John: An Introduction and Study Guide

History, Community, and Ideology

Francisco Lozada Jr

• Publisher: T&T Clark
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9780567674890
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theologie & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblischer Kommentar

This study guide introduces gospel of John, also known as the Fourth Gospel, from an ideological perspective. First, Lozada deals with the key historical questions about how we come to understand John's historical identity. Lozada explores debates around how scholars construct a picture of who, where, when, and why John was written helping readers to recognize how scholars construct an historical identity for John. Second, Lozada introduces literary questions related to John such as its structure, plot, and narrative development, showing readers on how an ideological reading is constructed. Finally Lozada devotes three chapters to key ideological themes in the gospel related to otherness, such as the portrayal of women, the Samaritan woman, and "the Jews."

1

John’s Historical Background

Chapter Outline

The Rootedness of John

The Historical Identity of John: Fixed and/or Fluid

References

Further Reading

The Rootedness of John

As early as the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholars employed the hermeneutical principle of the “rootedness” of a text to uncover the historical background of the text and reveal its temporal, spatial, and historical situation. This early turn in the critical study of the Bible aided the educated, particularly ministers, in effective Christian preaching (Thiselton 2009: 22). The strategic entry point to the world of the text is to recover the historical situation of the text and, concomitantly, the intention of the author. This methodological tactic is still found today among diverse places: textbooks, predominantly with introductions to the Bible; historically oriented biblical commentaries; and, of course, in the classrooms at many academic departments (public and private) and theological schools. Behind this goal of bringing the text alive is the assumption that meaning exists in the world behind the text. The role of the interpreter is to paint a picture of what this ancient world looked like, objectively, through the author of John. Without an understanding of this historical world, the text may be interpreted incorrectly or its meaning may elude us (Thiselton 2009: 23). Theologically speaking, if acknowledged at all, to know the intention of the author is to know the intention of God across time and space. This, of course, creates the perception that the scholar and teacher hold the key to the text’s meaning.

In keeping with this tradition, but not with the same underlying assumptions of how to come to an understanding, this chapter on the historical background of John (who, where, when, why, and how John was written) begins with similar questions. Like those before me, I also aim to understand the rootedness of John but with a different goal: to thematize the process of discovering this rootedness. I am not interested in studying the historical background of John for the sake of some core meaning behind the intent, such as “what happened”; rather, I am concerned with exploring how one reaches some understanding of John’s historical background. More specifically, by studying the historical background of John, I am not interested in knowing John better than others before me, thus trying to dismiss them as scholars and henceforth giving me some scholarly authority, but rather to understand John differently by examining the historical process that interpreters (including myself) employ in reaching a semblance of John’s historical background. In a conversational way, I shall ask John questions, but John will also ask me questions, particularly about my identity and ideological commitments in the process of such a historical reconstruction. When one can engage difference respectfully and honestly, the opportunity to know the other (John, in this case) is that much more possible.

Before proceeding, a word about the theology of John is in order. This volume is not a delineation of John’s theology, although it will engage some theological themes such as dualism, belief, and community (ecclesiology). The volume is more along the lines of an ideological engagement with John, with a focus on the way meaning (through the interaction between text and reader) serves to create and/or sustain relations of domination and liberation. The latter aim of liberation would be my theological commitment. While there are many studies that focus on the theology of John, this volume chooses to focus briefly on some traditional questions (such as the historical background of John) as well as literary questions, but pursuing both through an ideological approach. Focusing on some historical questions allows me to make this volume accessible to those who are quite interested in the relationship between “what happened” and “that which is said to have happened.” This volume begins with a discussion of who John was, when and where John was written, and why John was written. The task aims not to capture the vision of John but rather to understand how, among many narrativizations of history about John, I (and the tradition) reached various conclusions about the historical background of John.

The Historical Identity of John: Fixed and/or Fluid

Many views about the identity of John exist in the tradition of Johannine scholarship. What many of the views have in common is that the historical identity of John—at the end of the day—is fixed, fixed in the sense that someone or more than one someone composed John somewhere during some time for some reason. I prefer to think of the historical identity of John as both fixed (as stated above) and fluid—fluid in the sense that the identity is constantly changing, depending on who (i.e., the interpreter) is doing the identification. For this chapter’s purposes, I am interested in that part of the continuum where fixity is located.

An interpreter determines the fixity of John’s historical identity based on scientific probability, namely, what “evidence” out there outweighs other evidence that secures John’s historical identity as historical fact (or how things really were). As with any historical reconstruction, “the standards for, and of, objectivity are” based on the present’s historical fabric (Palmer 1969: 65). And the historical fabric at the time of the rise of modern historical criticism in biblical studies (nineteenth century) is concurrent with the rise of scientific history in general (Appleby, Hunt, and Jacob 1994: 52–90). Thus, the standard employed in naming the identity of “John” is based on a notion of history governed by the hermeneutical principle of reason that is scientifically influenced, with objectivity and positivism as the guiding principles. The emphasis on scientific reasoning is seen in the historical reconstruction of John’s identity. In what follows, I present four views on or four possibilities about the identity of “John” as the author. As mentioned, the identity of “John” is fixed if “identity” is viewed as something singular. For this interpreter, “John’s” identity is multiple, but also always becoming—a principle reflective of my own adoption of a fluid identity. Subjectivities shift constantly as people privilege certain histories over others. Likewise, in reconstructing “John” the author’s identities, scholars do so by privileging certain parts of “John’s” history and identity over others.

