, 12, 39, 102 1:10 122, 173

245

1:11 64 1:12–13 78 1:14 11, 12, 39, 46, 64, 65, 90, 105, 119, 121, 122, 123, 125, 129, 162, 165, 171, 173, 175, 201 1:15 102, 162 n. 93 1:16 161, 161 n. 91, 162 1:16–17 189 1:17 11, 71, 122, 158, 161, 201 1:17–18 145 1:18 6, 10, 12, 39, 49, 55, 60, 89, 105, 125, 161, 163, 201, 205 1:19 179 n. 64 1:19–12:50 32, 52 1:29 165, 171, 174 1:29–34 49, 102 1:33–43 49 1:35–40 128 1:36 165, 171, 174 1:39 49, 111 1:41 99 1:45 88, 158, 159, 160 1:46 49 1:47 59, 71 1:49 59, 65 1:50 47, 59, 64 1:50–1 47, 59, 121, 203 1:51 11, 47, 49, 50, 58, 64, 87, 118, 121, 122 n. 19, 129, 139, 162 n. 93 2:11 6, 10, 11, 12, 39, 48, 64, 90, 105, 121, 129, 139, 165, 173 n. 28, 211 2:13 86 n. 90, 179 n. 64 2:15 86 2:18 173 n. 28 2:22 3 n. 27, 6 n. 43, 65, 160 2:23 173 n. 28 3 3, 54, 100 3:1 172 3:1–12 65 3:1–21 53, 118 3:2 53, 173 n. 28 3:2–11 139 3:3 53 3:4 53 3:5 53 3:6–8 53 3:7 65 3:8 86 3:9 53, 54

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

246     John (cont.) 3:10 53 3:10–12 54 3:10–21 54 3:11 9, 112 3:11–12 9 3:12 9, 32, 53, 201, 205 3:12–13 11, 39, 124, 139 3:13 6, 9, 32, 54, 55, 58, 60, 88, 89, 119, 133, 162 n. 93, 201 3:14 6, 6 n. 43 3:16 72, 75, 77, 78, 105, 119, 126, 139 3:16–17 119 3:17 9, 58, 59, 85, 122, 124, 201 3:18 75, 119, 205 3:19 9, 75 3:20 107 3:20–1 11 3:21 106, 172, 204 3:22 54 n. 76 3:28 102 3:29 177 3:31 9, 58, 85, 101, 112, 119, 124 3:21–2 201 3:31–6 9, 85 3:32 9, 60 3:36 75, 77, 78, 105, 107, 119 4 3, 100 4:1–26 53, 65, 118 4:9 53 4:10 53 4:11–12 53 4:12 71, 162 n. 93 4:14 175 4:19–20 53 4:20 179 n. 64 4:21 179 n. 64 4:24 53 4:26 53 4:27 172 4:31–4 123 4:34 10, 126 4:35 107 4:35–8 110 4:42 6, 101 4:45 179 n. 64 4:46–54 64 4:48 50 4:54 173 n. 28

5 51, 78, 169, 203 5:1 179 n. 64 5:2 179 n. 64 5:1–9 64 5:1–15 51 5:1–47 118 5:2 171 5:6–9 65 5:14 65 5:16–18 51 5:17 125 5:17–18 60, 105 5:18 125, 160 5:19–20 10, 53 5:19–22 9 5:19–23 51 5:19–24 123, 125 5:19–30 90 5:19–47 51 5:20 51 5:22 75, 89 5:24 77, 105, 119, 205 5:27 75, 78, 88, 89, 126, 204 5:28–9 51, 77–8, 107, 204 5:28 77, 119 5:28–9 106 5:29 75, 78, 107, 119 5:30–40 51 5:33 11, 102 5:36 10, 126 5:36–47 160 5:37 49 5:39 158, 162, 207 5:39–40 51 5:39–47 162 5:43 125 5:43–4 60 5:45 158 5:46 51, 71, 105, 159, 160, 207 5:47 158 6 100, 203 6:1–15 64 6:2 173 n. 28 6:14 173 n. 28 6:16–21 49 6:19 49 6:20 49 6:27 53, 110 6:29 10, 106, 108, 110

