JOHN, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

After a discussion of the unity of the Fourth Gospel, this article considers the questions of historical tradition in the Gospel, influences on the Gospel, its destination and purpose, the date of its writing, the problem of authorship. It concludes by proposing an outline of the Gospel.

Unity of the fourth Gospel. Is John as it now stands the work of one man? The solution commonly accepted before the advent of criticism was that this Gospel was the work of John, son of Zebedee, composed shortly before his death. Leaving the problem of the author's identity for a later section, we note here that there are indications of more than one hand in the Gospel. The Prologue has a formal poetic style and theological stresses, e.g., the personified Word, not found elsewhere in the Gospel. Coming after 20.30–31, ch. 21 is clearly an addition, narrating Resurrection appearances totally independent of those narrated in ch. 20 and exhibiting a Greek style somewhat different from the rest of the Gospel. Within the body of the Gospel there are breaks in sequence difficult to reconcile as the work of one writer, e.g., one ending for the public ministry in 10.40–42 and another ending in 12.37–43; two endings for the farewell discourse of Jesus in 14.31 and 18.1; unattached speeches that ill fit the context, such as 3.31–36 and 12.44–50. There is no need to dwell on the problem of the story of the adulteress (7.53–8.11), which is certainly not Johannine in style, does not fit the context, and is missing in the early Greek MSS. (It was an independent morsel of Gospel tradition that in later witnesses was inserted in John or sometimes in Luke; according to Tridentine norms it is inspired Scripture.) All this has led scholars to posit that, besides an author or evangelist who was chiefly responsible for the tradition of John, there was a subsequent editor (or a series of editors), perhaps the evangelist's disciple (s), who added material to the body of the Gospel narrative, material stemming in one way or another from the author.

Source Theory. Many critics suggest that, leaving aside the editorial additions, even the body of the Gospel is not a unity but is a combination of sources. The most articulate formulation of this theory is that of R. Bultmann, who posits three sources that were combined by the evangelist. First, there was, according to him, a collection of revelatory discourses. Composed originally in Aramaic, this source began with the Prologue and contained

poetic discourses wherein a revealer from heaven announced himself under the formula, "I am …" (Jn 6.35; 10.7, 11; 15.1) and demanded faith in himself as the condition for man's salvation. Bultmann connects the gnosticism of these discourses with the thought of the Mandaeans, a syncretistic baptizing sect living in Iraq, somehow related to John the Baptist (see mandaean re ligion). Second, there was a collection of Jesus' miraculous signs. Written in Greek with strong Semitic affinities, this source had as an introduction the call of the first disciples (1.35–51) and enumerated the signs done by Jesus (2.11; 4.54; 20.30). Finally, there was a narrative of the Passion and Resurrection.

For Bultmann, the first and second sources had no real historical value as a memory of the actual words and deeds of Jesus. The evangelist combined them, Christianized the Gnosticism, and made the composite work the vehicle of a personal, somewhat existential theology. His hand may be seen in certain additions to the sources. For Bultmann, a final stage in the composition of the Gospel was the work of "the ecclesiastical redactor, " a primitive censor who adapted the evangelist's work to make it acceptable to orthodox authorities in the Church. The redactor corrected the antisacramental tenor of the original by adding sacramental references ("water" in 3.5; the Eucharist in 6.51–58; the Eucharist and Baptism in 19.34). He adapted the Evangelist's realized eschatology [see es chatology (in the bible) ] by adding references to the second coming of Christ (5.28–29), and he harmonized John with the Synoptic tradition.

This analysis is ingenious and has some valid insights, e.g., the poetic style of the discourses; but it is open to serious objections. For instance, realized eschatology and a hope for the second coming are not mutually exclusive, and the corrective aspect of the final editing is highly questionable. There are no satisfactory contemporary literary parallels for the sources that Bultmann posits. Moreover, the same stylistic peculiarities are rather uniform throughout the Gospel, as shown by E. Schweizer and E. Ruckstuhl; yet it would be logical to expect different styles to be evident in the remnants of the different sources. C. H. Dodd has shown that miraculous sign and discourse in John are not artificially juxtaposed, but that the discourse is a most necessary explanation of the sign.

Redaction Theory. If the source theory is rejected, there is another more plausible explanation of the composition of John. This is the redaction theory: that underlying the body of the Gospel there is a series of redactions, oral and literary. M. E. Boismard suggests that the one evangelist was responsible for these redactions, as might well happen if the same material was preached over and over again for a long time. This theory would explain different theological emphases within John, e.g., realized and final eschatology, and less and more specific sacramentalism. It would also explain the repetitiveness of John where there seem to be different versions of the same material (e.g., 5.19–25 and 5.26–30; 14.1–31 and 16.4–33). If such redactions stem from the same evange-list at different periods, the unity of Johannine style would still be respected. According to this theory, the evangelist himself may have given written form to one or more of these editions; but as seen above, the final form of the Gospel would not be the work of the evange-list but the work of an editor who acted not as a censor but as the completer of the evangelist's work. This theory would do justice both to the evidence of the Gospel itself and to tradition, for there is a suggestion in the early witnesses (muratorian Canon, Toletan Latin Preface, Acts of John by Prochorus) that others were associated with John in producing this Gospel.

It is not possible for the modern scholar to reconstruct perfectly the various editions of the evangelist or always to detect the hand of the final editor (s). Various scholars (J. Bernard, F. Hoare, Bultmann) have rearranged John to get a better sequence, e.g., by transposing ch. 5 and 6, and by putting 10.1–18 after 10.19–29.

Today the tendency is to comment on the Gospel as it has been given to us. The meaning thus obtained is more likely to be loyal to the author's intent than is a modern subjective and often tendentious rearrangement. The advent of a greater attention to the importance of narrative as such, and the development of a number of approaches to biblical narratives, has tipped the balance even further against the earlier interest in sources and reordering the material. Source critical study continues (see U. Schnelle; J. Painter) but the majority of contemporary Johannine scholars, especially those writing in English, devote their attention to the structure and message of the narrative as we have received it in the canonical text (see M. W. G. Stibbe, T. Brodie, F. J. Moloney).

Historical Tradition in the fourth Gospel. If unity is posited for John, the question must still be asked whether the body of the Gospel as it stems from the evangelist represents independent historical tradition. It has been maintained by some critics that the evangelist borrowed and adapted his historical framework from the syn optic gospels and that what is peculiar to John may be explained either as deliberate alteration of Synoptic details for theological purposes, or else as invention.

