The Voices of the Fourth Gospel

Preface

As I ponder three years of dedicated study on the topic of Johannine characterizations, I am overwhelmed by a sense of insufficiency. First, I acknowledge that the material I have presented pales in comparison to the greater contributions that are referenced in this study. Second, and perhaps of greater import, is my certainty that there remains a treasury of critical material that did not cross my desk. To those scholars whose contributions I either overlooked or limited in my research, I express sincere apology. Nonetheless, I have attempted to offer an analysis of, what I feel to be, the most relevant discussions on this topic. John Arthur Thomas Robinson rightly notes, “on almost every question connected with this [Fourth] Gospel it is still possible for the most divergent views to command serious and scholarly assent.”¹ Indeed, I have made the greatest effort to present, even the broadest range of views, in fair perspective.

I take a moment to acknowledge those whose contributions have made this project possible. First, I wish to thank the professors at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Liberty University and Columbia International University who contributed to my spiritual formation, and most especially to Drs. Rudy Gonzalez, Leo Percer, Robert J. Dixon, Robert Welch, Jennifer Noonan, John Harvey, and David Croteau. I am also grateful to outside scholars who contributed to this work, and whom I consider to be the foremost authorities in their fields, such as Cornelis Bennema, Paul Anderson,² B. J. Oropeza, Douglas Estes, Jonathan Bernier,³ and Susan Hylen. To Douglas Estes, I extend my sincerest gratitude for his direction and support in the publication of my manuscript. Never have I been so humbled to work under such prominent academics who challenged me to rise above my own level of scholarship. To my congregation at New Spirit Church, thank you for your support in my ministry. To my children, Marco and Cayla, and my wife Maricruz, I have no words to express my love and gratitude for the sacrifice you have paid in this endeavor. Finally, I give honor and praise to my Heavenly Father, my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and to my Divine Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom this work seeks to glorify.

This book presents five character case-studies with the aim of revealing the effectiveness of a socio-rhetorical method that combines both literary and historical fields. As such, this work seeks to reveal the “voices” in each character that, I propose, speak both within the narrative of the text and to the community of its first readers. But first, I anticipate two questions. First, why is Peter, whom some claim is “the most complex character in the Gospel,”⁴ not included among the selections? Acknowledging that excellent character studies have already been done on Peter,⁵ I opted not to include him because, although Peter is a central figure in the Synoptics, I am less convinced of his role in John’s Gospel. There is significantly less material on Peter in the FG, in comparison to the Synoptics, and he appears to be consistently characterized in direct relation to the “disciple whom Jesus loved.”⁶ Thus, neither the substance nor the sketch of Peter’s character in the FG justified his selection when other characters may have served as better candidates.

The second question I anticipate is why I selected Jesus as an isolated case-study.⁷ Though many characterization studies do not include Jesus of Nazareth,⁸ a focused analysis of his character can only benefit readers in better understanding the FG.⁹ Alicia Myers notes that, although many scholars “affirm the christological import of Scripture in John, they have yet to explore in detail just how these scriptural appeals contribute to the rhetoric of the Gospel or its characterization of Jesus.”¹⁰ Indeed, of all the Gospel characters, only Jesus stands independently, since all others are framed by their encounters with him. Thus, the real question is not why Jesus is explored as a character in this study, but why other works have not done the same.

Finally, I am reminded of Donald A. Carson’s testimony of how, in 1975, while reviewing his dissertation at the University of Cambridge, his external examiner, Charles K. Barrett, posed an intimidating question, “Mr. Carson, you have written with clarity on matters Johannine … But tell me, do you think that John would have had the slightest interest in your work?”¹¹ Barrett’s question reminds me of the necessity to validate my biblical examinations, not by modern criteria, but according to the intentions of its original author. Hence, my hope is that this contribution to the Fourth Gospel would be agreeable to its author.

1 J. A. T. Robinson, “The Destination and Purpose of St. John’s Gospel,” New Testament Studies 6 no. 2 (1960): 117–31, https://doi.org/10.1017/S00286​8850​0000​795.

2 I am indebted to Dr. Anderson for his review, guidance and endorsement of my book manuscript.

3 I am grateful to Dr. Bernier, who shared portions of his most recent book, Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence of Early Composition, a few weeks before publication, via email on March 6, 2022.

4 R. Alan Culpepper, “The Weave of the Tapestry: Character and Theme in John,” in Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John, ed. Christopher W. Skinner, LNTS 461 (Bloomsbury: T&T Clark, 2013), 33.

5 For example, see Kevin Quast, Peter and the Beloved Disciple: Figures for a Community in Crisis, ed. David Hill, LNTS 32 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989); Donald Chung-Yiu Leung, “Peter in the Fourth Gospel: Character Development and Reader Empathy” (PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2001).

6 For further exploration of this relationship, see Quast, Peter and the Beloved Disciple.

7 Although Jesus is the primary and central character of the FG, his examination follows the case-study of the Beloved Disciple for authorial reasons. Since I propose that the Beloved Disciple is John bar Zebedee and the source behind the FG, a preliminary examination of his character is warranted.