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

    6:30 173 n. 28 6:32–5 58 6:33 9 6:35 105, 173 6:39 77, 119 6:39–40 107, 204, 205 6:40 77, 119 6:44 77 6:46 49, 55, 58, 60, 89, 162, 201 6:53–4 122 6:54 77 6:58 53 6:62 6, 9, 58, 88, 119 6:70 88 7–9 126 7:15 65, 159 7:16–17 60 7:17 60 7:19 158, 159 7:19–24 162 7:21 64 7:22–4 159, 161 7:23 158, 159, 160 7:27–8 86 7:33 85, 172 7:37 173 7:37–8 105 7:37–9 175 7:38 160 7:39 6 n. 43 7:41–2 160 7:46 122 7:47–9 159 7:49 160 7:50–1 54 7:51 122, 160 7:52 159, 160, 162 8:12 11, 12 8:14 85, 86 8:16–17 159, 161 8:17 158, 159, 160 8:21–2 85 8:21–4 86 8:22 86 8:23 9, 58, 85, 101 8:23–30 90 8:26 126 8:28 6 n. 43, 60, 125, 126 8:28–9 9

8:38 9 8:40 9 8:40–6 11 8:42 85 8:44 70, 88, 88 n. 99, 119, 204 8:51 172 8:51–2 78, 173 n. 28 8:52 172 8:55 172 8:56 207 8:56–7 63 8:56–8 71 8:58 105, 122, 162, 162 n. 93 9:3 10 9:4–5 110 9:5 11 9:5–38 65 9:16 122 9:22 71, 74, 102 9:24 122 9:28–9 160 9:29–30 86 9:30 9 9:33 58, 85, 119 9:34 74 9:35–9 88 9:37 48, 172, 203 9:38 53 9:39 12, 58, 75, 119, 122, 204 9:39–10:21 65 10 3 10:1–18 174 10:3–4 112 10:11 174 10:11–16 175 10:14–15 174 10:14–17 106 10:16 112 10:18 172 10:22 179 n. 64 10:24 171 n. 17 10:25 60 10:27 112 10:30 60, 105, 125, 163 10:31–3 160 10:31–5 161 10:33–5 160 10:34 158, 159, 160 10:34–5 159

247

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

248     John (cont.) 10:35 158 10:36 9, 58, 59, 122 11:18 179 n. 64 11:21–7 65 11:25 77 11:25–6 77, 204 11:27 9, 119 10:34 158 11:43–4 77 11:44 171 11:45 48, 64 11:55 179 n. 64 11:55–6 86 n. 90 12:2 123 12:12 179 n. 64 12:13 171 12:16 3 n. 27, 6 n. 43, 65, 174 12:20 86 n. 90 12:23 90, 126, 174 12:28 60, 89, 119, 125, 165 12:29 89 12:30–2 75 12:31 88, 119 12:31–2 177 12:34 6 n. 43, 88, 160 12:34–5 11 12:35 172 12:36 11 12:37 11, 48, 90 12:37–8 11, 65, 126, 129 12:37–40 64 12:37–43 64 12:38 8, 12, 48, 89–90, 121 12:38–41 39 12:39 48 12:40 89 12:41 11, 48, 63, 71, 89, 105, 121, 203, 207 12:42 71, 74, 102 12:44 107 12:45 48, 58, 59, 89, 90, 201 12:46 11 12:47–8 78 12:48 75, 204 12:49 60 12:49–50 12, 60 13–14 51 13–17 3 13:1 86 n. 90

13:2 88, 122 13:3 86 13:8 172 13:15 106 13:18 160 13:23 64, 128, 198 n. 138 13:23–6 64, 66, 128 13:27 88, 119 13:31–2 11, 125, 126, 165, 174 13:33 58, 86 13:34 106, 108, 110, 115, 120 13:36 86 13:37 112 14 10 14:1 65 14:1–3 58, 78 14:2 87 n. 95, 176 14:2–3 9, 86, 107, 119, 120, 209 14:2–4 86, 100 14:3 78 14:4–5 86 14:5 86 14:6 126 14:6–7 163 14:7 10, 65, 118 14:8–9 10, 48, 90 14:9 59, 105, 118, 121, 201 14:9–10 39, 203 14:9–11 12 14:10 60 14:12 9, 86 14:15 173 n. 28 14:16–17 61 14:21 173 n. 28 14:23 172, 176 14:23–4 173 n. 28 14:24 60, 172 14:25–6 112 14:26 61, 78, 111 14:27 101, 112 14:28 9, 86 14:30 88, 172 15 100 15:1 165 15:1–25 52 15:1–16:28 51 15:5 107 15:6 78, 107 15:8–10 107

