The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (77 page)

⁵
See J. N. Sanders,
Fourth Gospel
, 47–87; Pollard,
Johannine Christology
, 25.

⁶
On the history of Johannine scholarship in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, see A. J. Köstenberger, “Early Doubts of the Apostolic Authorship of the Fourth Gospel in the History of Modern Biblical Criticism,” in
Studies in John and Gender
(New York: Peter Lang, 2001), 17–47. The essays on history and theology in the Fourth Gospel and on the question of the Fourth Gospel's authorship by L. Morris (
Studies in the Fourth Gospel
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969], 65–292) still repay careful study. For an interesting application of Clement's statement, see F. Thielman, “The Style of the Fourth Gospel and Ancient Literary Critical Concepts of Religious Discourse,” in
Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy
, ed. D. F. Watson, JSNTSup 50 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1991), 183, in the context of his entire article. The reference to Clement's
Hypotyposeis
is found in Eusebius (
Eccl. Hist.
6.14). Cf. Thompson (“Spiritual Gospel,” 103), who rightly noted that “whatever Clement meant in calling John ‘a spiritual Gospel,’ it is doubtful that he meant to contrast ‘facts,’ in the modern sense, and ‘interpretation.’ …[A] ‘spiritual’ Gospel gives the inner meaning of an event or reality, and, hence its truth must be spiritually discerned.” Thompson rightly alleged that “the modern view” that calls into question the historicity of any item in John that “stands in the service of his theological or interpretive agenda” constitutes “a very strange way to imagine how theology works, and perhaps it could only have been thought of by people actually
not
doing theology” (p. 104; emphasis original). Thompson proceeded to call for greater sophistication in biblical scholars' philosophy of history. D. A. Carson (
The Gospel According to John
, PNTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991], 29) similarly disavowed attributing to Clement a dichotomy between “spiritual” and “historical”; he suggests “spiritual” may mean “allegorical” or “symbol-laden.”

⁷
See Carson,
Gospel According to John
, 31–33.

⁸
See J. L. Martyn, “Glimpses into the History of the Johannine Community,” in
L'Évangile de Jean: sources, rédaction, théologie
, BETL 44, ed. M. de Jonge (Gembloux: Duculot, 1977), 149–75; id.,
History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel
, 2d ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1979); R. E. Brown,
The Community of the Beloved Disciple
(New York: Paulist, 1979); cf. O. Cullmann,
The Johannine Circle
(London: SCM, 1976).

⁹
M. Hengel,
Die johanneische Frage
, WUNT 67 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1993); R. Bauckham,
The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). See A. Schlatter (
Der Evangelist Johannes
, 2d ed. [Stuttgart: Calwer, 1948], x), who commented that the term “Johannine school” appeared to him to be “completely divorced from reality” (
völlig phantastisch
).

¹⁰
R. Kysar, “The Dehistoricizing of the Gospel of John,” in
John, Jesus, and History
, 75–101. As late as in 1990, D. M. Smith (“The Contribution of J. Louis Martyn to the Understanding of the Gospel of John,” in
The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John in Honor of J. Louis Martyn
, ed. R. T. Fortna and B. R. Gaventa [Nashville: Abingdon, 1990], 293, n. 30) could write, “Martyn's thesis has become a paradigm. …It is a part of what students imbibe from standard works, such as commentaries and textbooks, as knowledge generally received and held to be valid.”

¹¹
See the discussion of this issue in the chapters on the Synoptic Gospels above.

¹²
The label “the disciple Jesus loved” only occurs in the second major portion of John's Gospel (first at 13:23). This is in keeping with the marked shift in perspective in chaps. 13–17, where the disciples' mission is viewed from the perspective of Jesus' exaltation (A. J. Köstenberger,
The Missions of Jesus and the Disciples According to the Fourth Gospel
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 153). Hence, the casting of John in more elevated terms in chaps. 13–21 is not unique in John's Gospel and may be seen as indicating that the apostle, as “the disciple Jesus loved,” has an important part to play in the postexaltation mission of Jesus carried out through his commissioned followers. For an argument against “the disciple Jesus loved” as the author of the Gospel, see G. R. Beasley-Murray,
John
, WBC 36 (Waco: Word, 1987; repr. 1999), lxx–lxxv.