Today this approach has lost ground for three reasons. First, it is now seriously contested that John borrowed from the Synoptic tradition; P. Gardner-Smith and Dodd have made a careful study of the relationship between the two traditions as regards the words and deeds of Jesus. In scenes shared by the two traditions, such as the healing of the royal official's son (Jn 4.46–54) and the multiplication of the loaves (Jn 6.1–13), it is almost impossible to explain the differences in John on any pattern of deliberate alteration. Many of the details peculiar to John have every mark of being primitive. Thus it seems that there must be posited for John a tradition independent of the Synoptic tradition, a tradition that in some details will be more primitive, in some details more advanced. Such a position also rules out the ancient theory that John was written to supplement the Synoptic Gospels.

Second, there has been external verification or support for some of the material found in John alone. The pool of bethesda in Jn 5.2 has been excavated in Jerusalem and has been found to have five porticoes, just as John describes it. Its name appears in the copper scroll from Qumran. The stone pavement of the Lithostrotos (19.13) may have been uncovered under the fortress Antonia (see praetorium). As A. Guilding has reconstructed the synagogue lectionary, the texts read in the synagogue at a particular feast were often those that underlie Jesus' discourse on that feast as reported in John, e.g., 6.35–50, on the Passover. P. Borgen shows that a discourse such as 6.35–50 fits all the rules of rabbinic exegesis prevailing in Jesus' own time. These and many other discoveries indicate that the author of the Gospel had an accurate knowledge of Palestine and its customs before the destruction of a.d. 70.

Third, some of the arguments against Johannine historicity have been weakened in recent years. A prime example is the argument that the abstract language of dualism in John, e.g., light and darkness in 3.19–21, could not possibly stem from the Palestine of Jesus' time, but belongs to the Gnostic or Hellenistic world of the 2d century. But this language has recently been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls of Qumran, showing that it was current at least among one group of Jews before and during Jesus' time. A proper understanding of John's theological purpose explains other difficulties. For example, in 11.49 the author does not mistakenly think that the high priesthood was an annual office; he is emphasizing the significant character of "that year" in which Jesus died.

Although there is an increasing tendency to admit that the fourth Gospel contains independent historical tradition, there is widespread overconfidence in the other direction, that John cannot be used as a biographical guide in reconstructing the life of Christ. The standard lives of Christ have been written by fitting Synoptic material into Johannine chronology. This procedure is objectionable on several accounts. First, often the Synoptic Gospels themselves do not give the words and deeds of Jesus in their historical order; many once independent stories have been fitted into their existing sequence according to logic or theology rather than chronology. Second, there is no guarantee that John's chronology is complete. The whole basis for thinking that Jesus had a two-or three-year ministry is that John mentions three Passovers (2.13;6.4; 11.55). However, the reason for mentioning these Passovers is theological (20.30–31) ; they are significant for the narrative. There is no guarantee that there were not more Passovers in the ministry of Jesus that were not mentioned because they had no significance. Moreover, in the final editing of John there has been rearrangement, and the present Johannine sequence is not necessarily always historical. One must recognize, then, the limitations imposed on the use of the historical tradition preserved in John, but this must not be overstated. Recent work on the historical Jesus (J. P. Meier; F. J. Moloney) has turned more regularly to John, and often concluded in favor of the basic historicity of many elements in the Johannine account. (see jesus christ, biographical studies of.)

Influences on the fourth Gospel. Complementary to the previous problem is that of influences on the Gospel. Those who do not accept the historical character of the Johannine tradition often suggest Gnostic or Hellenistic influences on the Evangelist.

Gnostic Influence. The "History of Religions School, " prominent early in the 20th century, brought forward the possibility of Gnostic influence on John, and W. Bauer and Bultmann have been prominent defenders of this theory. Until recently there were very few examples of 2d-century Gnosticism, and so it was possible to think that John might fit into this sphere. The discovery of Gnostic documents at Chenoboskion (see chenobos kion, gnostic texts of) has changed the picture. Neither the Gospel of Truth nor the Gospel of Thomas is close to John in thought. Both betray indirect knowledge of John, but their Gnosticism is more developed than anything in John. At most, it may be said that John, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, exhibits a dualism and a vocabulary that is pre-Gnostic but that was funneled into later Gnosticism.

Nor has Bultmann's Mandaean hypothesis won any real following. The oldest extant forms of Mandaean theology are to be dated late in the Christian period. It is possible that sectarians of John the Baptist were among the forebears of the Mandaeans; but as far as can safely be reconstructed, the peculiarly Gnostic aspect of Mandaean theology is the product of later syncretism. The most important single factor in Bultmann's theory concerns the Gnostic redeemer-myth, but there is no clear evidence of the existence of this myth at a period early enough to have influenced John.

Hellenistic Influence. It has also been suggested, in varying degrees, e.g., by B. W. Bacon, Dodd, and C. K. Barrett, that John betrays Hellenistic influence. A distinction must be made here. There was already considerable Hellenistic influence on pre-Christian Judaism. This is exemplified in the speculations on personified Wisdom in Sirach and the Book of Wisdom and in the theology of sectarian Judaism as seen at Qumran and among the Samaritans. There is no doubt that this Hellenistic strain within Judaism had its indirect influence on John. Our problem concerns direct Hellenistic influence. In writing in Greek every one of the evangelists made an inevitable adaptation of the message of Jesus; but the question is whether John adopted Greek patterns and vocabulary on a large scale in order to interpret Jesus to the Greek world. For instance, it has been suggested that John reflects a popular Platonism in his distinctions between what is above and what is below (3.31), between the real heavenly bread and natural bread (6.32). Some have thought that the "Word" of the Prologue is an adaptation of the Stoic λόγος. Each suggestion could be discussed in detail, but in general, there is today a strong tendency to recognize that the basis of such thought can be found in Palestinian Judaism. The "Word" is far closer to personified Wisdom and to the Jewish notion of God's creative word than it is to anything in Stoicism. Even the parallels suggested between Philo and John are explicable mostly in terms of common OT background and milieu rather than in terms of direct influence. The hermetic literature has also been suggested as having parallels to John. Once again there is the difficulty of dating, since the body of Hermetic literature is post-Johannine, and earlier stages have to be imaginatively reconstructed. The parallels between John and the Dead Sea Scrolls are closer than those between John and Hermetism.

