Background of John’s Gospel Abstract While Critical scholars approach John’s Gospel, or the Fourth Gospel, seeking to elucidate the traditions and sources influential in its composition, have variously located John as a Gnostic, an Essene, and an Hellenic Jew, the background of John’s gospel is more readily found as a reflection of its purpose. This piece suggests John’s purpose was to present Jesus as the central character in creation, as Lord, saviour, and Messiah, for all people. That it was a communiqué aimed to persuade the first century reader to repent and believe. And thus its background was broad, rather than specific. Introduction Good persuasive writing addresses its context, in terms its readers

understand, and anticipates opposition. Furthermore, it provides

comparisons and points of difference from alternative options. In this sense

we can readily admit that the background of John, in terms of its context, is

the melting pot of cultures in first century Palestine and the Roman Empire.

We will argue that while critical scholars have helped identify ideas and

terminology common to other first century concerns, that this terminology

was the language of the well informed first century citizen, and thus was

naturally adopted as John made the case for Christ.

Scholars have proposed and debated various first and second century settings

for the Gospel of John, and suggested the writer of the gospel emerged from,

or addressed a variety of religious philosophies from the period. Much

scholarship on John’s gospel seems determined to read the work not in the

light of its own statement of purpose (John 20:30-31), but in opposition to it.1

                                                                                                               1  So,  for  example,  R. Kysar, John: The Maverick Gospel, (Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 2007, 3rd Edition), 24-29, Kysar suggests the statement of purpose is slightly ambiguous due to an issue with the Greek, and uses this ambiguity as a means to speculate on a

We will suggest that John, the disciple, wrote his gospel in the mid first

century, to a deliberately broad audience of Greeks, Jews, and Romans, to a

culture that was religiously curious, engaged, and inclined,2 in order to

persuade, and reassure, his readers that Jesus is the light and life (John 1:1-5),

the word made flesh (John 1:1, 15), and the saviour of the world (John 1:29).

We will argue that adopting this author and dating necessarily eliminates

Gnosticism from the mix of backgrounds addressed.

On Author and Date

The idea that John, the beloved disciple, could not possibly write the gospel

that bears his name, has become a presupposition underpinning much

scholarship surrounding the fourth gospel.3 But this is essentially a begged

question, assumed because it is assumed, and no longer adequately

demonstrated.4

Carson (1981) suggests that much critical scholarship around John’s gospel,

and indeed, much speculation about the background of John’s gospel, “falls

away” if John himself is shown to be the author of the gospel. We follow

                                                                                                               completely unrelated purpose based on assumptions about the book’s efficacy as an evangelistic tool. For a view more in keeping with the statement of purpose see L. Morris, Jesus is the Christ: Studies in the Theology of John, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1989), 1, 42, 170-189 2  We  suggest  this  case  is  made  by  the  religious  nature  of  first  century  life  in  the  political,  philosophical  and  social  spheres,  and  the  nature  of  texts  recovered  in  the  Qumran  and  Nag  Hammadi  collections.  3 G.L Borchet, ‘The Fourth Gospel and its Theological Impact,’ Review and Expositor 78 (1981), 249-258, 251 suggests the change in scholarly opinion was motivated by the view that John’s theological sophistication could not have been a first century development. 4 D.A. Carson, “Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel: After Dodd, What?” R.T. France & David Wenham, eds., Gospel Perspectives, Vol. 2: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. pp.83-145. 100-104, ““Is it possible that the scholarly consensus regarding a ‘school’ or ‘circle’ or ‘community,’ and regarding a long series of editorial steps and of redactional activity, has unwittingly provided a new generation of scholars with several functional non-negotiables which are rarely tested?”