8 For example, although the recent publication, Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel, examined seventy characters in the FG, Jesus was not one of them. See Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Approaches to Seventy Figures in John, ed. Steven A. Hunt, D. Francois Tolmie, and Ruben Zimmermann (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2013).

9 I am not alone in this thought. See Alicia D. Myers’ monograph based on her dissertation, Characterizing Jesus: A Rhetorical Analysis on the Fourth Gospel’s use of Scripture in its Presentation of Jesus, LNTS (New York: T&T Clark International, 2012); Susan E. Hylen, Imperfect Believers: Ambiguous Characters in the Gospel of John (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), 135–152; Cornelis Bennema, Encountering Jesus: Character Studies in the Gospel of John, 2^nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), 43–60.

10 Myers, Characterizing Jesus, 2.

11 D. A. Carson, “Reflections Upon a Johannine Pilgrimage,” in What We Have Heard from the Beginning: The Past, Present, and Future of Johannine Studies, ed. Tom Thatcher (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007), 102.

Introduction

Throughout history, the Fourth Gospel (hereafter FG) has been an enigma to its readers. Because John’s account appears unique from that of the Synoptics, it has often been regarded as more of a “spiritual” or “theological” gospel.¹ In 1971, Rudolf Bultmann sparked a renewed interest in the FG as one defined by a considerably different “polemical situation … from that presupposed in the Synoptic Gospels.”² From that contribution, a quest arose to understand the FG within its own world and perspective.³ This study aims to contribute to that conversation by examining Johannine characterizations based on three fundamental claims:

1. 1. The Johannine characters are literary products based on eyewitness testimony to the encounters that individuals experienced with Jesus of Nazareth for the purpose of leading its readers to belief in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God.
2. 2. Because the FG is chronologically and geographically unique, in relation to the Synoptics, its characters possess socio-rhetorical “voices” that speak to both the realities of its narrative world, and to John’s world and the issues the emerging Christian community at Ephesus was facing at the end of the first century.
3. 3. Only an interdisciplinary approach that bridges both historical and literary methods can effectively reveal the “voices” of the Johannine characters as the author intended, and as the original readers likely understood them.

James Dunn keenly observed, “because the historical context [of the FG] has not been clarified, John has been misunderstood, the Fourth [sic] Gospel has not been heard in its own terms, John has not been allowed to be John.”⁴ Thus, if readers should seek to understand the FG on its own terms, they must consider its distinctive setting. Paul Anderson affirms, “John is different on purpose,” whose presentation “reflects the work of a dialectical thinker, who conveyed his story of Jesus in his own language, addressing the needs of emerging audiences.”⁵ Here, the FG’s characters prove invaluable, for they speak to the FG’s unique literary setting, as it was for the emerging Christian Church at the end of the first century.

This study explores socio-rhetorical methodology as a viable interdisciplinary approach to Johannine characters that treats both the literary and socio-historical features of the text. This approach allows the “Gospel narratives themselves [to] show us what kind of literature they are, while keeping in mind the historical context out of which they arose.”⁶ Such a model can create “a syncretistic system of interpretation”⁷ that can bring forth both the historical and literary elements of the FG. Rainer Metzner notes that, in contrast to most characters who are overlooked by history, the characters of the Gospels are permanently inscribed in the “memory of time” (Gedächtnis der Zeit).⁸ In classical Greek, the term “character” originally referred to “an impression, an engraving, or a distinguishing mark,”⁹ often in reference to coins. In both ways, the characters of the FG have left a distinguishing mark etched in time that, although distinct from the Synoptics, never deviate from them.

This book offers five character case-studies using a three-step methodological approach. Noting R. Alan Culpepper’s observation that “much of the power of the Fourth Gospel comes from its vivid characterizations and their effects upon the reader,”¹⁰ this investigation seeks to determine what effect the author intended to produce upon his readers through five characters: the Beloved Disciple, Jesus of Nazareth, John the Baptist, Nicodemus, and the Samaritan woman. If the primary purpose of the FG was to convince its readers that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31), then these characters may, in fact, serve to “draw out facets of Jesus’ identity through their responses to his words and actions.”¹¹ Additionally, they “provide important models either for emulation or avoidance [and] it is from the other characters that we often learn how we should or should not respond to the main character, Jesus.”¹² As C. F. D. Moule concluded of the FG, “This is the Gospel, par excellence, of the approach of the single soul to God.”¹³ This study proposes that the Johannine characters serve such a purpose—to guide the “single soul” into personal belief in Jesus as the Messiah. Because our approach to the Johannine characters incorporates certain historical matters, such as authorship, and chronological and geographical distinction; as well as literary matters, such as Classical Rhetoric and socio-rhetorical methodology, a brief review of these items is warranted.

1 Most notable is Clement of Alexandria’s claim that John, “seeing that what was corporeal was set forth in the Gospels … composed a spiritual Gospel.” See Fragments from the Hypotyposes IV, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2012), 580. C. H. Dodd notes, “It will have become clear that I regard the Fourth Gospel as being in its essential character a theological work, rather than a history.” See Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (London: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 444.

2 Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare and J. K. Riches, ed. G. R. Beasley-Murray (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971), 3.