Part 1
THE HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK FOR JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
Chapter 1
JOHANNINE THEOLOGY AND THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF JOHNâS GOSPEL AND LETTERS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bauckham, Richard, ed. The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Idem. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of Johnâs Gospel. Leicester, UK: Inter-Varsity Press, 2002. Bockmuehl, Markus N. A. Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study. Studies in Theological Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006. Warren Carter. John and Empire: Initial Explorations. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Cook, W. Robert. The Theology of John. Chicago: Moody Press, 1979. Hengel, Martin. Die johanneische Frage. WUNT 67. TĂŒbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1993. Idem. âDas Johannesevangelium als Quelle fĂŒr die Geschichte des antiken Judentums.â Pp. 293â334 in Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana: Kleine Schriften II. WUNT 109. TĂŒbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1999. Idem. âEye-Witness Memory and the Writing of the Gospels.â Pp. 70â96 in The Written Gospel. Ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Donald A. Hagner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Hill, Charles E. The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977. Idem. âChronology.â Pp. 118â22 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992. Jackson, Howard M. âAncient Self-Referential Conventions and Their Implications for the Authorship and Integrity of the Gospel of John.â JTS 50 (1999): 1â34. Kealy, SeĂĄn P. Johnâs Gospel and the History of Biblical Interpretation. 2 vols. Mellen Biblical Press Series 60aâb. Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 2002. Keefer, Kyle. The Branches of the Gospel of John: The Reception of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church. LNTS 332. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Klink, Edward W. III. The Sheep of the Fold: The Audience and Origin of the Gospel of John. SNTSMS 141. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Koester, Craig R. The Word of Life: A Theology of Johnâs Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Köstenberger, Andreas J. âJohn.â Pp. 1â216 in Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary. Ed. Clinton E. Arnold. Vol. 2: JohnâActs. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002. Idem. âEarly Doubts of the Apostolic Authorship of the Fourth Gospel in the History of Modern Biblical Criticism.â Pp. 17â47 in Studies on John and Gender: A Decade of Scholarship. Studies in Biblical Literature 38. New York: Peter Lang, 2001. Malatesta, Edward. St. Johnâs Gospel 1920â1965. AnBib 32. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967. Morris, Leon. Studies in the Fourth Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969. Stevens, George B. The Johannine Theology: A Study of the Doctrinal Contents of the Gospel and Epistles of the Apostle John. New York: Scribner, 1894. Taylor, Michael J., ed. A Companion to John: Readings in Johannine Theology (Johnâs Gospel and Epistles). New York: Alba House, 1977. Thatcher, Tom, ed. What We Have Heard from the Beginning: The Past, Present, and Future of Johannine Studies. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007. Idem. Greater than Caesar: Christology and Empire in the Fourth Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009. Van Belle, Gilbert. Johannine Bibliography 1966â1985: A Cumulative Bibliography on the Fourth Gospel. BETL 132. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1988.
1 JOHANNINE AND BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
1.1 Introduction
What a wonderful challenge and opportunity it is to write a Johannine theology! This is the body of Scripture anchored in the gospel Clement of Alexandria called a âspiritual Gospelâ (pneumatikon euangelion),1 and this gospel, in turn, has moved countless hearts to recognize their need for Christ and nurtured many to greater heights in their spiritual pilgrimage. Markus Bockmuehl has recently made a case for the importance of Wirkungsgeschichte (a study of a workâs âhistory of effectsâ on later interpreters) in biblical studies,2 and Johnâs writings have indeed had a profound impact on Christian theology and spirituality that is second to few (if any) biblical or other works.3
1.2 The âSpiritual Gospelâ
1.2.1 History of Scholarship
In the recent history of interpretation, Clementâs reference to John as a âspiritual gospelâ has frequently been taken to imply that John is less interested in historical matters than the Synoptics, and a chasm began to open up between John as a âspiritualâ (i.e., nonhistorical) gospel and the Synoptics as more reliable historical accounts.4 However, taking âspiritualâ as ânonhistoricalâ is of doubtful merit.5 More likely, by observing that John was âconscious that the outward facts had been set forth in the [Synoptic?] Gospelsâ already, Clement sought to draw attention to the profound theological reflection present in Johnâs gospel without intending to disparage the historical nature of his account. Indeed, John deepens the readerâs understanding of the significance of Jesusâ life and work by focusing on a small number of pivotal items such as the identity of Jesus, the necessity of faith, and the universal scope of Christâs redemptive work.
Understood this way, there is every reason to believe that John, as a âspiritual gospelââin the sense of being an interpretive account that brings out more fully the spiritual significance of the events and teachings it featuresâis grounded firmly in actual historical events, for it is only on such that theological reflection can properly be based.6 Most likely, in his theological reflection John took his departure from the âoutward factsâ set forth in the Synoptics rather than disregarding or contradicting them. His account commences with the Baptistâs witness to Jesus (John 1:6â8, 15) and the incarnation (1:14). These events, in turn, are grounded in previous salvation history such as the tabernacle (1:14) or the giving of the law through Moses (1:17). What is more, in framing his narrative, the evangelist uses eyewitness language to testify to these events: âThe Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. . . . For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christâ (emphasis added).7
In this sense, then, John is a âspiritual gospelâ: it is the product of profound theological reflection, which, in turn, is grounded in actual historical events through which God acted in salvation history.8 However, the last half millennium of human thought has bequeathed several unfortunate dichotomies on biblical scholarship. The separation between history and theology has led to a gradual disparagement of Johnâs historical reliability and moved the gospelâs genre closer to myth and legend.9
Another dichotomy passed on to the contemporary interpreter is that between religion and theology. If theology is understood as reflection on actual divine revelation, religion, by contrast, is conceived as the result of the human quest for meaning and as the evolution of human consciousness of a higher power. Thus Johann Salomo Semler sought to blend pietism with rationalism by separating theology as an historical, objective academic discipline from religion, which, he held, was subjective and based on personal experience.10
Friedrich Schleiermacher, likewise, building on Immanuel Kantâs distinction between metaphysics and practical morality, drew the same distinction between religion as a phenomenon of feeling and experience, âthe sense of absolute dependence on God,â and theology as intellectual reflection about God. After him, Karl Bretschneider (who in 1820 threw down the gauntlet by challenging the historical reliability of Johnâs gospel),11 the TĂŒbingen School (which favored a late, second-century date for Johnâs gospel), and others applied critical reason to the biblical documents, questioning their historical reliability, while others sought to retain the spiritual relevance of the Scriptures, including Johnâs gospel.12
However, salvaging Johnâs spiritual message appeared possible only by jettisoning his historical reliability, whether through Rudolf Bultmannâs demythologization program (on which see further below) or the setting aside of the gospel in historical Jesus research. Thus this gospel, which had exerted such powerful influence throughout the centuries, not least in the formation of the early Christian creeds, was increasingly marginalized. The gospel, the emerging consensus had it, was of great devotional and theological value, but lacked a proper historical foundation. It appeared that John had suffered irreparable damage at the hands of skeptical scholars, having been dissected by critics of all stripes whether by applying source, form, redaction, or some other form of âhigherâ criticism.
In the past several decades, however, some have come to view this approach to Johnâs gospel as misguid...