Carson in accepting the traditional authorship of John’s gospel.5 While critical

scholars are quick to identify a Johannine school that is ostensibly responsible

for the production of the Johannine corpus this runs directly against the

traditions of the early church,6 and the internal testimony of the texts

themselves (John 21:24-25, 1 John 1:1-4). Carson (1981) notes that we are

dealing with essentially the same evidence that the early church used to

ascribe authorship to John, and it is only modern presuppositions and

questionable methodologies that cause questions of authorship.7 Carson’s

theory about the providence of John has the benefit of simplicity, and

Occham’s razor may apply, he suggests the most plausible account of the

theology of John is that “John wrote his own book, in his own style, with his

own themes.”8

Bauckham (2007), while baulking at identifying the disciple Jesus loved as

John the apostle, suggests the most plausible reading is that John’s gospel is

written by an eye-witness who was not one of the twelve. He argues that

reconstructions based on a Johannine school are largely “based on fantasy.”9

Kostenberger (2005) argues that John writes in response to the destruction of

the temple in 70 AD, a view which dates John significantly earlier than most

                                                                                                               5 D.A. Carson, “Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel,” 130-134 6 From the documents of the second century until the 19th century the consensus was that these books were the work of John the apostle, see, for example, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 11, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xii.html, or as expressed by M. Silva, ‘Approaching the Fourth Gospel,’ Criswell Theological Review 3.1 (1988) 17-29, 18 “one must recognize that the external evidence attesting to the authorship of John is ancient, clear, and explicit.” 7 D.A. Carson, “Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel,” 131 8 D.A. Carson, “Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel,” 129 9  R. Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History and Theology in the Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic Group, 2007), 12-15  

critical scholars suggest.10 Most of Kostenberger’s argument, that John is

framing a post-temple reality centred on Jesus, remains cogent even if it

comes before the destruction of the temple – as Jesus supersedes the Temple’s

place in the life of God’s people. This, though taking the shape of an

argument from silence, would explain the lack of specific mention of the

destruction, a direct reference to the event would consolidate Kostenberger’s

position, the absence of such references adds weight to an earlier than 70AD

date for John’s Gospel.

On Background

At various points in the history of Johannine scholarship the Fourth Gospel

has been located against every imaginable first, and second, century

background. Once scholars rejected this traditional view of authorship,

speculation abounded. John was Aramaic,11 Egyptian, Hellenistic, Essene, or

Mesopotamian. 12 The “disciple Jesus loved” was John Mark, Lazarus, or John

the elder.13 John was second century, then the first gospel written. Most of

these positions were adopted based on presuppositions about the gospel’s

theology.14

It became popular, after Dodd, to read John’s gospel in the light of Hellenistic,

and particularly Platonic, concerns.15 Bultmann went further, suggesting

                                                                                                               10 A.J. Ko stenberger, ‘The Destruction Of The Second Temple And The Composition Of The Fourth Gospel,’ Trinj 26ns (2005) 205-242 11  C.C Torrey, ‘The Aramaic Origin of the Gospel of John,’ Harvard Theological Review 16 (1923), 305-344 12  For a summary of developments on this front see G.L Borchet, ‘The Fourth Gospel and its Theological Impact,’ 250-251  13  ibid  14 ibid 15  P. Borgen, ‘The Gospel of John and Hellenism,’ Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith, ed. R.A Culpepper, and C.C Black, (Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 98-99

John’s theology represented a Gnostic syncretism of Platonism and Judaism,

and thus that Gnosticism predated Christianity (we will address this below).

Evidence, such as Philo’s decidedly Hellenistic Judaism, makes it difficult to

suggest an exclusively Hellenistic influence or setting for John.16 In a survey

of modern approaches, Matson (2007) suggests that rather than being

specifically Hellenistic, or Judaic, the background of John’s gospel is

potentially a combination of the two, but not possibly exclusively

Hellenistic.17 Matson suggests possible dependence on John in the synoptic

gospels is not definitive in establishing an early date, because the synoptics

might be late, but for those holding to an early dating of the synoptics this

possible literary dependence will bring the dating of John’s gospel into the

middle of the first century.18

Qumran and the Jewish Background of John

John’s gospel is undeniably Jewish in its concerns. While scholarly opinion on

John’s backgrounds has fluctuated, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was