Palestinian Judaism. Thus it may be said that in many ways it is neither Gnosticism nor the Hellenistic world, but Palestinian Judaism, that remains the most plausible influence on Johannine thought and expression, an influence that fits with the theory that John gives us an independent, reliable tradition about Jesus of Nazareth. The standard currents of OT thought are found in John. Jesus is presented as the Messiah, the elect Servant of Yahweh, the King of Israel, the Prophet. While the number of explicit OT citations in John is relatively low, there are many implicit references to OT personages and scenes: to the first chapters of Genesis (Jn 1–2.10) ; to Abraham (8.31–58) ; to Isaac (3.16) ; to Jacob (4.5–12) ; to Moses (1.17; 5.46; etc.) ; to the events of the Exodus, such as the manna (6.31–59), the water from the rock (7.38), the bronze serpent (3.14), and the Tent of Meeting (1.14) ; to the judges (10.35) ; to the theme of the royal shepherd (ch. 10). Jewish institutions are the theme of ch. 2 to 4; Jewish feasts are the theme of ch. 5 to 10. The Aramaic features that underlie John's Greek are so strong that some scholars have suggested that John was originally composed in Aramaic. H. L. Strack, P. Billerbeck, A. Schlatter, and Dodd have pointed out the echoes in John of patterns that are found also in rabbinic Judaism.

The strongest objection to explaining John in terms of Palestinian Judaism remains; it is the difference between Johannine thought and expression and that of the Synoptics. Contemporary scholarship is pointing out that many of the Johannine characteristics may have had their origins in Palestinian Judaism, but they have been deliberately used in the Gospel of John because they addressed the syncretistic religious world into which the Gospel was proclaimed at the end of the First Christian Century.

Yet, if both represent historical tradition, if both come from the background of the Palestine in which Jesus lived, how can they be so different? It is because Jesus speaks so differently in John from the way he speaks in the Synoptics that scholars have posited some extraneous influence on John. No complete solution of this problem has yet been forthcoming, but today the problem is being studied more seriously in terms of both traditions being faithful to Jesus. An important factor that we must recognize is that John highlights strains in the tradition about Jesus that are present also in the Synoptic tradition, but only in muted form. John capitalizes on the divine "I am" drawn from the use of ἐγό εἰμι in the Septuagint (LXX) of Deutero-Isaiah (Is 43.10–11, 25) and perhaps from the Wisdom literature. This usage is seen once in Mk 6.50. The Hour of Jesus' return to the Father in death, Resurrection, and Ascension is important in John (2.4; 7.30; 12.23; 13.1; 17.1), but it is only incidental in the Synoptic tradition (Mk 14.35, 41). Only occasionally does Jesus speak as divine Wisdom in the Synoptics (Mt 11.9; Lk 11.49), but He does so all through John. The figures of bread and water that Jesus uses to describe Himself and His revelation (John ch. 6; 4;7.37–39) are used of Wisdom in the OT [Prv 9.5; Dt 8.3; Is 55.1–3; Sir 24.18–20; Ps 35 (36).9]. Perhaps one of the best indications that the Johannine Jesus is not exclusively Johannine is the so-called Johannine Logion in Mt 11.25–30 and in Lk 10.21–22, where the Synoptic Jesus speaks like the Johannine Jesus.

Another factor contributing to a solution is a better appreciation of each of the four evangelists as a theologian. Something of John's theology has gone into his picture of Jesus, but so has something of the theology of the other three evangelists gone into each of their portraits of Jesus. Even though Clement of Alexandria early designated St. John's as the spiritual Gospel and though John is known as "the theologian, " his way of presenting Jesus in the Gospel differs from the Synoptic way only in degree, not in kind. It is now believed that each evangelist interpreted Jesus in his own way; consequently, differences among the Gospels are less startling than when it was thought that the evangelists were giving strictly objective and coldly factual portraits of Jesus. If one allows interpretative freedom to the evangelist and recognizes that he is expounding a different kerygma than that expounded in the Synoptics it may be held that Johannine singularities do not necessitate the positing of a major extraneous, non-Jewish influence on the Gospel according to John, but the presence of the unique and new features of the Johannine telling of the Gospel account indicates that in this Gospel we have a telling of the old story in a new way.

Destination and purpose of the Gospel. Scholars have argued about the group to which John was directed, and the most important suggestions will be given below. That there are persuasive arguments for more than one group makes it likely that the Gospel had more than one purpose. It may be that some of the diversity of purpose reflects the different redactions by the Evangelist and the editor (s).

Apologetic against Sectarians of the Baptist. In the Prologue there are several references in which it seems that the writer wishes to prevent anyone from claiming too much glory for John the Baptist. Because of this, it has been suggested that one of the chief purposes of the Gospel was to refute exaggerated claims of the followers of John the Baptist. Bultmann's theory of Mandaean influence on John also gives attention to the followers of John the Baptist; indeed, he has suggested that the Prologue was originally a hymn in praise of John the Baptist.

In evaluating this theory, one recognizes that there was a group of John the Baptist's followers who never accepted Christianity. The pseudo-Clementine writings (c. 200) portray these sectarians as asserting that John the Baptist, not Jesus, was the Messiah. We should note, however, that there is not the slightest evidence that these sectarians were originally Gnostic; neither is it safe to use the Mandaean writings to reconstruct their theology. Some of the negations about John the Baptist in John do seem to be an apologetic refutation of the putative claims of the sectarians in John's time as far as we can reconstruct these claims from other sources. Thus Jn 1.8–9 insists that Jesus, not John the Baptist, was the light; and if the benedictus was originally a hymn to John the Baptist, Lk 1.78 might suggest that the baptist's followers thought of him as the light. Also worth mentioning is the insistence that Jesus existed before John the Baptist, not vice versa, and that therefore Jesus is greater (1.30). In John, John the Baptist denies that he is the Messiah (1.20) and indicates that Jesus is (3.28–30). Nevertheless, John does not deprecate the baptist but regards him as a uniquely important witness sent by God (1.6, 31;5.31–40). In summation, it is an exaggeration to see the apologetic against the sectarians of John the Baptist as playing a predominant role in the Gospel, even though it is important. If anything, there may have been difficulties in the early Church with the ex-disciples of John the Baptist. John never speaks negatively of John the Baptist, but Acts 18.24–19:7 indicates that there were some who knew the baptism of John the Baptist, but not Christian Baptism. How were they to be handled? (see C. Niemand)

Polemic against "the Jews." Jesus addressed Himself to His Palestinian Jewish contemporaries in order to persuade them that His was a special role in bringing God's reign (kingdom) into time. Therefore, in any Gospel that preserves a historical tradition one may expect a certain apologetic addressed to the Jews. John is stronger, however, in this respect than the Synoptic Gospels, since the perfection of Jewish institutions (purifications, Temple, worship) and feasts (Sabbath, Passover, Tabernacles, Dedication) is the theme on which the Johannine account of the ministry is organized. It is for this reason that W.C. van Unnik and J. A. T. Robinson have advanced the theory that the primary and almost exclusive purpose of the Gospel was a missionary effort directed to the Diaspora Jews.

