The Balkanization of the Johannine Christology

1

FROM BAUER TO BAUCKHAM: OVER ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF THE BALKANIZATION OF JOHANNINE CHRISTOLOGY

Institute of Biblical Research, SWCRS 2010

David S. Ritsema

B. H. Carroll Theological Institute I first came across the term “Balkanization” in reference to the Johannine Writings on seeing a similar title by D. A. Carson presented to the John Jesus History Group of the SBL. At first I wasn’t sure how the term applied, so I googled it. It turns out that Balkanization “is a geopolitical term originally used to describe the process of fragmentation or division of a region or state into smaller regions or states that are often hostile or non-cooperative with each other.” Originally it referred to the breakup of the Ottoman Empire but now is applied to various fields, and here it is applied to the Johannine Writings which once were highly regarded for their Christology but in the 19th century became Balkanized for their Christology. Ironically, the Gospel which was central to the Christology of the Fathers and creeds—Gary Burge says in the early church the Fourth Gospel held the “highest place of honor”1—was marginalized in the modern Quest for the Historical Jesus because of its Christology. A thorough treatment of the changes within the field of Johannine Christology would require a book length study—well beyond the scope of this essay—instead this essay will take a one hundred year snapshot of Johannine Christology identifying the major turning points and pivotal figures involved. Such a tour requires us to look at the First Quest for Jesus, then on to the History of Religions, stopping for a moment to consider the contribution of Rudolf Bultmann, and then quickly moving on to the second half of the 20th century with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the rise of the dominant view of John, best known as the Johannine Community, and then finally coming to the end of the journey requires peering into the crystal ball asking what the future Johannine Christology has in store and how Richard Bauckham may very well represent the largest shift in Johannine Christology in over a century—thereby ending the Balkanization of John.

I. John’s Christology and the Quest for the Historical Jesus

How specifically did John’s Christology become marginalized in the Quest for the Historical

Jesus? Albert Schweitzer identified three particular tensions (historical versus supernatural, Synoptic

1 Gary Burge, Interpreting the Gospel of John, 16. Burge surveys the early period where Ireneaus (c. 175)

and other father’s found incarnational theology in it. Athanasius used it against Arius at the Council of Nicea (325). From Augustine to Aquinas and beyond it was highly regarded. This came to an end with Englightenment which rejected supernaturalism. Burge mentions H. S. Reismarus (1694-1768) who denied Jesus’ claim to messiahship saying the Gospels were fabrications and implausible and called for a brave new quest for the real Jesus of history. Burge summarizes the three big questions—Is supneratural allowed in history? What are the merits of the gospels? What is the essence of Jesus’ message? While Karl Hase and Friedrich Schleiemacher embraced John, David F. Strauss did not and “forced the Johannine question” to either choose the Synotpics or John which was late and overlaid with the dogma of a preconceived theological portrait of Jesus (Strauss looked especially at John 1:29-34 and 1:35-51). (pp. 16-18). F. C. Baur argued along Hegelian lines that John was issued from a Greek community permeated by Jewish interests and dating from 150-170. In England, Lightfoot and Westcott objected and so did Schlatter in Germany. Burge notes the two big conclusions: (1) synoptic over John, (2) cultural setting of John Hellenistic not Jewish. (p. 19) The trend was to make John the link between Paul and Gnosticism (p. 20).

2

versus Johannine, eschatological or non-eschatological). Strauss overcame the impasse “either purely historical or purely supernatural” while Tubingen and Holtzmann sided with Marcan priority over John which Strauss said was more of a “conception” than a picture of Jesus.2 The Christ of John was regarded as a projection back onto Jesus and therefore not a historical portrait of early Christianity. Moreover, scholars became convinced that the “high Christology” of New Testament did not originate from a Jewish context. Finally, Bruno Bauer who regarded D. F. Strauss as not radical enough argued that there was no pre-Christian messiah in Judaism, thereby pronouncing a divorce between the Christ of Christianity and the Messiah of Judaism.

Brono Bauer lived from 1809-1882. While he did not start out as one, Bruno Bauer became a radical

skeptic of the historicity of the life of Jesus presented in the NT. He came to the conclusion that early Christianity owed more to Greek philosophy (e.g. Stoicism) than Judaism. He reasoned that the Jesus of scripture was a myth, the result of a second century fusion of Jewish, Greek and Roman theology. In 1835 David F. Strauss’s book on The Life of Jesus was published. While many were shocked at the radical approach of Strauss, Bauer felt Strauss did not go far enough.