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

    15:10 106, 173 n. 28 15:12 106, 108, 120 15:13 106 15:15 9 15:16–17 107 15:18–19 205 15:18–21 52 15:20 119, 172, 173 n. 28, 204 15:20a 73 15:20b 73 15:22–4 75 15:25 158, 159, 160 15:26 61 15:27 112 16:1–4 52 16:2 71, 74, 102, 119, 204 16:2–3 100 16:4 172 16:5 9, 58, 86 16:5–11 100, 120 16:5–16:28 52 16:6 65 16:7–8 88 16:7–11 75 16:10 58, 86 16:11 75, 88 16:12 52, 172 16:12–15 112 16:13 61, 175 n. 41 16:14–15 61 16:17 86 16:17–18 51 16:18 65 16:22 65 16:25 52 16:25–7 52 16:27–30 86 16:28 58, 86 16:29 52 16:33 74, 119, 177 17:1 11 17:3 72 17:5 11, 58, 70, 122, 125, 161, 162, 165, 204, 207 17:6 10, 172 17:6–8 90 17:8 58, 60, 86, 172 17:11 74, 105, 125 17:11–12 60

17:12 74, 160, 172 17:15 74, 88, 119, 172 17:18 58, 59, 122 17:21 9, 58, 59, 122 17:22 125 17:23–4 176 17:24 9, 70, 107 17:26 10, 78 18:15 128 18:28–19:11 101 18:31 158, 159, 160, 161 18:33 52 18:33–38 52 18:36 52, 86, 101 18:37 52, 101, 120 18:38 52 19:2 171 19:5 171 19:7 159, 160 19:8–11 52 19:9 52, 86 19:11 52 19:13 171 19:17 171 19:20 171 19:24 160 19:26 64, 128 19:28 160 19:28–30 106, 123 19:29–30 123 19:34–5 65, 119, 128 19:35 64, 105, 114, 123, 128 19:36 160 19:37 160, 171, 176 19:39–41 54 19:42 123 20 3, 111, 205 20:1–18 123 20:2 64, 128 20:2–10 128 20:6 172 20:8 64, 65, 105, 128 20:12–13 87, 119 20:14–17 50 20:16 65, 171 20:17 58, 209 20:18 112 20:19 49, 101, 112 20:19–23 49

249

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

250     John (cont.) 20:21 49, 101, 107, 112 20:21–2 111, 115, 119 20:21–3 62 20:22–3 50 20:26 49, 112 20:26–9 49 20:27–29 121 20:28 65, 114 20:29 50, 114, 206, 206 20:30 10 20:30–1 64, 72, 105, 114, 120, 126, 205 20:31 64, 77 21 111, 114, 205 21:2 64 21:4–7 50 21:7 64, 65, 128 21:13–15 123 21:15 111, 171, 174 21:15–17 112, 115, 119 21:16 111, 174, 175 21:17 111 21:19 111, 115, 119 21:20 64, 128 21:22 79 21:22–3 209 21:24 64, 65, 104, 114, 119, 128 21:24–5 114, 119, 205 21:25 64, 115

Acts 2:1 197 n. 135 6:5 187 26:19 186 n. 101 27:12 171

2 Corinthians 4:4 88 12:2–4 186 n. 101

Galatians 1:15–16 186 n. 101 1:17 179 n. 64 1:18 179 n. 64 2:1 179 n. 64 3:19 57 4:25 179 n. 64 4:26 179 n. 64

Ephesians 2:2 88

1 John 173, 178 1:6 172 2:5 172 2:7–10 106 3:4 172 3:5 174 3:7 172 3:8 172 3:9 172 3:10 172 4:7 106 4:10 174 5:10 172

Revelation 22, 28, 61, 68 1–3 178 1:1 197–8, 197 n. 135 1:1–2 172 n. 25, 188 1:3 105, 172, 172 n. 25, 179 1:4–6 179 1:7 60, 171, 176 1:8 60 1:9 62, 128, 185, 186–7, 188, 209 1:9–11 188 1:12 172, 190 1:12–20 127 1:13 60 1:13–15 60 1:16 171 1:17 60, 63 1:18 60 1:19 105 1:19–20 60 2–3 105 2:2 172 2:27 174 2:28 172 3:8 172, 173 n. 28 3:10 172, 173 n. 28 3:12 179 n. 64 4 84 4:1 42, 127, 172, 198 n. 138 4:6–8 82 5:5 177 5:5–6 165 5:6 171, 174 5:9–14 174 6:8 172 6:11 172