a pivotal moment that corrected a particularly Hellenistic view of John’s

themes.19

Attempting to prove the case for a definitive individual formative source for

John’s philosophy is the kind of anachronistic approach to first century

history foisted on us by critical scholars with strange obsessions. Just it

                                                                                                               16  P. Borgen, ‘The Gospel of John and Hellenism,’ 116, suggests John cultivates practices that are Jewish-Christian versions of trends from the Hellenistic world. I would argue that it is more a case of John adopting the language of the world in which he lives to present the gospel. Borgen (117) suggests that the background for John’s dualism is more likely Jewish than Greek, which we will discuss below. 17 M.A Matson, ‘Current Approaches to the Priority of John,’ Evangel, 25.1, SPRING 2007, 4-14, 12 18 M.A Matson, ‘Current Approaches to the Priority of John,’ 11-12 19 M. Silva, ‘Approaching the Fourth Gospel,’ 18

became increasingly apparent that neither Gnosticism, nor pure Hellenism,

nor Judaism, would suffice as this definitive source, a young goat herd’s

thrown stone opened up a new avenue for scholarly discussion. The

discovery of the Qumran collection of the Essene community provided new

fodder for this search for a source.20 This discovery provided some physical

evidence that John’s theology could be related to the theology of second

temple Judaism. Where, in the past, John’s dualism had been equated with

Hellenism (particularly Platonism), now there was evidence that this was

consistent with Palestinian Judaism.21

Some possible parallels between Essene practice and the description of John

the Baptist led some to speculate that he was a member of the Essene

community, John the Disciple was already held to be a former disciple of John

the Baptist, so both were now imagined as Essenes.22 This was purely

speculative, even in the early days of integrating the Qumran discovery with

New Testament theology it was noted that even if John borrowed from the

Qumran community, any borrowing involved “radical modification.”23

                                                                                                               20  For  a  discussion  of  the  scene  in  the  lead  up  to  the  Qumran  discovery,  and  some  initial  reactions  to  it  with  regards  to  Johannine  scholarship  see  L.  Mowry,  ‘The  Dead  Sea  Scrolls  and  the  Background  for  the  Gospel  of  John,’  The  Biblical  Archeologist,  XVII,  (1954),  78-­‐97  21  G.L Borchet, ‘The Fourth Gospel and its Theological Impact,’ 250-251, M.A Matson, ‘Current Approaches to the Priority of John,’ 10, D. Rensberger, Johaninne Faith and Liberating Community, (Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1989), 18-20 suggests this discovery removed, in one fell swoop, decades of Johannine scholarship that was determined to read John against a Greek backdrop. 22  J.A Charlesworth, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel According to John,’ Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith, ed. R.A Culpepper, and C.C Black, (Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 89 For  a  response  to  the  allegations  that  locust  eating  does  one  an  Essene  make,  see  J.A  Kelhoffer,  ‘Did  John  the  Baptist  Eat  Like  a  Former  Essene?  Locust  Eating  in  the  Ancient  Near  East  and  Qumran,’  Dead  Sea  Discoveries,  Nov2004,  Vol.  11  Issue  3,  293-­‐314,  it  is  more  likely  that  John  the  Baptist  represented,  or  fulfilled,  the  role  of  an  Old  Testament  Prophet,  see  J.C  Hutchison,  ‘Was  John  the  Baptist  an  Essene  from  Qumran?’  Bibliotheca  Sacra  159  (April-­‐June  2002),  187-­‐200  23  L.  Mowry,  ‘The  Dead  Sea  Scrolls  and  the  Background  for  the  Gospel  of  John,’  97  