Bauer differed from Strauss also in his methodology. While Strauss pursued what Schweitzer called

the “historical approach,” Bauer opted for the “literary path.”3 He reasoned that Jesus never thought himself the Messiah nor even pretended to be (p. 128). In 1841 he published The Critique of the Gospel History of the Synoptics and argued that there was no Jewish expectation of a Messiah before Christianity. He argued that the relevant Jewish documents say little about Messiah and are in fact conspicuously “silent” on the subject. While Strauss had claimed that Jesus pretended to be the Messiah, wearing it like a mask, Bauer argued that Jesus never wore this mask because it did not exist. There was no messianic expectation in Judaism (p. 129). 4

Bauer also helped pave the way for studying Christian origins not from the context of Judaism but

within the culture of the Greco-Roman world. Unlike Strauss, he pressed the point that the real origin of

2 Paul Anderson identifies 5 divisions: (1) comprehensive overviews, (2) text-centered, (3) theological-

christological, (4) literary-Christological, (5) historical-Christological

3 Schweitzer in the Quest for the Historical Jesus says about Bruno Bauer’s position: “In approaching the

investigation of the Gospel history, Bauer saw, as he himself tells us, two ways open to him. He might take as his starting-point the Jewish Messianic conception, and endeavour to answer the question how the intuitive prophetic idea of the Messiah became a fixed reflective conception. That was the historical method; he chose, however, the other, the literary method. This starts from the opposite side of the question, from the end instead of the beginning of the Gospel history. Taking first the Gospel of John, in which it is obvious that reflective thought has fitted the life of the Jewish Messiah into the frame of the Logos conception, he then, starting as it were from the embouchure of the stream, works his way upwards to the high ground in which the Gospel tradition takes its rise. The decision in favour of the latter view determined the character of Bauer's life-work; it was his task to follow out, to its ultimate consequences, the literary solution of the problem of the life of Jesus.” (p. 138)

4 William Horbury, “Jewish Messianism and Early Christology” (pp. 3-4) Bauer had mockingly referred to Strauss’s

portrait of the “already existing Jewish mythical narrative” related to Messiah as far too similar to the thinking of the person in the pew. The result was that the Quest for Jesus stopped looking for connections with Judaism and quickly regarded along with Bauer those who would use the OT alongside of the Gospel of John (cf. Hengstenberg) as an “apologist.”

3

Christianity could only be found there. Bauer’s only conclusion in the matter was that the Christian origin was Roman. He reasoned that Mark was written by an Italian and that Matthew was closer to Seneca than Sinai. Schweitzer says Bauer transferred made the “Roman empire into its death-throes the ‘body of Christ.’” (p. 142)5

Bauer’s claim that there was little if any evidence of a “pre-Christian messianic hope” in the relevant sources requires examination. While other scholars (so called apologists) had sought to find evidence of a divinely predicted messianic , Bauer especially disregarded any notion of such figure in the relevant texts (e.g. LXX, Targums, 2 Esdras, 1 Enoch). He maintained that the silence was more conspicuous. There were no “clear traces” in LXX, Apocrypha, or Philo. He ironically allowed it in Daniel and argued that only the apocalypses (1 Enoch and 2 Esdras) contain such portraits but maintained that these were not pre-Christian. In fact, the Jewish messianic expectation found in the literature, Bauer regarded it as all post-Christian. Therefore, Judaism actually drew on Christianity (not the other way around). (Horbury, 6).

The idea that “pre-Christian messianism was insignificant has affected later study up to the

present” (see. Marinus de Jonge Christology in Context, 1988 and R. Brown An Introduction to NT Christology; especially due to the notion of a “sparseness of evidence”). William Horbury says that new evidence found (e..g DSS) requires a total reversal of Bauer’s conclusion. Further he argues that Christian messianism arose in the context of Jewish messianism from 3rd century on (p. 13)

II. John’s Christology and the The History of Religions

The history of religions school contributed to the marginalization of Johannine Christology. IN

part this happened through a set of assumptions including: (1) the history of religions methodology itself (which asserts the primacy of history over theology), (2) the assumption of John’s inferiority to the Synoptics, (3) and search for Christian origins not in Judaism but in the Greco-Roman context (especially for divine elements of Christology).

