No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 January 2009
There is a long tradition recognizing the evangelist as a theologian of stature. In recent times C.K. Barrett referred to him as a theologian second only to Paul and Martin Hengel described John as “a towering theologian”. In this paper it is argued that the evangelist was a profoundly theological writer and that a complex eschatology formed an essential dimension of his theology which was shaped in the dialogue and debate with the synagogue resulting in the development of distinctive christological, theological and eschatological views that have significantly influenced subsequent Christian history.
1 The Gospel According to St John, SPCK, London 1978 (2nd ed), pp. 127, 134.Google Scholar
2 The Johannine Question. SCM, London 1989, pp.ix, 96, 99, 104, 108.Google Scholar
3 The Prologue does not replace the old beginning of the Gospel but is added to it. Thus Dodd, C.H. (The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, CambridgeU.P., Cambridge 1953, pp.292–296)CrossRefGoogle Scholar notes that the Proem contains 1.1–1.51. A case can be made for seeing 1.1–2.11 as the introduction with 2.1–11 forming a bridge passage with the next section, 2.1–4.54. See my “Quest Stories in John 1–4”, JSNT 41 (1991) pp. 33–70Google Scholar and The Quest for the Messiah, T & T Clark, Edinburgh 1991, pp. 129–173.Google Scholar
4 Two others are Jesus and the narrator. The words of both Jesus and the Baptist sometimes imperceptively become the words of the narrator, no longer addressed to characters within the story but addressed directly to the reader, see 1.15–18; 3.10–21; 3.27–36. All three speak the same language and give expression to the distinctive Johannine theology/christology. While the Father and the Spirit are also presented as reliable witnesses they do not speak directly (apart from 12.28) either to characters in the story or to the reader. See my Quest, 1991, pp.197–199.
5 Because Jewish interpretation does not treat Genesis 3 as ‘the fall’ it remains possible to be in harmony with God and the world living by Torah.
6 This is true of the Poimandres Tractate, the Gnostic myths and the cosmologies of the New Testament including the Prologue of John.
7 Interpretation, p.296.
8 The Johannine Epistles, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1946, pp.xvii–xviii.Google Scholar
9 Epistles, pp.xx-xxi.
10 Interpretation, p.295 and see also pp.10, 73, 139ff., 278, Epistles, p.xviii and my critique in “C.H. Dodd and the Christology of the Fourth Gospel”, JTSA 59 (1987) pp.42–56.Google Scholar
11 Interpretation, p.295.
12 “Incarnation” is used to express the σρξ gamma;υετο of John 1.14 and does not imply later theories concerning the manner of the incarnation. It does crystalize the importance of the affirmation in Johannine circles.
13 “The witness of the Baptist, which is embedded in the Prologue, becomes the witness to Jesus in 1.19ff. where it is the main focus.
14 This has been established in the work of such scholars as Rendel Harris and C.H. Dodd. See the discussion in my “Christology and the History of the Johannine Community in the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel”. NTS 30 (1984) pp.460–474 and Quest, pp. 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 See my John Witness and Theologian, SPCK London 1975Google Scholar, 1978 and Beacon Hill Melbourne 1986, p.26 and Quest, pp.120–121.
16 See John 5 and 9 and the discussion in ‘The Paradigm of Rejection’ and ‘The Son of Man: the Light of the World’ in my Quest.
17 See Neusner, Jacob. “The Formation of Rabbinic Judaism: Yavneh from AD 70–100” in ANRW II.19.2.3–42.Google Scholar
18 See I QS III.13-IV.26; I QH and I QM; the discussion in my Quest, 29–39 and Ricca, Paulo, Die Eschatologie des Vierten Evangeliums, Gotthelf Zürich, 1966, pp.13–16.Google Scholar
19 See Fiorenza, E.S., “The Quest for the Johannine School: The Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel”, NTS 23 (1976–1977) pp.402–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Fiorenza argues that the Apocalypse is closer to Pauline than Johannine Christianity. For an alternative view see Barrett, C.K., St John, pp.62, 133–34Google Scholar and Brown, R.E., The Epistles of John, Doubleday, Garden City, 1982, p.56 n131.Google Scholar
20 Thus “The nonapocalyptic nature of John's vision of truth suggests that he would not have found the Danielic apocalypse particularly congenial.” Hare, D.R.A., The Son Man Tradition, Minneapolis, 1990, p.92.Google Scholar
