The Jewish Annotated New Testament (50 page)

The most persuasive evidence for the date of the Gospel is textual. The earliest material evidence for the Gospel is a small Egyptian codex fragment of John 18.31–33,37–38, known as the Rylands Library Papyrus 52. This fragment is dated to 135–160. Because circulation of the Gospel from Asia Minor, where it was likely written, to Egypt would have taken a few decades, the existence of this fragment suggests a late first- or early second-century dating for the final version of the Gospel. For these reasons, John’s Gospel is generally thought to have been completed ca. 85–95 CE.

HISTORY OF COMPOSITION

This dating applies to the final version of the Gospel found in the most complete manuscripts of the New Testament, such as Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus. This final version, however, was the product of a lengthy and complicated history of composition. It is likely that pre-Johannine sources or early versions of the Gospel circulated for some decades before the date of final composition. Evidence for a lengthy process of composition includes narrative inconsistencies and awkward narrative transitions. For example, whereas ch 5, which recounts the healing of a lame man, is set in Jerusalem, ch 6, v. 1 abruptly situates Jesus on the “other side of the Sea of Galilee.” Also puzzling is the comment in 14.31, in which Jesus says, “Rise, let us be on our way,” and then continues to speak, with no change in setting, for three more chapters.

Some scholars posit that a written “signs source” served as the basis for the Gospel’s narrative. The Gospel recounts a series of “signs” (Gk “semeia”) or wondrous deeds, often, though not always, accompanied by lengthy discourses. These signs are not mere miracles but rather witnesses to Jesus’ identity as God’s only son; the accounts of these signs are intended to foster or deepen the faith of the Gospel’s audience.

The version of John’s Gospel now found in the New Testament contains one passage that did not originally belong: the story of the woman caught in adultery (7.53–8.13) is absent from some of the earliest manuscripts, and in some manuscripts it appears after Luke 21.38 (where it fits better narratively). Questions have also been raised regarding John 21. On the grounds of both content and style, some scholars believe that this final chapter is a later addition, written by someone other than the author(s) of the rest of the Gospel. In antiquity, later traditions were often added at a book’s end.

AUTHORSHIP AND PROVENANCE

The Gospel identifies the beloved disciple (or “the disciple whom Jesus loved”) as the eyewitness author (19.35; 21.24). This anonymous figure first appears in the scene of Jesus’ last meal with his disciples (13.23). He is presented as the disciple who is closest to Jesus, and at the cross, Jesus appoints him to take care of his mother (19.25–27). Since the second century, Christian tradition has identified the beloved disciple with John son of Zebedee, one of the twelve disciples mentioned in the Synoptics. This tradition is unlikely to be correct, however, both because John the son of Zebedee, a Galilean fisherman, does not match the Jerusalem-based depiction of the beloved disciple, and because the Gospel does not identify the beloved disciple as John. Therefore, the Gospel’s author is better understood to be anonymous and probably not an original follower of Jesus or an eyewitness. The final version of the Gospel has traditionally been assigned to Ephesus in Asia Minor (Izmir, in modern-day Turkey), though it is possible that an early version originated orally or in written form with a group from Judea.

AUDIENCE AND PURPOSE

John 20.30–31 states the purpose for the Gospel: “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.” This translation implies that the purpose is to bring readers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah (Christ) and Son of God. However, the verb translated “that you may come to believe” reflects one manuscript tradition; other manuscripts contain a different form of the verb that is better translated “that you may continue to believe.” This second form suggests that the Gospel was intended to strengthen the faith of those already within the community. The latter interpretation suits the overall tone and content of the Gospel, which does not emphasize openness to nonbelievers, but focuses on a set of specific views of Jesus (Christology), the end times (eschatology), and salvation (soteriology).

