Jesus as Mirrored in John

The Genius in the New Testament

James H. Charlesworth

• Publisher: T&T Clark
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9780567694874
• eBook ISBN: 9780567681584
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

James H. Charlesworth begins from a burgeoning point of scholarly consensus: More and more scholars are coming to recognize that the Fourth Gospel is more historically complex than previously thought. Charlesworth outlines two historical horizons within John. On the one hand, there is the Jewish background to the text (complete with the evangelist's knowledge of Palestinian geography and Jewish customs) which Charlesworth perceives as offering a window into pre-70 Palestinian Judaism. On the other hand, the gospel also reflects a post-70 world in which non-believing Jews, with more unity, begin to part definitely with those who identified Jesus as the Messiah. Split into four sections, this volume first examines the origins of the Fourth Gospel, its evolution in several editions, and its setting in Judea and Galilee. Charlesworth then looks specifically at the figure of Jesus and issues of history. He proceeds to consider this Gospel alongside earlier and contemporaneous Jewish literature, most notably the Dead Sea Scrolls. Finally, the volume engages with John's symbolism and language, looking closely at key aspects in which John differs from the Synoptic Gospels, and raising such provocative questions as whether or not it is possible that Jesus married Mary Magdalene. From one of the New Testament's most noted scholars, this book allows deeper understanding of the ways in which the Gospel of John is a vital resource for understanding both the origin of Christianity and Jesus' position in history.

Part One

Origin, Evolution, and Settings of the Gospel of John

1

Paradigm Shifts in Johannine Studies¹

The twenty-first century begins with a worldwide recognition of some paradigm shifts in biblical research. Unfortunately, too many students and scholars miss such shifts as they tend to use commentaries and scholarly monographs without noting their date of publication. In the process, their own work and insight too often suffer from failing to perceive that more advances have been achieved in biblical research over the past fifty years than in the preceding 200 years.

One cannot use scholarly works published from the nineteenth century to the present assuming naïvely that scholars are examining the same texts with similar methodology, sophistication, and perception. The texts have changed so that we now have almost thirty editions of the Greek New Testament—due to the discovery of early manuscripts—and more sophisticated methodology for discerning so-called variants. These new and better text editions of the Old Testament, the New Testament, other early sacra scriptura once labeled “pseudepigraphical” (as by Fabricius), evolve along with more scientific methodologies that are enriched by sociology, numismatics, and especially archaeology, and by a perception of how Confessionalism and unexamined theological presuppositions, such as latent anti-Semitism, misled the search for better answers.²

On the one hand, virtually all disciplines in the humanities are now employed in biblical research, including historiography, sociology, anthropology, numismatics, topography, archaeology, geology, statistics, psychology, psycho-biology, redaction criticism, the history of literary forms, rhetoric, Christology, and theology.³ On the other hand, there have been major advances not only in how texts that were not canonized in the West are judged, but in the establishment of a larger data bank, expanded by the recovery of inscriptions, archaeological shards with comments and names familiar from the Bible, tombs full of data, the discovery of thousands of papyri, manuscripts hidden beneath palimpsests, and the numerous manuscripts found in caves along the shores of the Dead Sea. Suffice it to report, I side with the experts who are convinced that the pure literary approach to Early Judaism and Earliest Christianity is unscientific and distorted. Today, some of our earliest evidence of Solomon or his time antedates the earliest extant biblical manuscript of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) by 700 years;⁴ moreover, the earliest evidence for Jesus’ life predates the earliest portion of a New Testament document by more than a century.⁵ Since 1968, the evidence of pre-70 CE Jewish life where Jesus lived has been astounding and unprecedented.

At least five significant factors distinguish recent research from previous publications. First, we are much more sensitive to the distortions caused by the intrusion of inappropriate philosophy. In the nineteenth century, Ferdinand Christian Bauer and David F. Strauss shaped their studies by following Hegelianism. In the twentieth century, Rudolf Bultmann, his school, and even the “New Quest for the Historical Jesus” were marred by viewing ancient texts through the presuppositions of existentialism. These two examples are focused and limited to research that began in Germany. What we learn from the masterful biblical experts just named is that we must be aware of our presuppositions and methodologies; hence, we may become more accurate historians of Early Judaism, Early Christianity, and cultures influential in shaping ancient Palestinian thought and life.⁶

Second, we have observed that prejudices blind us to what we are yearning to see. Consider, for instance, how confessionalism and anti-Semitism (along with supersessionism) have distorted the re-creations of first century phenomena, and especially the presentation of the historical Jesus. Too many biblical interpreters are unperceptive of how they have been influenced, not only by René Descartes’ division of all science into only metaphysics, physics, medicine, mechanics, and ethics as well as his false mind-body dichotomy, but also by Kant and Spinoza, both of whom tended to imagine Second Temple Judaism as corrupt. Clearly, scholars are cognizant of how Descartes, Kant, and Spinoza have shaped intellectual discussions in our culture, but many are not aware that phenomenologists have proved that the subject-object dichotomy is fallacious.⁷ They also seem reticent to affirm that the earliest followers of Jesus, including Paul and all who claimed God had raised Jesus from the dead, were not the “first Christians”; they were deeply and fully Jewish.⁸