Qumran’s dualistic treatment of “sons of light” and “sons of dark” is one

point of obvious continuity between the beliefs of the Essene sect, and the

presentation of Christianity in John’s Gospel.24 Charleworth (1996) in his

discussion of the impact of the Qumran discovery on the study of John’s

gospel, suggests that it is now untenable to hold to a purely Hellenistic view

of John, and that is rather “our most Jewish gospel.”25 While are similarities

between some of John’s themes and the concerns of the Qumran community,

a community whose messianic and apocalyptic expectations find parallels

with those expressed in the New Testament (albeit on a different time frame if

we reject the critical construct of the tension created by the delay of

parousia),26 it is the Old Testament that provides the most fertile ground for

establishing a formative background for the Fourth Gospel. The similarities

with Essene theology are more likely a result of this shared antecedent than

any type of dependency, though it is probable that the language of the

Essenes was familiar in the first century context of John’s gospel.27

Some have suggested that John employs the phrase “the Jews” as a pejorative

against Judaism, they see this as evidence for a non-Jewish, and anti-Jewish,

author attacking the old way of the world to establish distance between

                                                                                                               24  G.L Borchet, ‘The Fourth Gospel and its Theological Impact,’ 250-251, M.A Matson, ‘Current Approaches to the Priority of John,’ 10  25  J.A Charlesworth, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel According to John,’ 90, Charlesworth conducts his survey from the view that John was composed by a second generation Johannine school that had input from previous members of the Essene community. He suggests Essene theology had a profound impact on John. 26  L.W  Hurtado,  ‘Qumran  Evidence  for  the  Reliability  of  the  Gospels,’  Bulletin  of  the  Evangelical  Theological  Society,  11.4  (Fall  1968),  159-­‐168  27  We  suggest  that  while  J.A Charlesworth, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel According to John,’ 89 presents the Essenes as a significant community in Jesus’ time, this represents the setting of John, rather than a formative influence on John, and thus John writes to people who may have Essene concerns and expectations. For an argument that the Old Testament was the common ancestor of both Qumran and John, rather than Qumran being a parent of John, see R. Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History and Theology in the Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic Group, 2007), 125-136

Christianity and Judaism.28 But while John uses the term to demarcate those

who recognise Jesus as Messiah from those who don’t, this is a statement

about religious identity rather than race.29 The prologue of John’s Gospel

establishes Jesus as the fulfillment of two Jewish institutions – the law, and

the Temple (John 2:18-21).30 Kostenberger (2005) demonstrates the John carries

this theme of supplanting the practices of second temple Judaism, and

demonstrates that post-temple relationships with God find their basis in the

Messiah, Jesus Christ, the word “tabernacling” with the people (John 1:14),

and then in the people (14:17). 31 John is determined to present Jesus as the

fulfillment of the Mosaic Law (John 1:17, 5:46).32 Old Testament allusions in

the fourth gospel take the form of direct quotes, structural pastiches,33 and

common theological themes.34 The language and theology of John’s gospel is

undeniably evocative of the Old Testament, as John is making the case that

the Old Testament is undeniably about Jesus (5:46, 12:41), the long awaited

Messiah (20:30-31). Kostenberger (1998) observes that while John presents a

high Christology, he also depicts Jesus as a teacher firmly entrenched in the

Jewish Rabbinic tradition. Jesus is addressed in the narrative only as Rabbi,

teacher, and master.35

                                                                                                               28  R.M Grant, ‘The Origin of the Fourth Gospel,’ Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Dec, 1950), 305-322, 320-321, Grant thinks John is a gnostic book, with a negative view of the Jews, who reinterprets the gospel story from beginning to end to fit these two positions. 29  J.W  Pryor,  John:  Evangelist  of  The  Covenant  People,  (London,  Darton,  Longman  and  Todd,  1992),  181-­‐184,  R. Kysar, John: The Maverick Gospel, (Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 2007, 3rd Edition), 28 30  D.A Reed, ‘How Semitic Was John: Rethinking the Hellenistic Background to John 1:1,’ Anglican Theological Review, 85:4, Fall (2003), 709-726 31 A.J. Ko stenberger, ‘The Destruction Of The Second Temple And The Composition Of The Fourth Gospel,’ Trinj 26ns (2005) 205-242 32  M. Silva, ‘Approaching the Fourth Gospel,’ 27-28  33 E. E. Ellis, “Jesus’ Use of the Old Testament and the Genesis of New Testament Theology,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 3 (1993): 59-75, 66-67 suggests Jesus adopts forms used by Qumran writers and other exegetes of his time, highlighting a proem-like pattern in John 6:31-58 34  M. Silva, ‘Approaching the Fourth Gospel,’ 27-29  35  A.J. Ko stenberger, “Jesus as Rabbi in the Fourth Gospel,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 8 (1998): 97-128, 100-102