The view that the Gospel was written for a specific community is closely related to the historical context of the Gospel. The predominantly negative role played by “the Jews” in the narrative suggests that the text was written in a context of overt conflict between Jews and the members of the Johannine community. Even if the expulsion theory is tenuous, the Gospel’s hostility toward the Jews is certainly real. It is possible that the Gospel reflects a stage in the process by which Johannine believers came to see themselves as separate from and, to some extent, over and against Jews and Judaism. Views on the size and ethnic character of the intended audience vary widely: they range from seeing the audience as comprised of all followers of Jesus to the view that the first audience was a small and select community of Israelites who were the direct descendants of those who had remained in Judea after the destruction of the First Temple (see “John’s Prologue as Midrash” p.
546
). If the first view is correct, the conflict portrayed within the Gospel may well reflect a widespread separation between Jews and Christ-confessors (the term “Christian” may not yet have been in effect for those who believed in Jesus as the Messiah). If the second view is correct, the Gospel reflects an inner-Jewish controversy but not a widespread or even local parting of the ways.

There are significant clues within the Gospel itself, however, to suggest that the intended audience included not only those of Jewish origin but those of Samaritan and Gentile origin as well. John 4 describes Jesus’ encounter with a Samaritan woman, as a result of which many other Samaritans came to believe in Jesus. John 12 describes the strong interest of some “Greeks,” perhaps Jews from the Diaspora but more likely Gentiles, in Jesus, after which Jesus declares that his death will draw all people to himself. If the intended audience, and therefore the Johannine community, included Jews, Gentiles, and Samaritans, then it could be plausibly argued that they needed to create their own identity that overcame the social, historical and theological boundaries existing between their groups of origin. An important part of doing this work would have been to create an identity quite distinct from those other groups, especially from Jews and Judaism, from which this new group has appropriated much of its symbolism, scripture, and theology. The Gospel stresses Jesus’ superiority to Moses (1.18; 3.14–15). John 2.13–22 implies that Jesus replaces the Jerusalem Temple as the place where God dwells, a claim that is made explicitly in 4.21 and illustrated in 6.1–4, in which Jews flock to Jesus in the Galilee region instead of to Jerusalem for the Passover pilgrimage festival.

JEWS AND JUDAISM

John’s knowledge of first-century Judaism

The Gospel of John reflects deep and broad knowledge of Jerusalem, Jewish practice, and methods of biblical interpretation. Some references to early first-century Jerusalem topography and landmarks, such as the pool at Beth-zatha near the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem (5.2) are supported archaeologically, suggesting direct knowledge of the city and surroundings. The Gospel refers to the Sabbath and Passover as well as to the Feast of Tabernacles (5.1) and Hanukkah (10.22). It explains ritual hand-washing before meals (2.6), a comment that supports the hypothesis, mentioned earlier, that at least some of the Gospel’s intended audience is not of Jewish origin. Most strikingly, the Gospel alludes to a broad range of Jewish ideas. For example, in Jn 6, often called the Bread of Life discourse (6.25–71), it employs argument similar to later rabbinic midrashic traditions. In 5.17, Jesus responds to the Jews’ accusations that he breaks the Sabbath by asserting: “My Father is still working, and I also am working.” This response recalls the discussion by the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria (ca. 20 BCE–50 CE) on the question of whether God works on the Sabbath (
Cher
. 86–890;
Leg. all
. 1.5–6). The same issue is discussed in rabbinic literature, e.g.,
Ex. Rab
. 11.10; 30.9; though this text in its present form postdates the Gospel of John by several centuries, it may reflect traditions that were already present in the first century. The Gospel’s prologue applies concepts associated with Lady Wisdom in Prov 8.22–31 and Sir 24 to “the Word” (incarnated in Jesus); the Word is portrayed as preexistent and instrumental in the creation of the world. And like Lady Wisdom, the Word is instructed to take on flesh and dwell in the world (1.14; cf. Sir 24.8).

John and Jewish sources

Despite the striking parallels between John and Hellenistic Jewish sources such as the Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, and the works of Philo, there is no evidence of John’s direct knowledge and use of these sources. Rather, the similarities reflect ideas that were “in the air” in Asia Minor, where the final version of the Gospel may have been written. The parallels to rabbinic literature also do not reveal any dependence or direct knowledge of rabbinic texts, all of which are dated to a period at least two centuries after the completion of the Gospel. For this reason, John’s similarities to some rabbinic traditions and his use of similar exegetical methods do not demonstrate dependence but rather help to establish the existence in the first century of beliefs, practices, or methods that may otherwise be known only from much later Jewish texts. John is therefore a source for the antiquity of some rabbinic traditions, not the other way around.