¹³
See A. J. Köstenberger (
Encountering the Gospel of John: The Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective
[Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999], 27) for a brief treatment of the “anonymity” of John's Gospel.

¹⁴
The connection between “we” and “his disciples” is clear because of the parallel between the related references to “his [Jesus'] glory” in 1: 14 and 2: 11. For a discussion on John's use of “we” (21:24) and “I” (21:25), see G. L. Borchert,
John 1–11
, NAC 25A (Nashville: B&H, 1996), 89–90.

¹⁵
The epithet “the disciple Jesus loved” is plausibly understood as an instance of authorial modesty. See K. J. Vanhoozer (“The Hermeneutics of I-Witness Testimony: John 21.20–24 and the ‘Death’ of the Author,” in
Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson
, ed. A. G. Auld, JSOTSup 152 [Sheffield: JSOT, 1993], 374), who cited Augustine and Westcott, against C. K. Barrett,
The Gospel According to St. John
, 2d ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 117.

¹⁶
Contra some commentators such as Beasley-Murray (
John
, lxx), who suggested that John's author is unclear about how many disciples are present at the Lord's Supper.

¹⁷
Köstenberger,
Encountering John
, 22.

¹⁸
The following is a list of all the named apostles in the Gospels and Acts: Peter, his brother Andrew, James and John the sons of Zebedee, Philip, Thomas, Judas Iscariot (replaced by Matthias per Acts 1:15–26), Judas the son of James, Matthew/ Levi, Simon the Zealot = Thaddaeus (?), James the son of Alphaeus, and Bartholomew = Nathanael (?); see Matt 10:2–4; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13. Cf. R. Bauckham,
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 113.

¹⁹
In addition, since Matthew's and John's style and vocabulary differ significantly, it is unlikely that the same author wrote both Gospels.

²⁰
See D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo,
An Introduction to the New Testament
, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 229–54. Cf. Carson and Moo's discussion of Papias' quote (pp. 233–34). For a dissenting monograph that attributes Johannine authorship to Papias' “John the elder,” see M. Hengel,
The Johannine Question
(Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989). Hengel even realized that his “hypothesis may sound fantastic” (p. 130).

²¹
For an explication of this view, see W. Bauer,
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971 [orig. German ed. 1934]).

²²
Hill,
Johannine Corpus in the Early Church
.

²³
Köstenberger, “John,” 280. For a discussion of John as fisherman, son of thunder, beloved disciple, elder and seer, apostle in second-century interpretation, saint depicted as an eagle, and as hero and icon, see R. A. Culpepper,
John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend
(Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1994; repr. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000).

²⁴
For further information on critical and postmodern objections to the Gospel's apostolic authorship, see G. R. O'Day, “Response to ‘Expulsion from the Synagogue: A Tale of a Theory’ by Robert Kysar” (paper presented at the annual SBL meeting; Toronto, November 23–26, 2002). He said that the abandonment of the apostolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel has “created space” for new readings of the Gospel. But others view the results of the rejection of the apostolic authorship of John's Gospel in less positive terms. In any case, the derisive way in which Johannine authorship is regularly dismissed in contemporary scholarship is without justification (Köstenberger, “Early Doubts”). While only a theory, Johannine authorship continues to be a plausible hypothesis based on both external and internal evidence (see Carson,
Gospel According to John
, 68–81; Carson and Moo,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 229–54).

²⁵
These scholars suggest a pre-70 date for John: R. M. Grant,
A Historical Introduction to the New Testament
(London: Collins, 1963), 152–53, 60; L. Morris,
The Gospel According to John
, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 30–35; and J. A. T. Robinson,
Redating the New Testament
(London: SCM, 1976), 254–84. For a summary of their arguments, see Beasley-Murray,
John
, lxxvi; for a refutation see A. R. Kerr,
The Temple of Jesus' Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John
, JSNTSup 220 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 19–25; cf. Carson,
Gospel According to John
, 82–86; L. Morris,
The Gospel According to John
, rev. ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 25–30 (with reference to F. L. Cribbs, “Reassessment of the Date of Origin and the Destination of the Gospel of John,”
JBL
89 [1970]: 38–55; and C. C. Torrey,
Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence
[New York: Harper, 1936], x–xi); and D. B. Wallace, “John 5,2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel,”
Bib
71 [1990]: 177–205; but see A. J. Köstenberger,
John
[BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004], 177–78).