The Role of Background

John’s theology is intricate, but largely consistent with Pauline theology, it is

indeed Christian. John’s background, or setting, is evident not so much in the

theology he presents, or the theology that is suggested as formative in his

thinking, but in the language he uses as he approaches his task. While the

terminology John adopts is consistent with Hellenistic and Judaic thought,

and overlaps with Essene themes, this does not necessarily mean that these

philosophies were formative influences on John’s theology. His background

shapes his style, not his substance. John frames his presentation of the gospel

to persuade his audience. Using their terms. John is interested in persuading

his audience to “believe,” a verb he uses 98 times.36

It’s no secret knowledge that John’s no Gnostic

Bultmann’s pre-Christian Gnosticism is an “unproven non-negotiable

assumption” that was influential for a short time.37 Fischel (1946) adopted this

assumption to argue that John’s use of the lable “the prophet” has Gnostic

undertones in a Rabbinic-gnostic setting.38 But eventually even Bultmann’s

disciples distanced themselves from this position.39 As outlined above, the

Dead Sea Scrolls were particularly influential in dismissing this theory of

John’s origins, because his theology appeared much more Jewish than Gnostic

(with Gnosticism treated herein as a subset of Hellenistic thought).40

                                                                                                               36  L. Morris, Jesus is the Christ: Studies in the Theology of John, 170 37 D.A. Carson, “Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel,” 100-101 38  H.A Fischel, ‘Jewish Gnosticism in the Fourth Gospel,’ Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Jun., 1946), 157-174 39 E.M Yamauchi, ‘Pre-Christian Gnosticism, the New Testament and Nag Hammadi in recent debate,’ Themelios 10.1 (September 1984): 22-27, retrieved 28 July 2011, http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_gnosticism_yamauchi.html 40 G.L Borchet, ‘The Fourth Gospel and its Theological Impact,’ 250-251

The discovery of the Nag Hammadi corpus swung consensus back towards

this view a little, some were quick to draw parallels between Midrashic

interpretation of the Old Testament, the theology of Ecclesiastes (with an

assumed late date), and a perceived fusion of Hellenistic and Jewish thought

occurring within the texts.41 But there are a number of salient points against

the use of these texts in this manner.

Yamauchi (1984) suggested that while the Nag Hammadi documents

demonstrated how Gnostic thought may exist outside Christian thought,

those positing a pre-Christian, Jewish, Gnosticism, fail to account for

Gnosticism’s negative view of the world. The Gnostic view of the physical

world flies in the face of the Genesis declaration that the material world is

good. The Gnostic position represents a fundamental switch from that view.42

Gnosticism doesn’t emerge as a philosophical force until the late first century,

and the fully articulated Gnostic worldview relies on a particularly Christian

view of the incarnation of the word.43 In this sense some have argued that the

prologue of John can be understood as a Gnostic hymn,44 but Carson points

out the so called “Gnostic” language of contrast, for example between light

and dark, used in the prologue, is universal to religious expression.45 Others,

considering the overwhelming evidence against a pre-existent Gnosticism

                                                                                                               41 E.M Yamauchi, ‘Pre-Christian Gnosticism, the New Testament and Nag Hammadi in recent debate,’ electronic edition. 42 ibid 43 ibid 44 ibid, “Bultmann's formulation that the Johannine prologue was a pre-Christian Gnostic baptist hymn has not convinced even his own students - H. Conzelmann and E. Käsemann. Most recently another former student, W. Schmithals, has repudiated his master's theory quite categorically: 'The hymn does not betray direct Gnostic influences.... The concept that the hymn was pre-Christian is rash. Bultmann's guess that it concerned an original baptismal hymn has rightly found no reception.'” 45 D.A Carson, ‘Recent Literature on the Fourth Gospel: Some reflections,’ Themelios, 8-17, 12, M.A Matson, ‘Current Approaches to the Priority of John,’ 5