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

    7:9 171 7:15 171, 176 7:15–17 176 7:17 174, 175, 175 n. 41 8:2–9:13 82 9:11 171, 172 10:4 104 10:8 172 10:11 183 11:1 183 11:15 82 12:5 174 12:7–11 177 12:12 171 12:17 173 n. 28 13:6 171 13:13–14 173 n. 28 14:6 82 14:12 173 n. 28 15:1 82 16:14 173 n. 28 16:16 171 17:1 172 17:4 171 17:14 177 18:16 171 19 173 19:9 177 19:11 42, 173 19:15 174 19:16 173 19:20 173 n. 28 20 169 20:3 172 20:6 172 20:7–10 177 20:9 171 n. 17 21:1–3 176 21:1–4 76 21:2 177, 179 n. 64 21:3 171, 175, 176 21:6 175 21:7 172 n. 25 21:9 172, 172 n. 25, 177 21:10 179 n. 64 21:15 172 21:27 172

251

22:7 172, 173 n. 28, 179 22:9 172, 173 n. 28 22:13 60 22:15 172 22:17 173, 175, 177 22:18 179 22:21 179

New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Acts of John 188 n. 109 Acts of John by Prochorus 187–9, 190–2, 194, 198, 209 Apocalypse of Peter 3–5 127

Gospel of Judas 142 Gospel of Mary 142 Gospel of Thomas 142 Testament of our Lord 2:27 129 n. 48

Early and Medieval Christian Writings Christodoulos, Hypotyposis 189 Epiphanius, Panarion 51.12.2 183–4 51.33.9 184

Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 3.18.1–3 182, 185 3.20.8–3.23.4 185 3.24.17–18 185 3.39.4–6 168 6.14.7 1, 168 6.25.9–10 168 7.25.1–2 168 7.25.8 169 7.25.12–16 169 n. 8 7.25.23 169 7.25.24–7 169

Hippolytus, Apologia pro apocalypsi et evangelio 183 Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 2.22.5 182 3.1.1 168, 182 4.20.11 182

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 11/9/2020, SPi

252     Irenaeus, Adversus haereses (cont.) 5.26.1 168, 182 5.20.3 182

Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 187 Jerome, De viris illustribus 9 185

Muratorian Fragment 187, 198, 209 Simeon Metaphrastes, Remembrance of St. John the Theologian 189–90 Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John 183

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

General Index Abraham in Apocalypse of Abraham 44, 46, 56, 57, 63, 69, 77, 81, 83, 84, 124, 146 in Apocalypse of Weeks 148 in 4 Ezra 149, 153 in John 71, 105, 122, 162, 207–8 in Testament of Abraham 65 n. 124, 123 agency, Jewish 58–9 angels 82–3 angel of the presence 46, 55, 56, 122, 125, 132, 153 Gabriel 43–4, 56, 62–3, 82, 99, 122, 131, 154 Michael 55–6, 81–2, 99, 123 otherworldly mediator 40, 44, 55–62, 66, 82, 89, 119, 122–7, 129–30, 203, 206 Phanuel 81–2, 122 Remiel 44, 55, 56–7, 56 n. 80, 59, 68, 110–11, 126 Uriel 44–5, 46–7, 54–7, 59, 99, 109, 122, 125, 139 Yahoel 43, 44, 56, 57, 59–60, 84, 124–6, 146 Antiochus IV 96, 154 apocalypse(s) Christian 127 definition of 19–30, 202 gnostic 68 n. 6, 72–3, 109 n. 77 Jewish 14, 22, 27–8, 30–4 authorship of apocalypses 62, 129 of John 63–6, 127–9, 180–6 of Revelation 180–6 Azazel 77, 82–3 Baruch 41–2, 44, 46–7, 57, 62–3, 81–2, 84–5, 100, 110–13, 126, 146, 150–1 Beloved disciple (see also, authorship, of John) 63–6, 114–15, 127–9, 143 books, heavenly (tablets) 46, 104–5, 114–15, 153, 166, 207 cave of revelation 188, 191–2, 194, 197–8 cognitive prototypes 17–19