It seems that John was not addressed to Palestinian Jews. The term "the Jews" is a hostile one throughout most of John. It is clear that the term is not an ethnic designation, for in ch. 9 the blind man and his parents are contrasted to "the Jews, " even though the family is obviously Jewish. "The Jews" often appears in John when the Synoptics speak of the chief priests, the Pharisees, and the Sanhedrin authorities (also cf. Jn 11.47 with 18.14) ; it may be said that for John "the Jews" refers to the Jewish authorities, especially those in Jerusalem, who are hostile to Jesus. Why does the evangelist give them a title that is clearly anachronistic in the ministry of Jesus? By the time of the writing of John, the Jews in general had become hostile to the followers of Jesus. No longer was there a practical hope for the conversion of the Jews, for synagogue and Church were locked in struggle, and a bitter polemic was developing on both sides. By using the title "the Jews" to refer to those who were hostile to Jesus during the ministry, John was associating the Jews of his own time with them as their descendants. Obviously such terminology ill befitted any missionary effort addressed to Palestinian Jews.

However, as R. Schnackenburg has insisted, the general tenor of John toward even the non-Palestinian Jews can scarcely be called missionary. The hostile debates between Jesus and "the Jews" in Jn 5–12 reflect opposite theological positions. Many of the members of the Johannine community would have been ethnic Jews, but they believed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God (see Jn 20.30–31), the only one who has come from God to make God known (see Jn 1.18; 3.13–14). Jesus' opponents ("the Jews") will not accept this claim. They have rejected the suggestion that anyone except Moses has made God known (see Jn 9.28–29). For John, "the Jews" represent a closed religious system. For John, Jesus does not "replace" the traditions of Israel. He is the consummate gift of God, perfecting the former gift of the Law, given through Moses (see Jn 1.16–17). This is most clear in that section of the Gospel where the conflict between Jesus and "the Jews" is most intense, Jn 5–10. Jesus does not abolish the Jewish celebrations of Sabbath (Jn 5), Passover (Jn 6), Tabernacles (Jn 7.1–10.21), and Dedication (Jn 10.22–39). The theology, language, and ritual of the Jewish celebrations are rendered christological, and thus perfected in Jesus Christ. This is the root of the conflict between Jesus and "the Jews" (see Moloney, Signs and Shadows ).

Encouragement to Jewish Christians. There is one exception that fits in with this picture of a general polemic against hostile Judaism. Before the destruction of the Temple, official Judaism had tolerated Jewish Christians within the synagogue. In the decades following the Jewish War, and into the 2d century, there was a gradual parting of the ways between two pre-war Jewish sects: Pharisaic Judaism and Christian Judaism. It has long been claimed that a formal curse against Christians was recited publicly as part of the Eighteen Benedictions, so that failure to pronounce it would betray a Jew of Christian leanings. Under the leadership of Gamaliel II at Jamnia, it has been claimed that this blessing was used to eliminate Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah from the Synagogue (J. L. Martyn; R. E. Brown). Recent scholarship has shown that this so-called "blessing" (birkat haminim ) cannot be reconstructed as a direct attack upon the Christians. Nor can it be clearly associated with Gamaliel II (P. van der Horst). It is also clear that in some places Jews and Christians continued a close association well into the 2d century (J. M. Lieu). Nevertheless, behind the Gospel of John lies an experience of expulsion (see Jn 9:22; 12:42; 16:2, where the Greek word απέλαση is found). There is no need to link this with any formal postwar decision from the Jewish leadership at Jamnia. However local the parting of the ways over the christological claims made for Jesus by the Christians, the pain of separation from the Synagogue is still felt by the readers of the Gospel of John. Undoubtedly many of the Jewish Christians were torn between their ties to their brethren and their faith in Jesus. It is most probable that one of the principal purposes of the fourth Gospel was to encourage such Jewish Christians. The arrangement of the first part of the Gospel is designed to show them that, although they leave Judaism, they have in Jesus a perfection of all that they hold dear by way of institutions and feasts. In the Gospel narratives those who believe in Jesus are distinguished from the hostile "Jews, " and indeed the blind man in ch. 9 is a hero who is excommunicated from the synagogue for his faith (9.22, 34). On two other occasions, John anachronistically mentions excommunication (12.42; 16.2), showing that it was a major issue when the Gospel was being written. In 12.42–43 we have a criticism of those who believe in Jesus but are afraid to confess it publicly for fear of the Jews, and in 19.38 we see how Joseph and Nicodemus overcome their fear and acknowledge their adherence to Jesus' cause. The Gospel was written, in part, to help the Jewish Christians at the end of the century to do likewise.

Encouragement to Christians in General. The purpose of the Gospel is expressed in Jn 20.31: "That you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name." If the first half of this statement reflects some of the apologetic motifs we have seen above, the second half shows a desire to confirm those who already believe in Jesus. By the time John was written, there was a well-organized Christian community with a sacramental and liturgical life. What was the connection between all of this and Jesus of Nazareth? Was He merely a figure of historical interest who had founded a religion that now stood on its own? The fourth Gospel is a resounding "no" to this question. Its message is that Jesus is as vital a source of life to His followers at the end of the century as He was when He walked through Palestine. Only through belief in Him can a man have eternal life; the Church exists not as a substitute for Jesus but as a community rooted in belief in Jesus. The Johannine image for the Church is the vine and branches (ch. 15), for the branches cannot live apart from the vine, which is Jesus. John recognizes a sacramental system, but he shows that the Sacraments are ways in which Jesus gives life. During His lifetime His miracles were signs of life-giving activity; in the Gospel John often gives these miraculous signs a secondary sacramental import to show that Sacraments have taken the place of miracles as life-giving acts. In ch. 3 the suggestion that sight and entry into the Kingdom can only take place by means of the spirit and water has baptismal background. Ch. 6 the multiplication of the loaves symbolizes the Eucharist. Similar sacramental background is found in the gift of the blood and water in 19:34–35.