have suggested that the prologue is a later redaction aimed at either a

Hellenistic or Gnostic audience. The prologue is better understood as a

summary of the content of the gospel, integral to its form and message.46

There are also no extant pre-Christian Gnostic documents.47 Perkins (1990)

suggests that the Nag Hammadi evidence cuts the other way, ruling out

Gnosticism as an influence on John’s Gospel. In Perkins view the Nag

Hammadi corpus provides a snapshot of streams of Johannine theology in the

process of evolving into full-blown Gnostic mythology.48

John certainly had a role to play in correcting Gnostic thought,49 Irenaeus

relied on elements of John in his polemic against Gnosticism, Against Heresies,

and the prologue of John employs the mixture of Judaism and Hellenistic

thought, along with Christian claims about the spiritual world, that

eventually created Gnosticism, so it is no surprise that Gnostic terminology

appears in John.50 Bultmann’s attempt to put egg before chicken has rightly

been dismissed. John’s theology is anti-proto-gnostic in that it addresses the

issues Gnosticism raises, before Gnosticism raises them.51

                                                                                                               46 S. R Valentine, ‘The Johannine Prologue –a Microcosm of the Gospel,’ Evangelical Quarterly, 68:3 (1996), 291-304 47 E.M Yamauchi, ‘Pre-Christian Gnosticism, the New Testament and Nag Hammadi in recent debate,’ electronic edition. 48 P. Perkins, ‘John's Gospel and Gnostic Christologies: The Nag Hammadi Evidence,’ Anglican Theological Review, 11 Mr 1990, Supplement Series, 68-76, 69-71, 73-75, for further support of this view, against Bultmann’s theory of pre-Christian Gnosticism see A.H.B Logan, ‘John And The Gnostics: The Significance Of The Apocryphon Of John For The Debate About The Origins Of The Johannine Literature,’ JSNT 743 (1991)41-69 49 R. Kysar, "The Gospel of John," in Anchor Bible Commentary David Noel Freedman eds., (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 912 "In its defense against Gnosticism the Church embraced the Gospel of John and attempted to demonstrate that the gospel affirmed the 'Orthodox Christian faith.” 50 G.L Borchet, ‘The Fourth Gospel and its Theological Impact,’ 249 suggests the gnostics saw a powerful vehicle for the proclamation of their distorted message in the Gospel of John. 51 D.A Carson, ‘Recent Literature on the Fourth Gospel’ 14

The Purpose of John’s Gospel

Why would John address so many concerns of his day in their terminology?

Critical scholars in their insatiable desire to dissect a text into its components,

pay scant regard to the text in its final form. There are possible, and plausible,

motives for adopting a variety of forms, and speaking in the terminology of

various traditions within a single composition.52 Carson suggests John’s use of

terminology common to his era is a form of missiological contextualization,

he is communicating the gospel in a manner that those in his setting will

understand.53 This fits with John’s own statement of purpose (John 20:30-31).