cosmology in apocalypses 80–5, 86–7 in John 85–91 creation 68–71, 119 devil (see Satan and Ruler of this World) Diadochi 98–9 dialogues in apocalypses 44–5, 57, 99 in John 50–4, 118, 139 discourses in apocalypses 43–4 in John 50–1, 101, 118 Domitian 182–3, 185 dreams 41, 118 dwellings, heavenly 86–7 empire in John 100–1 resistance to 95–6 Enoch in 1 Enoch 41–2, 44–6, 57, 63, 69, 74, 76, 78, 80–2, 84, 109–10, 113–14, 133, 147 in Genesis 146, 152 Elijah 60, 84, 146, 188 epiphanies 42–3, 49–50, 121 eschatology in Jewish apocalypses 25–9, 73–4 in John 73–5 eternal life in apocalypses 76 in John 77–8 ethics, Johannine 105–7, 119 Ezra in 4 Ezra 41, 44, 47, 54, 56–7, 62–3, 99, 109, 111, 113–14, 131, 146, 146 n. 8, 149–50, 153–54 in the Hebrew Bible 149, 149 n. 24 genre of apocalypse 19–30 of gospel 134–7

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

254   genre (cont.) of John 134–7 theory 15–19 Golden Legend 184–5 greater things 47, 64, 203 heaven, opening of 11, 42–3, 47–8, 90, 118, 121, 203 heavenly mysteries/things (see also, dwellings, heavenly) in apocalypses 26, 28, 31–3, 42, 60, 98 n. 24, 104, 123 in John 9, 11–12, 33, 39, 51–4, 85, 118, 123, 203, 205 human recipient 62–65, 127–9, 131 iconography 190–8 imagery 163–6 Isaiah 60, 71, 89–90, 162 n. 93, 208 Jesus as human 122–24 as mediator 58–62, 119, 122–7, 137–9, 203, 206 as revealer 125–7 judgment eschatological 25–9, 74–75, 76 of evil beings 27, 75, 88 Lamb/Lamb of God 165–6, 171, 174–5 law (see Torah) mediator, otherworldly (see angels, otherworldly mediator) Merkabah/Merkavah mysticism 31, 58 Moses in apocalypses 145–56 in Dead Sea Scrolls 155 in 1 Enoch 145, 147–8 in 4 Ezra 149–50, 153 in John 51, 71, 102, 158–63 in Jubilees 46, 56, 132, 151, 153 in the Hebrew Bible 84, 144, 147, 153, 155 Muratorian Fragment 187, 209 name, divine Yahoel 56, 59–60, 126 Jesus 10, 124–5 Nicodemus 53–4, 65, 139, 160 Pilate 52, 101 Prochorus (Prochoros) 187–8, 190–8

pseudonymity in apocalypses 20, 62, 129 and John 128–9 Reception history of John 180–97 redeemer myth 7, 12–13, 58 revelation auditory 43–5, 50–4, 118, 203–4 Johannine background of 12–14 definition of 7 in John 8–12, 46–54, 121, 125–7, 201 inspired 154–6, 162–3, 207 visual 40–3, 46–50, 121, 203–4 revelatory exegesis 155–6, 162–3, 207 resurrection in Christian apocalypses 127 in Jewish apocalypses 76 in John 77–8, 119 ruler of this world 88, 119, 177 salvation 75–8, 132 Samaritan Woman 53, 65, 129 Satan in apocalypses 83 in John 88, 119, 177 in Revelation 177 Shemihazah 82–3, 98 sight (see also vision) 8, 10, 41–3, 48–50, 64, 121, 203 signs 9–10, 11, 39–40, 48, 203 Son of Man 6, 11, 58–60, 83–4, 88 Suidas 184 tablets, heavenly (see writing and books, heavenly) theophany 49 time 78–9 Torah in apocalypses 145–56 in John 157–63 Trajan 182, 185 vision(s) 41–3, 47 of God 84–5, 89–91, 118 of heaven 42 Watchers 69, 82–3, 98 works, as revelatory 9–10 writing authority of 104, 153 of books 46, 104–5, 111, 114–15, 149–50 of John 114–15, 127–8