A particular aspect of rooting the life of the Church in Jesus is seen in the presentation of the paraclete (ch. 14–16). The Apostolic generation was dying out, and this was producing a crisis in the Church (2 Pt 3.4). Without those who had been eyewitnesses commissioned to preach Jesus, how would Jesus' presence be kept alive in the Church? The other NT writings know of the Spirit as a charismatic force, of the Spirit's role at Baptism, etc.; but it is John above all that shows the Paraclete as the continuation of Jesus' activity in the Church. The key to the Paraclete passages in John is that the activities predicated of the Paraclete have previously been predicated of Jesus, so that the Paraclete is the answer to how Jesus will remain active in the Church when the last human links in the chain of eyewitnesses connecting the Church to Jesus have been broken. Jesus has given His Spirit to the Church to teach, to guide, to be with it forever.

The Johannine emphasis on realized eschatology can also be understood against this background of Church life. As the apostolic generation died out, the failure of Jesus to return became a problem. Many had understood that this generation would not die out before Jesus returned (Mt 24.34), and there seems to have been a special hope that Jesus would return before John died (Jn 21.22–23). Without ever losing the primitive hope of the return of Jesus, John has its own solution to the problem: an emphasis on the fact that many of the things that Christians expected at the end of time were already here, at least in part. There was no need to wait for the second coming in order to face judgment, or to receive eternal life (3.18–21; 5.24–25), or to become children of God, since human beings were already begotten from above through the Spirit at Baptism (3.5), or even to have the presence of Jesus, since he was among them in His Paraclete. In these aspects and in many others the Gospel is a great work of theology, developing a historical tradition about the words and deeds of Jesus in order to give new depth to the faith and life of Christians.

Encouragement for the Gentiles. In particular, John shows the Gentile Christians that their conversion was part of God's plan in sending His Son. By the use of irony, Jn 7.35 hints that ultimately Jesus will go to the Gentiles ("the Greeks") to teach them. In 10.16 there is an insistence that the Good Shepherd will lay down His life for sheep that are not of the fold of Israel in order to bring them into His flock. By unconscious prophecy, Caiphas (11.52) predicts that Jesus will die not only for the nation of Israel, but for all God's scattered children. Finally, the public ministry of Jesus reaches its climax when, after He has been rejected by the Jews, the whole world begins to come to Him (12.19) and the Gentiles seek after Him (12.20–21). This is the sign that the hour of His glorification has come (12.23) ; and when in that hour He is lifted up on the cross in return to His Father, He draws all men to Himself (12.32). This theme of "gathering" is symbolically acted out at the cross. There Jesus gives the Beloved Disciple to his Mother, and vice-versa. As he dies, he gives the Spirit, blood and water to the new community, standing at the foot of the cross (19:25–37)

Date of writing. The plausible range for the dating of John has narrowed according to recent scholarly views, and a range between a.d. 90 and 110 has the widest following. It is to be stressed that this is a range for the actual writing of John in its final, complete form; as has been seen, the basic tradition behind John may have taken its form earlier, and some parts of John may have been written long before the final form.

Latest Date. The latest plausible date is c. 110. The arguments formerly proposed for a late 2d-century dating (A. Loisy, 150–160) have lost their force, e.g., the proposed similarities between John and Gnosticism, the dependency of John on the Synoptics. One argument for late dating must be discussed, namely, that John was not known by any early 2d-century writer. It is quite clear that after c. 170 John was known to Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, and others. The discussion about the earlier part of the century is centered around Ignatius of Antioch and Justin. J. W. Sanders, followed by Barrett, questions whether these authors used John; but in detailed studies, C. Maurer and J. S. Romanides strongly maintain dependence on John. In the most complete study ever done on the use of John in the 2d century, F. M. Braun finds ample reason to affirm that John was accepted in orthodox circles in Egypt, Rome, Syria, and Asia Minor from the early years of the century.

Although the arguments for late dating have now lost their force, new arguments for early dating have appeared. In 1935 C. H. Roberts published an Egyptian papyrus fragment (P⁵²) of John ch. 18 that is dated between 135 and 150. Since few scholars think that John was composed in Egypt or that this papyrus was the autograph, one must allow time between the writing of John and its wide circulation in Egypt. Papyrus Egerton 2, a composite work of c. 150 drawing on both John and the Synoptics, is another mid-century Egyptian witness to John. There are two long papyri texts of John from the end of the 2d century in the Bodmer collection (P^{60, 75}). Since these reflect different textual traditions (P⁶⁶ is closer to Codex Sinaiticus; P⁷⁵ is closer to Codex Vaticanus), one must allow time between the writing of John and this development. All these witnesses make a date of much later than 110 for the Johannine autograph very unlikely.

The positing of an independent historical tradition for John has also led to an earlier dating. This tradition must have come out of Palestine not much later than 70, for the flight of the Christian community from Palestine during the first Jewish revolt and the thoroughness of the destruction at that time make it unlikely that material for a genuine historical tradition could have been gathered after that date. Working on probabilities, we may suppose that the author composed or collected his tradition in Palestine before 70, or outside Palestine within a generation after 70. If we allow another generation for editorial process, we reach a date of c. 110 at the latest for final writing.

Earliest Date. The earliest plausible date is less certain, but it is probably c. 90. There have been some suggestions (W. F. Albright, E. R. Goodenough) of a very early date, before 70. Recently, J. A. T. Robinson has claimed that John was the first of the Gospels, written well before the fall of Jerusalem. Too early a date cannot be reconciled with the literary process posited from internal analysis. The argument from silence for an early date is weak; e.g., Goodenough argues that John 7.42 betrays ignorance of the virginal birth of Jesus at Bethlehem, and that therefore John is earlier than Matthew or Luke. In 7.42 we probably have an example of Johannine irony in which, as in 4.12, the speakers in their ignorance actually formulate a true statement about Jesus. Similarly, Robinson claims that the words of the chief priests and the Pharisees in 11.48 show that the Romans had not yet detroyed the holy place and the nation. This is also typical Johannine irony. They decide to slay Jesus (see 11.53), but as the Gospel is read and heard in a Christian community, the holy place and the nation have been destroyed by the Romans, and the risen Jesus is alive.

One internal argument that is helpful for determining the earliest plausible date for John is the question of the expulsion from the synagogue mentioned above. The experience of the Johannine Christians evidenced by 9.22, 12.42, and 16.2 may not have been universal, but the gradual parting of the ways between two pre-war Jewish sects does seem to have been an active issue before the mid-80s. No date before 90 seems likely. The plausible range of 90 to 110 thus arrived at agrees with the earliest tradition (Irenaeus) that John was written as the last of the Gospels, during the reign of Trajan (98–117).