The premier figure in this school was Wilhelm Bousset.6 Bousset (1865-1920) came at the

question of Johannine Christology by seeking to place it within his trajectory of the history of the Christian religion. Bousset imagined Jesus taking on “messiahship” at his baptism and then telling the disciples at Caesarea Phillippi. These disciples were so enamored by his person that they believed that he had gone to heaven as the “supra-terrestrial” Son of Man.7 Bousset imagined this preexistent Son of Man was the portrait of Jesus among his earliest followers of Jesus (which Bousset combined with the primitive myth of Primal Man; see W. Baird, p. 246).

5 So, the Hegelian philosopher who became the teacher of Karl Marx, offered his own skepticism of Christian

origins and forever change Christology when he argued that Jesus was the “creation of the imagination of the early Christians.” Aftewards, Bauer himself lived up to the meaning of his German name—he became a farmer.

6 I identify six areas Bousset contributes: (1) the cultural context (seeking sources outside of Judaism, (2) the

methodlogy of the History of Religion, (3) priority Synoptic over John, (4) Sectarian Community of John, (5) Christology of Deification, (6) establishing an overall discontinuity with Judaism (in Kyrios Christos and with his new system which marginalized John).

7 In 1913, he published Kyrios Christos and argued that the earliest Christians used the title “Son of Man”

(Baird says Jesus as the preexistent Messiah, exalted to the right hand of God, p. 249) believing Jesus was through resurrection the “supra-terrestrial Messiah.”

4

In 1903, Bousset published Religion of Judaism in the New Testament Era arguing for a particular

kind of eschatological hope sought answers to the important questions: What accounts for the changes that emerged in Judaism? Were these the results of the OT Prophets and Psalms or foreign influences? Like Bauer before him, Bousset concluded that the changes in Judaism were the result of foreign influences (Baird, p. 246). The religion of late Judaism was so diverse it came under the influence of Hellenistic syncretism, Assyrian Babylonian cosmology, Iranian dualism , and the Religions of Egypt.8

To Bousset, John is a “singular, relatively original formulation, rooted in its own soil, which on the one hand stands in the line of Pauline Christianity.” (p. 250) Bousset imagines various layers in his Christological development beginning with Son of Man, then the Pauline community, and finally the John community which developed Christology further (“John has substituted the idea of a deification of the believer through ecstatic vision, expressed in the idea of eternal life.”) (p. 250) To his credit Bousset includes the Johannine Writings in his explanation of Christian origins (unlike others, e.g. Tom Wright). Bousset worked very hard to explain how a community began to worship Jesus as a divine being. He sought a connection with various religions and assumed that the divine portrait of Jesus had no relationship to the messiah (rather a Son of Man figure who left this world is what Jesus was to the earliest followers).

III. John’s Christology and Rudolf Bultmann Specifically how did Bultmann affect Johannine Christology? Well aside from being one of the premier Johannine scholars ever, writing serious significant works on New Testament theology, Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) also greatly admired and heavily utilized the methodology of Wilhelm Bousset. Bultmann in many ways affected Johannine Christology but especially in terms of his understanding of the sources and composition of the Gospel. He divined three sources (revelatory, signs, and passion) from which he surmised theological agendas which he compared to the THEOS ANER (or divine man) and also to Gnostic redeemer myths.9 He believed the Gospel was heavily dependent on Gnosticism and a form of Gnosticism widespread in the ancient world wherein a Redeemer revealer from Gnostic redeemer myth was source in the traditions found in later Manichean and Mandean written sources. Bultmann believed Gnostic sects were earlier than Gospel (even thought the texts were 7th century) and associated with John the Baptist. So the evangelist “de-mythologized” the myth to emphasize Jesus sent. Gnosticism was crucial in understanding dualism, how the evangelist transformed it, and how it fits in into the “diachronic strata of the Gospel” (Kinlaw, page 3).10

8 Unfortunately, Bousset only used the apocrypha and pseudepigraph not rabbinics and was clearly biased

against the Jews.