We bring numerous unexamined assumptions to any text. Too many readers miss the fact that, according to Mk 9:1, Jesus, at least at times, thought the eschaton and the dynamic eruption of God’s Rule (the Kingdom of God) would occur in his own lifetime or, at least in the lifetime of those who heard him. Likewise, a perception of the meaning of Genesis 3 and John 3 is often distorted, because of a hatred of snakes and a refusal to explore the meaning of ophidian symbology.⁹ The first blindness has been pointed out by G. Theissen and D. Winter in their Quest for the Plausible Jesus.¹⁰ The second myopia is demonstrated in my The Good & Evil Serpent.¹¹

Third, slowly we have grown to realize the tendencies (Tendenzen) and anachronisms of what were once our main literary sources: the intra-canonical gospels, as well as Philo,¹² Josephus,¹³ early Rabbinics,¹⁴ and the Targumim.¹⁵ Those seeking to recreate Second Temple Judaism and Jesus’ environment before 1945 were consigned to work on documents and books that were biased and provided an ex–post facto mirror of pre-70 CE Judaism.

Fourth, today we have hundreds of pre-70 CE Jewish documents that are not edited by Christian scribes—and many of them were unknown before 1947—when the Qumran Scrolls were discovered. No one should doubt that recent research has been enriched by the exploration and comprehension of a flood of previously unknown sources or documents once deemed “false” and medieval: the sixty-five Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, the Old Testament Apocrypha, the Jewish magical papyri, the inscriptions, the Greek, Coptic and Semitic papyri, the Nag Hammadi Codices, and the more than 1,000 Qumran Scrolls.

Fifth, the recovery of archaeological data that is Jewish and clearly pre-70 CE has changed the landscape of historical Jesus studies. As the contributors to Jesus and Archaeology demonstrate,¹⁶ archaeology will not only be significant but fundamental in recreating both the cultural and sociological setting of Jesus and also his own life and message.¹⁷

At this point in our discussion, I wish to express two confessions. First, I sometimes grasp how little I know and how much we all need to know to reassess and recreate Jesus’ century that was so well known to the Fourth Evangelist. Specialists in fields once considered outside biblical studies have helped me understand the supreme importance for historical research on John’s Jesus of a multitude of previously daunting termini technici such as AMS-C14, ancient art and architecture, DNA, forensic anthropology, geochemistry, ground-penetrating radar, noninvasive explorations, palaeography, papyrology, pottery chronology, psychobiography, stratigraphy, thermoluminescence, thermoplastics, and various forms of typology (from realia to rhetoric). We biblical scholars lose our way and mislead those who follow us if we do not learn from all relevant scientific disciplines. Scholars no longer have the luxury of being an island unto themselves. Albert Schweitzer wisely stated that we scholars must work alone for long and lonely years in our research office or laboratory, but we need also to emerge and share what we have learned and learn from all who respond to us.

Second, teamwork is the primary function of the organizations I frequent, namely the American Academy of Religion, the Society of Biblical Literature, the American Schools of Oriental Research, and the Studiorum Novi Testamenti. Hence, I am convinced that advances in biblical research demand teams of scholars (Jews, Christians, and secular scholars) working together, including biblical scholars, theologians, topographers, numismatists, geologists, stratigraphers, historians, sociologists, symbologists, and especially archaeologists. Hence, I have organized symposia to refine my methodologies and perceptions, to clarify how to improve research focused on Early Judaism and Earliest Christianity, and especially to better perceive the origin and rhetorical symbolism of the Gospel According to John. Note the proceedings of the following selected congresses and symposia (the dates given denote the year the proceedings were published):

Jews and Christians: Exploring the Past, Present, and Future (1990)¹⁸

Jesus’ Jewishness: Exploring the Place of Jesus within Early Judaism (1991)¹⁹

What Has Archaeology to Do with Faith? (1992)²⁰

The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (1992)²¹

The Old and New Testaments: Their Relationship and the “Intertestamental Literature” (1993)²²

Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1995)²³

Qumran Questions (1995)²⁴

Hillel and Jesus (1997)²⁵

Caves of Enlightenment: Proceedings of the American Schools of Oriental Research Dead Sea Scrolls Jubilee Symposium [1947-1997] (1998)²⁶

Qumran-Messianism (1998)²⁷

Light in a Spotless Mirror: Reflections on Wisdom Tradition in Judaism and Christianity (2003)²⁸

Jesus and Archaeology (2006)²⁹

Resurrection: The Origin and Future of a Biblical Doctrine (2006)³⁰

The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 3 vols. (2006)³¹

Jesus and Archaeology (2006)³²

Jesus Research: An International Perspective (2009)³³

Jewish and Christian Scriptures (2010)³⁴

“Non-Canonical” Religious Texts in Early Judaism and Early Christianity (2012)³⁵

The Tomb of Jesus and His Family? Exploring Ancient Jewish Tombs Near Jerusalem’s Walls (2013)³⁶

Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift (2013)³⁷

Jesus and Temple (2014)³⁸

Other symposia and their proceedings deserve mentioning, such as the proceedings of Archéologie, art et histoire de la Palestine: Colloque...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title
• Dedication
• Title
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Foreword
• Abbreviations
• Introduction: The Genius in the New Testament
• Part One Origin, Evolution, and Settings of the Gospel of John
• Part Two John and the Historical Jesus
• Part Three The Gospel of John and Other Sacred Literature
• Part Four Symbolic Language in the Gospel of John
• Conclusion
• Advances in the Study of the Fourth Gospel: A Selected Bibliography Jolyon G. R. Pruszinski
• Subject Index
• Author Index
• Ancient Index
• Copyright