Authorship of the Fourth Gospel

External attestation. In this discussion we note that the concept of authorship in antiquity was broader than our modern identification of author and writer. For the ancients, attribution of a work to an author did not preclude a free use of secretaries, editors, and schools of writers. The author is the man who stands behind the tradition. The major tradition that has come down within the Christian Church is that the author of this Gospel was John, son of Zebedee, who published it in his last years at Ephesus. This tradition is found at the end of the 2d century in Irenaeus (Adv.haer. 3.1.1.), the Muratorian Canon, Clement of Alexandria, and others. The evidence of Irenaeus is important because he claims to have it from Polycarp of Smyrna, who knew John; but this evidence is contested in four grounds. First, there is a curious silence about John's presence at Ephesus in works where one might expect to find it mentioned: Paul to the Ephesians, Ignatius to the Ephesians, Polycarp's writing, the life of Polycarp, and Papias.

Second, Irenaeus might have been wrong about Polycarp's relation to John the Apostle. He says (Adv.haer. 5.33.4) that Papias heard John, but Papias himself does not confirm this. Was there another John whom both Papias and Polycarp knew? It should be noted that Irenaeus claims to have known Polycarp but not Papias. Third, there is a tradition that John the Apostle died early. It is found in a late extract of Philip of Side (430), in George Hamartolus (9th century), and in some 5th-and 6th-century martyrologies. It probably results from an overliteral interpretation of Mk 10.39 and from a confusion of names (John the Baptist with John of Zebedee; James, the brother of the Lord, with James of Zebedee).

Fourth, it has been suggested that it was another John at Ephesus who wrote the Gospel—Elder, or Presbyter, John. Papias (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.4) says that he got information about Christian origins from the sayings of the elders: what Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, and Matthew said—clearly members of the Twelve; what the disciples (of the Lord), Aristion and Elder John, say. The difference of tenses seems to indicate that the first group was dead and the second group alive when Papias made the inquiry (100–140). That there were two Johns involved is the most obvious meaning. Later, Dionysius of Alexandria and Eusebius, in their desire to remove the Apocalypse with its millenarian ism from the canon of the Scriptures, attributed it, but not the fourth Gospel, to Elder John. (For the presbyter, or elder, of 2 and 3 John in relation to the Gospel, see john, epistles of st.).

In summation, Irenaeus's evidence is not infallible, but it is still far from disproved. There were ancient denials of apostolic origin for John on the part of some anti-Montanists and of the alogoi. But these were sectarians who disliked John's doctrine, and they are no witness to any widespread doubt in the Church about Johannine authorship.

Internal Evidence. Was Irenaeus right? It is impossible to give a certain answer. The majority of contemporary scholars do not regard it as a significant question. Most who have pursued the matter conclude that the author was a founding figure in the community, probably a disciple of Jesus, but not the son of Zebedee or one of the Twelve Apostles. John the Evangelist fails to pay any attention to the term "apostle" in the technical sense, favoring the use of the expression "disciple, " with a particular focus upon the "Beloved Disciple." Indeed, there is an apparent rivalry between Peter and the Beloved Disciple, unresolved until the addition of ch. 21. There is a complete lack of any sense of apostolic ministry in John, and the only commandments that are found are to love (13.34–35; 15.12, 17) and to believe (14.1, 11, 12). These factors make better sense if the Johannine community could not trace its origins to one of the Twelve —a lack that led Johannine theology to exalt love and belief rather than an apostolic commissioning as the essential factor in the cohesion of the community. This lacuna is remedied by Peter's commissioning as the shepherd in 21:15–19. However, dating the Epistles of John after the Gospel indicates that the lack of more formal institutional authority led to the disintegration of the Johannine community.

From the story of the Gospel itself, however, an interesting anonymous figure emerges. An active character in the story is never named. He is generally called "the other disciple" (see 18.15, 16; 20.3, 4, 8), but eventually becomes "the other disciple… whom Jesus loved" (see 20.2). This is "the Beloved Disciple" (see 13.23; 19.26), the author of the Gospel (21.20, 23, 24). The narrative of the Gospel bears traces of its "author." He was a disciple of Jesus, a founding figure in a community whose Gospel we today call the Gospel of John. His desire to keep his name out of the account of the life of Jesus was respected, even after he had died.

His death is presupposed by 21.20–23. The addendum to the Gospel (ch. 21) provides information about the later situation of the Johannine community. As Peter "follows" Jesus (21.19), he looks back to the Beloved Disciple who is, in turn, following (v. 20). He enquires about the destiny of this other important figure (v. 21). Jesus tells Peter that he is not to concern himself whether or not the Beloved Disciple will live on until Jesus returns (v. 22), but the narrator then adds a further explanatory comment to the words of Jesus (v. 23). Jesus did not say that the Beloved Disciple would not die, but that whether or not he would die was not Peter's concern. This comment is called for because "the rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die" (v. 23), but that is not exactly what Jesus had said. The community had to be taught exactly what Jesus meant. What was the problem? The Beloved Disciple was no longer alive as ch. 21 was being written, and his death had to be explained.

The weight of the evidence, briefly summarized above, is against the Beloved Discple and Apostle John being one and the same figure, but it should not worry us that we cannot be certain. The authority of the Gospel of John comes from its message, not from the apostolicity of its author. The important thing about the Gospel is that it has stood the test of time. After two thousand years of Christian history we continue to read this life-story of Jesus. The author (see 21.24) was diligent in keeping his name out of the story, even when it appears that he may have been an active participant (see 1.35–40; 13.23–25;18.15–16; 19.25–27; 20.2, 3, 8; 21.7, 20, 24). Oceans of scholarly ink have been spilt attempting to put it back again. Perhaps the ultimate fruitlessness of the search for certainty should teach us to respect the desire of the original author, and respect the work he has left us.

Outline of the Gospel. Outlines of John are notoriously unsatisfactory because, while there are broadly defined sections and themes, the sections overlap and the themes are stated briefly, left, and then picked up again and further developed later in the narrative. Many rich themes are merely stated, and not thoroughly worked through. The Gospel of John contains a great deal of "self-contained allusiveness" (E. C. Hoskyns).

Many outlines or structures of the Gospel of John are determined by scholarly discussion of the sources behind the Gospel, or the way various redactional stages have shaped the material. The following outline is determined by the belief that, whatever the sources and the redaction history of the Gospel, the finished product is to be read as a coherent narrative and theological unity.