9 Theos Aner has it critiques MacRAe, Holladay, Betz. To explain the tension between miracles and John’s

deemphasizing of miracles. Supposedly from Hellenistic Judaism. Note: this THEIOS ANER (DIVINE MAN) comes from Reitzenstein to explain the miracle story (the term equivalent to Son of God); related to Asclepius (human miracle worker with apotheosis); OT heroes, Moses; Semeia source . Critique in IVP says that the Aramaic church did identify Jesus performing miracles. No evidence of this in Hellenistic Judaism (Kinlaw, page 4)

10 The Christ Is Jesus: Metamorphosis, Possession, and Johannine Christology Book by Pamela E. Kinlaw;

Brill, 2005. 206 pgs. http://www.questia.com/read/114650403?title=The%20Christ%20Is%20Jesus:%20%20Metamorphosis,%20Possession,%20and%20Johannine%20Christology

5

Each element of Bultmann’s hypothesis has been dismantled, (1) his view of Gnosticism being early and influencing the Gospel 11, (2) Kasemann called his view naieve docetism,12 (3) his search for Christian origins outside of the New Testament ignored the Jewish background of the Gospel of John which with the discovery of the DSS proved a massive oversight, (4) Charles Dodd’s emphasis on Philo and Logos, (5) Bultmann’s view of dividing Judaism into Hellenistic and Jewish parts has proven problematic.

IV. John’s Christology and the Johannine Community13

Raymond Brown (1928-1998) and J. L. Martyn are credited for giving rise to the “dominant view” of

Johannine studies for the past three decades better known as the Johannine Community. Raymond Brown represented a new age in Johannine studies. He was more open to the Jewish context of the Gospel.14 Brown explained the seams in the Gospel differently than Bultmann. Instead of attributing them to disparate sources of varying theological positions, he identified a community in transit from Palestine to Ephesus which over a period of time wrote and rewrote the Gospel. Brown supposed that his stages could account for the tensions within the Gospel. However, not everyone was convinced that the Johannine Community ever existed, the view dominated for 30 years.15

11

Gnostic background dismantled. C. H. Dodd who emphasized Hermetic Liteature and Philo over Mandean soruces. Also Mcrae and Talbert (who showed these redeemer myths were common without Gnostic background)

12 Kasemann – “naieve docetism” of Bultmann because he emphasized the humanity of Jesus – gives

credit to F. B. Bauer and Wilhelm Wreder who focused on John 17. Recent work emphasizes divinity of Jesus (Boy Hinrichs – I am sayings ; cf. Neyrey who argues the earlier strata of the Gospel is a human Jesus and the later a figure who descends from heaven). Kasemann highlights tension between Logos tension with humanity (cf. Barrett). F.-M. Braun and Andre Feuillet achieved eloquent readings without historical implications. Scholars have argued that John never loses sight of humanity (John O’grady; Schnelle—who argues John is a conflict with docetism—inner church conflict—leaving open the possibility of the Epistles being before). Full humanity address by H. Kohler and M. Thompson, but she criticizes Kasemann for focusing on John 17 and argues that John’s major themes do not impugn true humanity (Jesus’ earthly origins, incarnation, signs, and death). She says that the Gospel struggles to establish Jesus as Son of God and human being (Pamela Kinlaw)

13 I indicate Brown contributed in three ways: (1) Johannine Community, (2) Christology in Two layers

(high and low), (3) Jewish cultural context for the Gospel. 14

Other scholars suggested a Jewish context (e.g. W. C. van Unnik pointed out essential Jewishness of the titles Son of God and Messiah point to a mission to the synagogue over and against the History of Religions. Same point -- J. A. T. Robinson – Son over Logos – lack of reference to Gentiles

15 Challenged by G. Strecker and C. Talbert (Pamela Kinlaw, 10)

6

Specifically how did Raymond Brown contribute to Johannine Christology? Brown helped to construct the history of the Johannine Community. He says that the earliest followers of Jesus (Jews living Palestine) believed Jesus to be the Messiah of “relatively standard expectations” as the “Davidic Messiah” but then a second group who were Samaritan believers in Jesus understood Jesus not as the Davidic Messiah but as Mosaic who had “been with God, seen him, and brought down His words to people.”16 The addition of this new group “catalyzed the development of a high, pre-existence Christology . . . abandoning Jewish monotheism by making a second God out of Jesus.” He dates this from the 50s to the 80s. He argues that John wrote so that the reader would have an adequate view of Jesus as Messiah—not the merely humanistic kingly view—which Nathaniel and Martha failed to understand (cf. John 20:30-31). Basically Brown accounts for this based on Samaritan view of Taheb as a returned Moses.17