Below I look at four historical factors that help identify who, where, when, why, and how John was written: authorship, provenance, date, purpose, and compositional history.

Authorship

Early church tradition, namely, Irenaeus of Lyons (125–202 CE) around 180 CE, presents one of the earliest suggestions that the author of John or the Fourth Gospel is John the son of Zebedee, an apostle named in the list of the apostles in the Synoptic Gospels (Mk 3:14-19, Mt. 10:1-4, and Lk. 6:13-16). Irenaeus also believed that this John was the Beloved Disciple mentioned in the Gospel of John (13:23-24; 20:2-10; 21:2, 7, 20-24) who also served as an eyewitness (1:14; 19:35; 21:24-25) (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1, cited in Culpepper 1998: 33).

This tradition is supported by Eusebius, who received it from Irenaeus, who received it from Polycarp, an apostle of John (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 5.20.5-6, cited in Culpepper 1998: 33). Thus, the tradition of John as one of the apostles of Jesus (known as the son of Zebedee in Matthew, Mark, and Luke and the Beloved Disciple in John) is based on historical retrieval of surviving sources. The reconstructive tradition also aims to create a direct line of tradition (“rule of faith”) from John to Polycarp to Irenaeus, thus silencing any other tradition at the time (e.g., Gnostic Christians) that would break this line of tradition. In essence, the various identities reflected in the internal evidence of the Gospels are elided or infused to emerge as John, an apostle (son of Zebedee) who also happens to be the Beloved Disciple and eyewitness in the Gospel of John.

However, this dominant tradition is not without questions. First, John the son of Zebedee is only mentioned in Mk 3:17 and Mt. 2:10. Luke 6:14 only mentions that John was an apostle like the other apostles named. Is this the same “John”? Second, the Beloved Disciple who is mentioned in the Fourth Gospel is thought to be the eyewitness to the Jesus event and the one who wrote about this event (19:35; 21:24). However, these texts do not say explicitly that the Beloved Disciple is the eyewitness or the one who wrote the Fourth Gospel; it is only inferred based on the narrative context: 19:35 (“He who saw this has testified so that you also may believe. His testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth”) and 21:24 (“This is the disciple who is testifying these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true”). Thus, the former text (19:35) does not mention directly who “he” is, and the latter text (21:24) only says that the eyewitness spoke the truth. Hence, is the eyewitness the Beloved Disciple? Is the author of the Fourth Gospel the Beloved Disciple? Is the eyewitness and the author even the same person, given that the first plural pronoun “we” (21:24) appears to differentiate the author from the one who is narrating the event? Third, some have suggested that the unnamed disciple mentioned in Jn (1:40) is the Beloved Disciple, but again this is not mentioned directly. Fourth, some scholars have pointed to the author of the Fourth Gospel as the author of the Johannine epistles (1, 2, 3 John). However, the Gospel and the epistles never mention this shared identity, neither explicitly nor implicitly. This tradition comes from Eusebius once more (Church History 3.39.4, cited in Gundry 2003: 257). Finally, some have linked the author of Revelation who does identify himself as John (Rev. 1:9), but, among other things, there is no direct evidence that this is the “John” who authored the Fourth Gospel. Thus, the reconstruction of the identity of John is based on reasonable inference by comparing texts and tradition with other sources. And sources, as mentioned in the introduction, are not neutral. Using the process of eliminating unlikely possibilities leads many to believe that the only reasonable identity for the author of the Fourth Gospel is John, an apostle (son of Zebedee) who is mysteriously also the Beloved Disciple. However, some Johannine scholars today would argue that the author of John is not a single identifiable person but rather a symbolic representative of a school of thinking like an ancient school of philosophy, where John was studied, composed, and put together by incorporating different sources and points of view (Culpepper 1975). At the end, what we really have are narratives, based on a poverty of sources that are repositioned by scholars to create new narratives about who John was.

All of this repositioning is driven by the principle that if we could know the author of John we can know the meaning of the Fourth Gospel, and, theologically speaking (unconsciously or consciously), know the mind of God. This aim goes as far back as the early church theologians (e.g., John Chrysostom) and continues today. Nonetheless, I am less concerned with the definitive identity of the author and more interested in how a conclusion is reached. Understanding the routes scholars take to reach a fixed identity of John helps to understand why certain scholars read the Fourth Gospel the way they do. I am also less concerned with the intent of the author as tradition and interpreters have stated or argued, and more interested in how John affects readers—hence my selection of an ideological approach. Consequently, I am more resigned to say that the author is fluid, not because one cannot piece together reasonably a truthful picture of “John” but because fluidity allows for more options to exist regarding the historical identity of “John” without intentionally highlighting certain pieces of the author’s identity over others. Finally, the process of discovering the author of John suggests that interpreters are engaged in myth-making—as I do at times in the classroom. They contribute in taking a dearth of contradictory ancient evidence and modifying it or cleaning it up to attach it to history for ecclesial and public consumption. In reality, the author of John is made in their image—as I have done by seeing John’s identity as fixed and fluid.

Provenance

Where was the Fourth Gospel written? Accompanying the goal of situating John within its historical rootedness in order to better understand its origins—and hence its meaning—is the question of where John was composed. Such questioning of John’s provenance assumes that its location is recoverable. In other word...