21 The verb φαυει in 1.4 is in the present tense indicating the persistent light of the eternal λόγοϛ in the darkness.
22 The story is interpreted by sayings of Jesus and the narrator to make the reader aware that the self-giving of jesus is the self-giving of God.Jn 3.16, 35; 5.20–23; 10.14–18:13.1.
23 The text appeals to Jesus' work as the work of God. See also 3.35; 5.20–23 and my Quest, pp. 175–21.
24 Jesus' words in 5.17 imply that he is working the works of God, an expression found in 6.28 and with variation in 9.4. In 5.17 and 9.4 it is Jesus who is so working and miracles of healing are in view. In 6.28 it is the crowd, in response to Jesus' feeding miracle, that wants to know how to work the works of God. Jesus replies that, for them, only a singular work of God is possible and that is to believe in the one he (God) sent, 6.29
25 See my “John 9 and the Interpretation of the Fourth Gosper”, JSAT 28 (1986) pp.31–61 and Quest, pp.261–86.Google Scholar
26 By placing these words first in the question the emphasis is on the many good works and this is perceived by the Jews. But their response shows that the charge of blasphemy (like the charge of sabbath-breaking) cannot be modified by such evidence as good works.
27 See my Quest, pp. 123–126 and 118 n35.
28 John 1.14 states the source of the glory (from the Father) and defines its character (full of grace and truth [faithfulness]). Thus the clue to the recognition of the glory of God is given. It is his gracious faithfulness to his creation rather than some manifestation of spectacular power (δύυνιϛ). Of course this does not exclude the manifestation of graciousness in acts of ύύυανιϛ which the evangelist calls σηνεîια. But the emphasis is on the character of the glory. See John Witness and Theologian, p.58.
29 In 6.41–59 Jesus speaks of the the bread from heaven in first person “I” sayings as well as in third person Son of Man sayings. In the first instance he is concerned to identify the true bread from heaven. He then goes on to assert that it must be given for the life of the world. The bread is his (the Son of Man's) flesh. On the mixing of first person with third person Father/Son and Son of Man language see my Quest, pp.187–195.
30 It is significant that the theme appears in John 9 where both the light and Son of Man are associated with the theme of eschatological judgement, 9.5–6, 34, 39–41. See my ‘The Son of Man: the Light of the World’ in Quest, pp.261–286
31 It would be strange if (in the story) the crowd of 12.34 were spontaneously responsible for the correct conclusion that Son of Man was a messianic designation if this were not a contemporary Jewish understanding. See now the views of J. J.Collins in his 1991 SSNTS paper in NTS38/3 (1992). 448–466. Collins argues that ‘Son of Man’ in Daniel 7.13–14 was understood (in first century Judaism) as an individual, heavenly, messianic figure.
32 Contrary to Freed, E.D.. “The Son of Man in the Fourth Gospel” JBL 86 (1967) pp.402–409.Google Scholar
33 The insertion of the witness of the Baptist at 1.6–8 means that all that follows relates to the activity of the incarnate λόγοϛ.
34 See my Quest, pp.363–365.
35 See Moloney, F.J., The Johannine Son of Man. Rome 1976Google Scholar; Pamment, M.. “The Son of Man in the Fourth Gospel”, JTS 36 (1985) pp.56–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hare, D.R.A., The Son of Man Tradition, Minneapolis 1990, pp.79–111.Google Scholar
36 See my review of Moloney's Son of Man. in ABR 25 (1977) pp.43–44.
37 See Nicholson, G.C., Death as Departure, Scholars Press, Chico, 1983.Google Scholar
38 See my Quest, pp.204–08.