One weakness of the Brown-Martyn Johannine Community is the lack of evidence to support it. It

was argued that an edict issued with the synagogues expelling Christians in the late first century (the so called Birkat Ha Minim) explained the Gospel’s anti-syngogoge language (cf. 9:22). Therefore the Gospel contained a layer before and a layer after the expulsion from the synagogue which was due to profession faith in Jesus as the Messiah. It was reasoned that faith in Jesus as Messiah was problematic at this later point because of the high Christology that developed within the community. This high Christology was no longer tolerated by Jewish monotheists who kicked out the Christians. Furthermore,

16

Raymond Brown, Community, p. 166.

17 Ibid., 43-44.

7

the Johannine Community reached another stage in the Epistles of John where belief in the Messiah as a divine figure resulted in a kind of docetism wherein believers had such a high Christology that they denied the humanity of the Messiah.18

Brown’s says the Gospel is factually incorrect to place such a high Christology in the first days of

Jesus’ ministry: “There is a subtle mélange of history and theology in John. The Fourth Gospel is clearly less historical and more theological than the Synoptics in attributing all this Christology to the first few days of Jesus’ ministry; yet the Fourth Gospel may be more factual historically in describing the first followers of Jesus as former disciples of JBap and in having them called in the Jordan valley rather than at the Lake of Galilee” (Brown, Community, 26).

Interestingly, Brown has no problems with early Christians seeing Jesus as the Messiah, but he interprets Messiah as purely a kingly figure, not the divine Son of God. Therefore he reasons that Nathaniel’s proclamation is that of the early Christians, while the statements of 20:30-31 is the result of a transformation in the term Messiah into a transcendent divine figure (a divine Messiah). Brown’s

18

Earlier he devised these three layers: Brown devised these layers in the text: 1) an initial version Brown considers based on personal experience of Jesus; 2) a structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources; and 3) the edited version that readers know today (Brown 1979). Later on he developed four stages:

1.Phase One, “the pre-Gospel era, involved the origins of the community, and its relation to mid-first century Judaism.” The composition of the fourth Gospel occurred prior to the expulsion of Johannine Christians from the synagogues (John 9:22; 16:2). The basis of this incident related to what “they were claiming about Jesus” (22). 2. Phase Two “involved the life-situation of the Johannine community at the time the Gospel was written.” Brown maintains the traditional date for the writing of John, A.D. 90. However, he accentuates that the main writing of John took place during that year, not the final product. Another difficulty in the Gospel is the continuous presence and echo of (the) “Jews” (“Ioudaioi"). Brown also believes within the Johannine community there existed the insistence on a high Christology, “made all the more intense by the hard struggles with the ‘Jews.’” 3. Phase three, involved “the life-situation in the now-divided Johannine communities at the time the Epistles were written” (A.D. 100?). Brown appeals to 1 John 2:19 to describe the tragic division occurred between the Gospel and the Epistles, which he explains in this term, “… the struggle is between two groups of Johannine disciples who are interpreting the Gospel in opposite ways, in matter of Christology, ethics, and pneumatology. The fears and pessimism of the author of the Epistles suggest that the secessionists are having the greater numerical success (I John 4:5), and the author is trying to bolster his adherents against further inroads of false teachers (2:27; II John 10-11). The author feels that it is “the last hour” (23; I John 2:18).” That was the BIG DEAL according to Brown! 4. Phase Four, “saw the dissolution of the two Johannine groups after the Epistles were written. The great departure happened between the secessionists and the conservation side of the Johannine community. So they disfellowshipped among themselves, and were no longer in community. According to Brown, it was the secessionists’ initiation to divide because of their misuse of the Fourth Gospel. As a result, there arose publicly various sects or groups in the second century inclining toward, Docetism, Gnosticism, Cerinthianism, and Monanism.