Carson (2005) suggests identifying the “you” addressed in this verse is

fundamental to making the argument that John is an evangelistic treatise

rather than designed to reinforce the beliefs of Christians.54 Moloney (1992) in

a discussion of the picture painted of John’s implied reader within the gospel,

suggests that the reader is an ideal narrative device, essentially an everyman

of the first century. He suggests that where actual readers might identify with

certain elements of John’s account, the implied reader is expected to be

conversant with Jewish traditions and Greek wordplay, and they are hearing

the narrative of Jesus’ life and death, and its significance, for the first time in

the pages of the gospel.55 The implied reader is who the author intends the

real reader to become. A first century citizen, convinced that Jesus is light and

life.56

                                                                                                               52 Even the word “composition” speaks to the nature of bringing together different ideas or forms into the one piece. 53 D.A Carson, ‘Recent Literature on the Fourth Gospel’ 14 54 D.A Carson, ‘Syntactical And Text-Critical Observations On John 20:30–31: One More Round On The Purpose Of The Fourth Gospel,’ JBL 124/4 (2005) 693–714, 713 55 F.J Moloney, ‘Who is “the Reader” of the in/of Fourth Gospel,’ Australian Biblical Review, 40 (1992) 20-33, 32-33 56 F.J Moloney, ‘Who is “the Reader,”’ 31

There is some evidence that first century religious attitudes, particularly in

Hellenized Judaism, involved the search for eternal life. By presenting Jesus

as the answer in common terms and addressing common concerns, John was

engaging with the culture.57 While sharing the reservations expressed by

Carson,58 and Bauckham,59 regarding Dodd’s landmark study of John’s

Gospel, we can endorse Dodd’s conclusion regarding John’s purpose, quoted

by Bruce (1958):

“The Evangelist, he concludes, was concerned to commend Christianity to a wide

public consisting primarily of devout and thoughtful persons... in the varied and

cosmopolitan society of a great Hellenistic city such as Ephesus under the Roman

Empire’ in terms which would be familiar to them. Yet, however much he employed

new thought-forms and new terminology to convey the Christian message, it was the

authentic Christian message that he conveyed.”60

Bauckham (2007) suggests that John is both complex and accessible, it

employs in-group language that it explains,61 it employs concepts common to

religious belief and presents them in the light of the life of Jesus.

John is making a case for Jesus as the Messiah, as the king, in the most

persuasive way possible. While many interpret his statement of purpose is

indicative of a Christian audience, namely the Johannine community, this

                                                                                                               57 J. Painter, ‘CH Dodd and the Christology of the Fourth Gospel,’ Journal of Theology for Southern Africa, 59, (1987) 42-56, 44-46, John is addressing areas of concern addressed by Philo and in Corpus Hermeticum 58 D.A. Carson, “Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel: After Dodd, What?” 83-145. 59  R. Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple, 23  60 F.F. Bruce, "The Fourth Gospel in Recent Interpretation," Terminal Letter of the Theological Students' Fellowship (Spring 1958): 2-6, 2 61  R. Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple, 119-122  

missiological engagement with the society of his time, and place, his use of

terminology, and his careful presentation which preempts possible objections

(so, the inclusion of the confirmation of Jesus’ death, John 19:35, Jesus’

interaction with Thomas, John 20:24-29) suggest an evangelistic purpose is

plausible. John’s treatments of potential objections often take place in didactic

dialogue, so, for example Jesus’ apparently transformative encounter with

Nicodemus (John 3, and 19:39-42). These factors suggests that while affirming

the beliefs of a Christian audience is a product of a close reading of the

gospel, a reading of John’s Gospel as an exercise in persuasion has merit. Silva

(1988), in his treatment of the ambiguity of the verb πιστευητε in 20:31 opens

up the possibility that this dual purpose is deliberate. John’s gospel has initial