The most important, and the only documentable, textual sources used by John’s Gospel are the Jewish scriptures, most likely in a Greek translation. The Gospel includes numerous quotations and allusions to the Pentateuch (Torah) and prophetic literature, as well as the writings (see annotations for examples). Important biblical figures, such as Abraham, Moses, and Jacob, are mentioned. More subtly, certain biblical narratives form the basis of several of the major discourses. The figure of Lady Wisdom, and her association with God and with creation is a major feature of the prologue (Jn 1.1–18; Prov 8; Sir 24; Wis 10; cf. Philo,
On the Creation
). The Abraham cycle (Gen 12–36) underlies Jn 8.31–59, especially the contrast between Ishmael and Isaac (Gen 16 and 21; cf. Jn 8.34–35), Abraham’s hospitality to three angelic visitors (Gen 18; cf. Jn 8.39–44), and the tradition that Abraham was given a vision of the future times and heavenly worlds (Gen 15.17–20; cf.
T. Abr
.; Jn 8:53–58). The story of the Exodus from Egypt is evoked throughout Jn 6.

At the same time, it must be stressed that the Gospel also alludes to non-Jewish practices and ideas. The notion of the Logos as a creative power in the world is a feature not only of Jewish wisdom literature but also of Greek philosophy, e.g., in the work of Heraclitus, Aristotle, and the Stoics. John 6 refers not only to the book of Exodus but also to Greco-Roman mystery cults and perhaps even Roman accusations against Christianity as engaging in cannibalism and other immoral practices. John 4 also has strong allusions to Samaritan messianic beliefs.

John and anti-Judaism

Although the Gospel draws extensively on Jewish tradition, its explicit references to Jews and Judaism are often hostile. The Greek term
hoi Ioudaioi
or variations appears more than seventy times. The literal translation is “the Judeans,” that is, the inhabitants of Judea, or, as became commonplace, “the Jews.” (See “Ioudaios,” p.
524
.) The appropriate translation of this term is one of the most contentious issues in Johannine studies. Some suggest that the term should be translated as “the Jews” when used neutrally or positively, as in references to the festivals of the Jews (e.g., 2.13; 5.1; 6.4), but not when it is used negatively to refer to Jesus’ enemies. In these latter cases,
hoi Ioudaioi
does not designate the Jews or even the Judeans as a whole. The crowds who eat the “bread of life” (Jn 6), or who hear Jesus teach in the Temple during the Feast of Tabernacles (Jn 7) are Jews, yet they are not arrayed against Jesus. In addition, Jesus says in his conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well that “salvation is from the Jews” (4.22). These examples show that the specific referent of
hoi Ioudaioi
within the narrative varies according to its literary context.

Yet this does not quite resolve the issue. More important than the referent of each usage is the overall rhetorical effect of the relentless repetition of the words
hoi Ioudaioi
. The Gospel’s use of the term serves two important functions: it blurs the boundaries among various Jewish groups, and it employs the term to designate the forces that are hostile to Jesus. Notably,
hoi Ioudaioi
is never used to describe the disciples and other followers, who are certainly Jewish with regard to their religious and ethnic origins, though not residents of Judea for the most part. Similarly, Jesus is not referred to as a “Jew” except once, by the Samaritan woman, who wonders that Jesus, a Jew, asks a drink of a Samaritan woman (4.9). Instead, the Gospel uses “Israelite” and “Israel” as positive terms. Jesus refers to Nathan-ael approvingly, as an “Israelite in whom there is no deceit” (1.47). Nathanael in turn declares Jesus to be the King of Israel (1.49) and the enthusiastic crowds who greet Jesus as he enters Jerusalem before his final Passover do the same (12.13). The effect is to distance the reader from any group designated as
hoi Ioudaioi
, regardless of the specific referent. On the basis of these arguments, the generic translation of
hoi Ioudaioi
as “the Jews” is the most suitable.