• I. THE PROLOGUE (1.1–18). This hymn informs the reader of who Jesus is (pre-existent Logos become flesh in the person of Jesus the Christ, the perfection of God's gifts to humankind, the unique revelation of God who brings life to all who believe in him). Armed with this knowledge, unavailable to the characters in the story, the reader is called into judgment as each encounter between Jesus and those characters takes place.
• II. THE BOOK OF SIGNS (1.19–12.50). The public ministry of Jesus is told. In this section of the Gospel, Jesus calls and forms disciples, teaches, works miracles, encounters opposition, and challenges the characters in the story, and especially the reader of the story.
• A. The first days of Jesus (1.19–51). Set within a context of four days (see vv. 24–28, 29–34, 35–42, 43–51), John the Baptist gives witness to Jesus over the first two days, and the first disciples move toward Jesus, expressing partially correct faith. They are finally challenged by Jesus to a deeper faith, and promised the sight of "greater things" (vv. 50–51).
• B. From Cana to Cana (2.1–4.54). Framed between two Cana miracles (2.1–12; 4.43–54), and marked by two comments (2.23–25; 4.31–38), a series of episodes tell of a variety of responses to Jesus. These responses serve as examples of false, partial, and perfect faith, first among Jews, and then from the Samaritans.
• 1. The first miracle at Cana (2.12)
• 2. Jesus and "the Jews" (2.12–22)
• 3. The narrator's comment on faith (2.23–25)
• 4. Jesus and Nicodemus (3.1–21)
• 5. Jesus and John the Baptist (3.22–36)
• 6. Jesus and the Samaritan woman I (4.1–15)
• 7. Jesus and the Samaritan woman II (4.16–30)
• 8. Jesus comments on his mission (4.31–38)
• 9. Jesus and the Samaritan villagers (4.39–42)
• 10. The second miracle at Cana
• C. The feasts of "the Jews" (5.1–10.42). Within a context of increasing hostility, Jesus claims to perfect the Jewish celebrations of Sabbath, Passover, Tabernacles, and Dedication.
• 1. Jesus and the Sabbath (5.1–47)
• 2. Jesus and the Passover (6.1–71)
• 3. Jesus and Tabernacles I (7.1–8.59)
• 4. Jesus and Tabernacles II (9.1–10.21)
• 5. Jesus and Dedication (10.22–42)
• D. Jesus turns toward "the hour" (11.1–12.50). The resurrection of Lazarus triggers the decision that Jesus must die for the nation, and not only for the nation, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered. The arrival of the final Passover is noted as Jesus is anointed, enters Jerusalem, is sought by the Greeks, and makes a final attempt to have "the Jews" walk in the light of his revelation of God on the cross.
• 1. A resurrection that will lead to death (11.1–54)
• 2. The hour has come (11.55–12.36)
• 3. Conclusion of the ministry and the Book of Signs
• III. THE BOOK OF GLORY (13.1–20.29). The second half of the Gospel moves toward the fulfillment of Jesus' promise that he would be "lifted up" (see 3.14; 8.28; 12.32–33) on a cross. In Johannine theology, this act of self-gift is a consummate act of love (see 15.13) and is thus the time and the place where the glory of God can be seen, and the means by which the Son of God is glorified (see 11.4). The focus on "glory" emerges from the events, discourses, and prayer of Jesus' final evening with the disciples, and then from the unique Johannine narrative of Jesus' death and resurrection.
• A. The last discourse (13.1–17.26). This carefully constructed description of events and words of Jesus from his last night with the disciples states and re-states themes around the command to love (15.12–17), in the midst of rejection and hated (15.1–11, 15.18–16.3).
• 1. Making God known: the footwashing and the morsel (13.1–38)
• 2. Living after Jesus' departure (14.1–31)
• 3. To abide, to love, and to be hated (15.1–16.3)
• 4. Living after Jesus' departure (16.4–33)
• 5. Making God known: Jesus' final prayer (17.1–26)
• B. The Passion (18.1–19.42). A further carefully constructed narrative tells the traditional story of the arrest, trials, crucifixion, death, and burial of Jesus, but it focuses upon this moment is Jesus' royal enthronement, making God known and establishing a community.
• 1. Jesus and his enemies in a garden (18.1–11)
• 2. Jesus' appearance before "the Jews" (18.12–27)
• 3. Jesus before Pilate (18.28–19.16a)
• 4. The crucifixion of Jesus (19.16b–37)
• 5. Jesus buried in a garden with his new-found friends (19.38–42)
• C. The Resurrection (20.1–29). Scenes at the tomb, and then in the house return to the faith response of those who encounter Jesus (see 2.1–4.54)
• 1. Scenes at the tomb (20.1–18)
• a. Visits to the empty tomb (20.1–10)
• b. Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene (20.11–18)
• 2. Scenes in the house
• a. Jesus appears to the disciples, but not Thomas (20.19–23)
• b. Jesus appears to the disciples, including Thomas (20.24–29)
• IV. THE CONCLUSION TO THE GOSPEL (20.30–31)
• V. EPILOGUE: Further resurrection appearances deal with matters left unresolved by the original Gospel: who belongs to the community of Jesus, and the respective roles of Peter and the Beloved Disciple (21.1–25)
• 1. The miraculous draft of fishes on the Sea of Tiberias (21.1–14)
• 2. Jesus, Peter, and the Beloved Disciple (21.15–24)
• 3. A second conclusion to the Gospel (21:25)