and lasting value for readers from a variety of backgrounds.62

                                                                                                               62  M. Silva, ‘Approaching the Fourth Gospel,’ 20-22  

Bibliography R. Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History and Theology in the Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic Group, 2007) G.L Borchet, ‘The Fourth Gospel and its Theological Impact,’ Review and Expositor 78 (1981), 249-258 P. Borgen, ‘The Gospel of John and Hellenism,’ Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith, ed. R.A Culpepper, and C.C Black, (Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 1996) F.F. Bruce, "The Fourth Gospel in Recent Interpretation," Terminal Letter of the Theological Students' Fellowship (Spring 1958): 2-6. D.A. Carson, “Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel: After Dodd, What?” R.T. France & David Wenham, eds., Gospel Perspectives, Vol. 2: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. pp.83-145. D.A Carson, ‘Recent Literature on the Fourth Gospel: Some reflections,’ Themelios, 9 no 1 (1983), 8-17 D.A Carson, ‘Syntactical And Text-Critical Observations On John 20:30–31: One More Round On The Purpose Of The Fourth Gospel,’ JBL 124/4 (2005) 693–714 J.A Charlesworth, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel According to John,’ Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith, ed. R.A Culpepper, and C.C Black, (Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 1996) E. E. Ellis, “Jesus’ Use of the Old Testament and the Genesis of New Testament Theology,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 3 (1993): 59-75. H.A Fischel, ‘Jewish Gnosticism in the Fourth Gospel,’ Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Jun., 1946), 157-174 R.M Grant, ‘The Origin of the Fourth Gospel,’ Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Dec, 1950), 305-322 L.W Hurtado, ‘Qumran Evidence for the Reliability of the Gospels,’ Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society, 11.4 (Fall 1968), 159-168 J.A  Kelhoffer,  ‘Did  John  the  Baptist  Eat  Like  a  Former  Essene?  Locust  Eating  in  the  Ancient  Near  East  and  Qumran,’  Dead  Sea  Discoveries,  Nov2004,  Vol.  11  Issue  3,  293-­‐314   A.J. Kostenberger, ‘The Destruction Of The Second Temple And The Composition Of The Fourth Gospel,’ Trinj 26ns (2005) 205-242 A.J. Kostenberger, “Jesus as Rabbi in the Fourth Gospel,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 8 (1998): 97-128.

R. Kysar, "The Gospel of John," in Anchor Bible Commentary David Noel Freedman eds., (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 912 R. Kysar, John: The Maverick Gospel, (Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 2007, 3rd Edition) A.H.B Logan, ‘John And The Gnostics: The Significance Of The Apocryphon Of John For The Debate About The Origins Of The Johannine Literature,’ JSNT 743 (1991)41-69 M.A Matson, ‘Current Approaches to the Priority of John,’ Evangel, 25.1, SPRING 2007, 4-14 F.J Moloney, ‘Who is “the Reader” of the in/of Fourth Gospel,’ Australian Biblical Review, 40 (1992) 20-33 L.  Mowry,  ‘The  Dead  Sea  Scrolls  and  the  Background  for  the  Gospel  of  John,’  The  Biblical  Archeologist,  XVII,  (1954),  78-­‐97   L. Morris, Jesus is the Christ: Studies in the Theology of John, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1989) J. Painter, ‘CH Dodd and the Christology of the Fourth Gospel,’ Journal of Theology for Southern Africa, 59, (1987) 42-56 P. Perkins, ‘John's Gospel and Gnostic Christologies: The Nag Hammadi Evidence,’ Anglican Theological Review, 11 Mr 1990, Supplement Series, 68-76 J.W  Pryor,  John:  Evangelist  of  The  Covenant  People,  (London,  Darton,  Longman  and  Todd,  1992)   D.A Reed, ‘How Semitic Was John: Rethinking the Hellenistic Background to John 1:1,’ Anglican Theological Review, 85:4, Fall (2003), 709-726 D. Rensberger, Johaninne Faith and Liberating Community, (Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1989) M. Silva, ‘Approaching the Fourth Gospel,’ Criswell Theological Review 3.1 (1988) 17-29 C.C Torrey, ‘The Aramaic Origin of the Gospel of John,’ Harvard Theological Review 16 (1923), 305-344 S. R Valentine, ‘The Johannine Prologue –a Microcosm of the Gospel,’ Evangelical Quarterly, 68:3 (1996), 291-304 E.M Yamauchi, ‘Pre-Christian Gnosticism, the New Testament and Nag Hammadi in recent debate,’ Themelios 10.1 (September 1984): 22-27, retrieved 28 July 2011, http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_gnosticism_yamauchi.html

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 11, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xii.html