8

thinking on Christology developed over his lifetime. In 1963, he concluded that scripture does not say Jesus is God, but 30 years later he said in Hebrew 1:8-9; John 1:1; 20:28.19

V. Challenging the Assumptions of Johannine Christology

1. New program of research overturns 30 years of assumption or more 2. John’s Christology of divine identity

How does Bauckham contribute specifically? He does so in two ways: (1) he offers an entirely new

approach to John which Gary Burge has said overturns 30 years of research, (2) he argues that the entire NT preserves a form of high Christology Bauckham dubs “Christology of divine identity” 20 which simultaneously preserves Jewish monotheism and presents Jesus as a divine being (cf. John 1 and Gen 1).

1. Overturning 30+ years of Research

Bauckham’s new approach to John threatens to overturn over 30 years of research. He does this by turning the tide in six areas: (1) authorship, (2) the Johannine Community, (3) unity, (4) genre, (5) audience, and (6) history.

First in authorship, Bauckham says the Gospel was written by John the Elder, a resident of Jerusalem, not a member of the Twelve, not an itinerant follower of Jesus, and the host of the Last Supper who was able to take Mary home from the cross. This John was an eyewitness who offers in the Gospel of John eyewitness testimony accounting for the startling historical accuracy the Gospel affords in terms of the geography and topography. Bauckham parts paths with Westcott saying he relied too heavily upon Mark. Therefore this Gospel was not the result of “fluctuating local circumstances” but author’s view of Jesus. It was written not as an esoteric document for a sectarian community but by an exegete of the Hebrew Bible.

Clearly this challenges the “Dominant View” on John which espouses a Johannine Community wrote this document over a period of time and addressed the Gospel to its own sectarian members. Bauckham describes the Johannine Community as a reconstruction and a “fantasy” (p. 14), noting the one piece of evidence (Birkat ha-Minim) has now been largely abandoned.

19

In a detailed 1965 article in the journal Theological Studies[12] examining whether Jesus was ever called "God" in the New Testament, Brown concluded that "Even the fourth Gospel never portrays Jesus as saying specifically that he is God" and "there is no reason to think that Jesus was called God in the earliest layers of New Testament tradition." He argued that, "Gradually, in the development of Christian thought God was understood to be a broader term. It was seen that God had revealed so much of Himself in Jesus that God had to be able to include both Father and Son." Thirty years later, Brown revisited the issue in an introductory text for the general public, writing that in "three reasonably clear instances in the NT [Hebrews 1:8-9, John 1:1, 20:28] and in five instances that have probability, Jesus is called God", a usage Brown regarded as a natural development of early references to Jesus as "Lord". (Introduction to NT Christology, 189)

20 Collins’ criticism is leveled at both Bauckham and Hurtado. In one essay she notes Hurtado great

contributions but also “In my view, however, the starting point for both belief about Jesus and devotion to Jesus was the conviction that he was the Messiah.” (p. 66 in Israel’s God and Rebeccah’s Children)

9

Bauckham regards the Gospel’s unity as a seamless document and an “integral whole” (p. 12). The Gospel was not written by various authors over a period of time but one author who was the eyewitness of what he describes.

Bauckham notes that previous commentaries have failed to account for the genre of the Gospel

which he argues is Greco-Roman Biography (p. 13). This lack of literary genre in commentaries is the reason scholars such as Brown misunderstood John ( p. 18) and why more recent commentator like Lincoln and Keener value Burridge.

The audience for the Gospel was all Christians not the result of redaction. It was addressed to both

Christians and interested non-Christians, not sectarian and not esoteric. It was the Gospel for all Christians with wide circulation to introduce universally readers to Jesus, specifically Palestinian). This is unlike C. H. Dodd who studied Hermetic literature and Hellenized Jewish thought of Philo for the background of John, or Bultmann who thought pre-Christian Gnosticism influenced John. The Gospel is distinctive because of it author, not its community.