Bibliography: General. Commentaries: c. k. barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (2d ed. London 1978). j. h. bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, 2 v. (International Critical Commentary, New York 1929). g. r. beasley-murray, John (Word Biblical Commentary 36, Waco, Tx. 1987). j. becker, Das Evangelium des Johannes, 2v. (Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament 4/1–2, Gütersloh and Würzburg 1979–1981). r. bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, tr. g. r. beasley-murray (Oxford 1971). t. l. brodie, The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary (New York 1993). r. e. brown, The Gospel According to John, 2 v. (Anchor Bible 29–29a, New York 1966–1970). d. a. carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, Mich. 1991). e. haenchen, John 1–2, 2 v. (Philadelphia, Pa. 1984). e. c. hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel (2d ed. London 1947). r. h. lightfoot, St. John's Gospel: A Commentary (Oxford 1956). b. lindars, The Gospel of John (New Century Bible, London 1972). f. j. moloney, The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina 4, Collegeville, Minn. 1998). r. schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3 v. (London/New York 1968–82). u. schnelle, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 4, Leipzig 1998). m. w. g. stibbe, John (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary, Sheffield 1993). Other Studies: r. e. brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York 1979). c. koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel (Minneapolis, Minn. 1995). r. kysar, The Fourth Evange-list and His Gospel: An Examination of Contemporary Scholarship (Minneapolis, Minn. 1975). r. kysar, "The Fourth Gospel: A Report on Recent Research, " in w. haase and h. temporini, eds., Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt Teil II: Principat. Religion (Berlin 1979—) 25:2389–2480. m. labahn, Jesus als Lebenspender. Untersuchuchungen zu einer Geschichte der johanneischen Tradition anhand ihrer Wundergeschichten (Beihefte zue Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 98, Berlin 1999). w. langbrandtner, Weltferner Gott oder Gott der Liebe. Der Ketzerstreit in der johanneischen Kirche. Eine exegetischreligionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung mit Berücksichtigung der koptisch-gnostischen Texte aus Nag-Hammadi (Beiträge zue biblischen Exegese und Theologie 6, Bern 1977). f. j. moloney, The Johannine Son of Man (2d ed. Biblioteca di Scienze Religiose 14, Rome 1978) ; "Where Does One Look? Reflections on Some Recent Johannine Scholarship." Salesianum 62 (2000) 223–251. c. niemand, Die Fusswashungserzählung des Johannesevangeliums. Untersuchungen zur ihrer Entstehung und Überlieferung im Urchristentum (Studia Anselmiana 114, Rome 1993). j. painter, The Quest for the Messiah: The History, Literature and Theology of the Fourth Gospel (2d ed. Edinburgh 1993). u. schnelle, Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John: An Investigation of the Place of the Fourth Gospel in the Johannine School (Minneapolis, Minn.1992). m. w. g. stibbe, John as Storyteller: Narrative Criticism and the Fourth Gospel (Society for New Testament Studies Supplement Series 73, Cambridge 1992). On the unity of the Gospel. e. schweizer, Ego eimi (Göttingen 1939). e. ruckstuhl, Die literarische Einheit des Johannes-evangeliums (Fribourg 1951). b. noack, Zur Johanneische Tradition (Copenhagen 1954). d. m. smith, Johannine Christianity. Essays on Its Setting, Sources, and Theology (Columbia 1984) ; m.-É. boismard, "S. Luc et la rédaction du Quatrième Évangile, " Revue biblique 69 (1962) 185–211. d. m. smith, The Composition and Order of the Fourth Gospel (New Haven, Conn. 1965). On historical tradition in the Gospel. p. gardiner-smith, Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge, Eng.1938). c. h. dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, Eng. 1963). r. e. brown, "The Qumrân Scrolls and the Johannine Gospel and Epistles, " Catholic Biblical Quarterly 17 (1955) 403–419, 559–574; "The Problem of Historicity in John, " ibid. 24 (1962) 1–14; d. m. smith, John Among the Gospels: The Relationship in Twentieth-Century Research (Columbia, S.C.2001). j. p. meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 2 v. (New York 1991–1994). f. j. moloney, "The Fourth Gospel and the Jesus of History." New Testament Studies 46 (2000) 42–58. On influences on the fourth Gospel. h. odeberg, The Fourth Gospel Interpreted in Its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World (Chicago, Ill. 1960, reprint of 1929 edition). r. h. strachan, The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environment (London 1941). f. m. braun, Jean le théologien, v. 1 (Paris 1959) treats subject of John and Gnosticism, v. 2 (1964) treats subject of John and Judaism. c. h. dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, Eng.1960), esp. 3–130. g. quispel, "L'Évangile de Jean et la Gnose, " L'Évangile de Jean (Louvain 1958) 197–208. r. e. brown, "The Gospel of Thomas and St. John's Gospel, " New Testament Studies 9 (1962–63) 155–177; h. koester, "The History of Religions School, Gnosis and the Gospel of John, " Studia Theologica 40 (1986) 115–36; k.-w. trÖger, "Ja oder Nein zur Welt. War der Evangelist Christ order Gnostiker?" Theologische Versuche 7 (1976) 61–80; m. j. j. menken, Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel (Kampen 1996) ; a. obermann, Die christologische Erfüllung der Schrift im Johannesevangelium. Eine Untersuchung zur johanneischen Hermeneutik anhand der Schriftzitate (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 83. Tübingen 1996). j. h. charlesworth, John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York 1990). On destination and purpose of the Gospel. e. l. allen, "The Jewish Christian Church in the Fourth Gospel, " Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (1955) 88–92. k. l. carroll, "The Fourth Gospel and the Exclusion of Christians from the Synagogues, " Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 40 (1957) 19–32. j. a. t. robinson, "The Destination and Purpose of St. John's Gospel, " New Testament Studies 6 (1959–60) 117–131. w. c. van unnik, "The Purpose of St. John's Gospel, " Studia Evangelica (1957) 1:382–411. a. wind, "Destination and Purpose of the Gospel of John, " Novum Testamentum 14 (1972) 26–69. r. schnackenburg, "Die Messiasfrage im Johannesevangelium, " N.T. Aufsätze. für J. Schmid (Regensburg 1963) 240–264. c. k. barrett, The Gospel of John and Judaism (London 1975). f. manns, L'Évangile de Jean à la lumière du Judaïsm (Studia Biblica Franciscani analecta, Jerusalem 1991). j. ashton, "The Identity and Function of the Ioudaioi in the Fourth Gospel, " Novum Testamentum 27 (1985) 40–75. j. l. martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (2d ed. Nashville, Tenn. 1979) ; f. j. moloney, Signs and Shadows: Reading John 5–12 (Minneapolis, Minn. 1996). On the date of writing. j. n. sanders, The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church (Cambridge, Eng. 1943). c. maurer, Ignatius von Antiochien und das Johannesevangelium (Zürich 1949) ; j. s. romanides, "Justin Martyr and the Fourth Gospel, " Greek Orthodox Theological Review 4 (1958–59) 115–134. e. r. goodenough, "John: A Primitive Gospel, " Journal of Biblical Literature 64 (1945) 145–182. w. f. albright, The Archaeology of Palestine (rev. ed. Baltimore, Md. 1960) 243–249. j. a. t. robinson, The Priority of John (London 1985). m. wiles, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church (Cambridge 1960). j. m. lieu, Image and Reality: The Jews in the World of Christians in the Second Century (Edinburgh 1996). p. w. van der horst, "The Birkat ha-minim in Recent Research, " The Expository Times 105 (1994) 363–68. On the authorship of the Gospel. h. p. v. nunn, The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford 1952). m. hengel, The Johannine Question (Philadelphia, Pa. 1989). r. a. culpepper, John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend (Studies on Personalities of the New Testament, Columbia 1994). j. h. charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John? (Valley Forge, Pa. 1995)

[r. e. brown/

f. j. moloney]