²⁶
See “Occasion” for a brief explanation and additional bibliographic references.

²⁷
See D. A. Croteau, “An Analysis of the Arguments for the Dating of the Fourth Gospel,”
Faith and Mission
20/3 (2003): 47–80.

²⁸
Carson and Moo,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 267.

²⁹
Carson,
Gospel According to John
, 85.

³⁰
Schlatter,
Evangelist Johannes
, 44, but note Carson's caution (
Gospel According to John
, 84).

³¹
Köstenberger,
John
, 199.

³²
Ibid., 8. Some have suggested that since John was not quoted in works prior to the late second century, he probably wrote much later than 100 (H. Nun,
The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel
[Oxford: Alden & Blackwell, 1952], 20–32; R. Brown,
The Gospel According to John
, AB 29 [Garden City: Doubleday, 1966], lxxxi). But see C. E. Hill (
Johannine Corpus in the Early Church
), who demonstrated that many early second-century writers did in fact use John's Gospel (see discussion under “Author” above).

³³
For a magisterial study of the life of the early Christians in Ephesus, see P. Trebilco,
The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008).

³⁴
See Beasley-Murray,
John
, lxxix; Carson and Moo,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 254.

³⁵
K. Lake,
An Introduction to the New Testament
(London: Christophers, 1948), 53; J. N. Sanders,
The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church
(Cambridge: University Press, 1943), 85–86.

³⁶
W. G. Kümmel,
Introduction to the New Testament
, rev. ed., trans. H. C. Kee (Nashville: Abington, 1975), 246–47.

³⁷
J. L. Martyn, “Glimpses into the History of the Johannine Community,” in
L'Évangile de Jean, Sources rédaction, théologie
, ed. M. de Jonge (Belgium: Duculot, 1977), 151–75.

³⁸
These critiques are offered by Carson and Moo,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 254.

³⁹
See Carson,
Gospel According to John
, 91.

⁴⁰
Bauckham,
Gospels for All Christians
, 9–48.

⁴¹
Köstenberger,
Encountering John
, 26.

⁴²
S. Motyer,
‘Your Father the Devil’? A New Approach to John and ‘the Jews’
(Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997); Kerr,
Temple of Jesus' Body
; P. W. Walker,
Jesus and the Holy City: New Testament Perspectives on Jerusalem
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 195; J. A. Draper, “Temple, Tabernacle and Mystical Experience in John,”
Neot
31 (1997): 264, 285. See especially P. S. Alexander, “‘The Parting of the Ways’ from the Perspective of Rabbinic Judaism,” in
Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135
, ed. J. D. G. Dunn (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 1–25; and M. Goodman, “Diaspora Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple,” in ibid., 27–38. For a fuller development and further bibliography, see A. J. Köstenberger, “The Destruction of the Second Temple and the Composition of the Fourth Gospel,”
TrinJ
26 NS (2005): 205–42; slightly revised in
Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John
, ed. J. Lierman, WUNT 2/219 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 69–108. For a critique of the Brown-Martyn-style “Johannine community hypothesis,” see Köstenberger,
Missions of Jesus and the Disciples
, 200–10; and Carson,
Gospel According to John
, 35–36, 87–88, 369–72. The major evidence cited in support of a pre-70 date of writing is the lack of reference to the destruction of the temple and the present tense verb in John 5:2. But these are not determinative and are capable of alternative explanations (see Schlatter,
Evangelist Johannes
, 23–24; and Köstenberger,
John
, 177–78).

⁴³
See Bauckham,
Gospels for All Christians
. Some might contend that, in light of the strained relations between Jews and Christians subsequent to 70, it is unlikely that John would have sought to evangelize Jews. To the contrary, it is improbable that John would have ceased to desire the conversion of his fellow Jews to the Messiah, the only pathway to their covenant God (14:6), especially if, as suggested above, the destruction of the temple provided a new impetus to commend Jesus to unbelieving Jews and others attracted to the Jewish faith.