It is a valid source of history according to Bauckham and not the historical of a Johannien

community but the history of Jesus. Furthermore the Gospel accurately presents its characters including: Nicodemus, Lazarus, Mary, and Martha. In time when the historical value of the Johannine Writings is being assessed, Bauckham demonstrates the value of its history.21

2. Christology of John

Bauckham says that it is a mistake to say (1) there is no “theological drift” rather from the beginning (p.240), (2) John has a high Christology when all the Gospels have a high Christology what Bauckham calls a Christology of a divine identity. John like Hebrews, Revelation, and Paul expresses the divinity of Jesus in unambiguous ways which do not violate Jewish monotheism—a point Bauckham calls scholars to recognize (p. 251, 240). In John this divine identity is best seen in several ways: (1) those passages which most clearly express it (“making himself equal with God” in 5:18 and 10:33; and “blasphemy” in 8:58-59), (2) the use of Logos (1:14; the Word of John is the “speech” of Genesis; p. 241), (3) the divine prerogatives (sovereignty, life and death, judgment; p.242), (4) the I Ams (not Exodus 3:14 but Deut 32:39 and Isa 40-55; “If Jesus in the Fourth Gospel repeats them he is … identifying himself with the one and only God, YHWH, the God of Israel”; p.246-247), (5) the oneness with the Father (10:30) which Bauckham says shows signs of Shema language (p. 251). So John includes Jesus within the divine identity and therefore “redefines” divine identity (p. 251).

21

See books by JJH group of SBL. Gary Burge, “The most promising author who seems to be making a stir is Richard Bauckham. His slim 1998 book, The Gospel for All Christians held a small chapter that took on the idea that John represented a small “school” living in isolation from the wider traditions (think: Culpepper’s The Johannine School, 1975, and others). Now Bauckham has given us the splendid The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple. Narrative, History and Theology in the Gospel of John (2007). For young scholars this is the volume to own. Bauckham makes a variety of soundings into the Johannine tradition and comes away with insights and authenticity that reverses 30 years of scholarly speculation.” says about it in Koinonia: http://www.koinoniablog.net/2009/02/gary-burge.html

10

1. Bibliography on Christology

a. James Dunn, Christology in the Making b. Maurice Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God. c. William Loader, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Structure and Issues, d. Maarten Menken, “The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: A Survey of Recent Research” e. Delbert Burkett, The Son of the Man in the Gospel of John. f. Robert Rhea, The Johannine Son of Man g. Francis J. Moloney, The Johannine Son of Man h. Wayne A. Meeks, “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism”. Meeks i. Jerome Neyrey, An Ideology of Revolt: John’s Christology in Social-Science Perspective. j. J. Harris, Jesus as ‘God’ k. Lars Hartman, “Johannine Jesus-Belief and Monotheism”, l. Wayne Meeks, “Equal to God” m. Marianne M. Thompson, The Humanity of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel n. Peder Borgen, “God’s Agent in the Fourth Gospel” o. E. Harvey, “Christ as Agent” p. The Gospel of John and Christian Theology Richard Bauckham (editor), Carl Mosser

(editor) q. W. R. G. Loader, “The Central Structure of Johannine Christology” in New Testament

Studies, Volume 30, Issue 02, April 1984, pp 188-216 2. Survey of recent research (Ladd):

a. Paul Anderson Christology of the Fourth b. Robert Kysar, The Fourth Evangelist c. M.-E. Boismard, Moses or Jesus: Essay in Johannine Christology d. Hans Conzelmann, An outline of the Theology of the New Testament e. C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel f. M. De Jonge, Jesus: Stranger form Heaven and Son of God g. M. M. Thompson, The Humanity of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Köstenberger, Andreas J. The Missions of Jesus and the Disciples According to the Fourth Gospel : With

Implications for the Fourth Gospel's Purpose and the Mission of the Contemporary Church. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1998.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ashton, John. Understanding the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. Baird, William. History of New Testament Research Volume 2. Vol. 2, from Jonathan Edwards to Rudolf

Bultmann. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Bauckham, Richard, and Carl Mosser. The Gospel of John and Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.:

William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2008.

11

Blomberg, Craig. The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel : Issues & Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002.

Carter, Warren. John : Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006. Cook, W. Robert. The Theology of John. Chicago: Moody Press, 1979. Koester, Craig R. The Word of Life : A Theology of John's Gospel. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans

Pub. Co., 2008. Köstenberger, Andreas J. A Theology of John's Gospel and Letters : The Word, the Christ, the Son of God

Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2009. Morris, Leon. Jesus Is the Christ : Studies in the Theology of John. Grand Rapids Leicester: Eerdmans ; Inter-Varsity, 1989. Smith, D. Moody. The Theology of the Gospel of John: Cambridge, 1995.