Gospel of John

2018-2023 TOP 2% IN ACADEMIA.EDU ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Jewish-Christian relations emerge out of a complex trajectory that originates in Jewish-Gentile relations within the Jesus movement. The Jewish-Christian saga originates in later misperceptions about a conflict among followers of Jesus with varying degrees of Jewish, Pagan, and Gnostic affinities, affiliations, and inclinations.

Jewish-Christian relations did not emerge out of a first century conflict between ‘Judaism’ and ‘Christianity.’ The main thrust behind the “parting of the ways” is best characterized as a controversy about Judaism within the Jesus movement (not as a conflict with Judaism).

The anti-Jewish, anti-Pagan, and anti-Gnostic biases of the Christian canonical and authoritative texts are the result of complex and layered trajectories, and should be understood to reflect, for the most part, debates within the Jesus movement—not struggles with external religious communities. Despite a complexity and a variety of contexts, Judaism, Gnosticism, and Paganism were not participants in this struggle. They were the subjects of a debate, (mostly) among Gentile believers, about what belief in Jesus should be. The crisis was about Judaism, not with Judaism.

The anti-Jewish polemic in the New Testament reflects debates between Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus - not a polemic between Christians and Jews. Thus, the New Testament texts do not reflect a struggle between 'Christians' and 'Jews' but rather a heated dispute about Judaism and about Torah observance among Jesus' early followers. However, with the passage of time, loss of context, and later agendas, the tensions and trauma produced by this crisis came to be understood by later believers as reflective of a Jewish-Christian conflict.

The future of Judeo-Christian relations and the future of the Christian self-perception depend on which meta-narrative on the Christian origins and on Jewish-Christian relations will be eventually embraced, taught and internalized by scholars, institutions and believers. Each of the relevant meta-narratives or models; the traditional thesis, the competition thesis of Simon, and the thesis advocated in this monograph, have implications of great importance and scope.


"I am in fundamental agreement with Bibliowicz's thesis (that the anti-Jewish polemic in the New Testament reflects debates between Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus - not a polemic between Christians and Jews), and with the implications which he has drawn for Christian theology... May this book find a wide readership among people devoted to the cause of the healing of memories between Jews and Christians."

- Peter C. Phan, Professor, Chair of Catholic Social Thought, Georgetown University, President of the Catholic Theological Society of America


"Standing on a brilliant and insightful reconstruction of Paul, and on a quite shocking (but perhaps compelling) reading of Mark - the author offers a number of original and in some cases quite compelling theoretical reconstructions of the context and purposes of early Christian texts... a work of sublime moral passion."

- David P. Gushee, Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics, Director, Center for Theology and Public Life, Mercer University. President, American Academy of Religion. Author of Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context


"An intrepid excursion into the Christian discourse… The quest of an intellectual, a humanist… Interesting and, in fact overwhelming...A timely and honest engagement of the Christian texts, authors, and scholars by a Jewish intellectual."

- Burton L. Mack, Professor of Early Christianity, Claremont School of Theology, California, Author of A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins


"An important work…Sensitive and deeply researched… In the deepest sense, a profound theological work."

- Clark M. Williamson, Professor, Christian Theological Seminary, Indiana, Author of Way of Blessing, Way of Life: A Christian Theology


“There is great merit to Bibliowicz's approach... I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in the Jewish-Christian dialogue.... Scholars may disagree with a number of Bibliowicz' conclusions, as I do with his interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews.  But even in disagreeing, scholars in the field of Jewish-Christian studies, will learn new ways of challenging and thinking about old presumptions."

-Eugene J. Fisher, Distinguished Professor of Theology, Saint Leo University. Former consultor to the Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and member of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee representing the Holy See.


"…An original and plausible claim that goes beyond most of modern scholarship… a solid contribution to the study of anti-Judaism in early Christianity."

- Joseph B. Tyson, Professor, Religious Studies, Southern Methodist University, Author of Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle


“I very much appreciated the depth and scope of the scholarship, accompanied by the kind and humble spirit of the author. It may also prove to be one of the formidable and formative scholarly contributions of the decade for both biblical and historical scholars.”

—Michael Thompson, Professor. Religious Studies – Oklahoma State University


"Impressive work...With this impassioned study available to us, it will no longer be possible for us to ignore the unintended ways the unthinkable came to be and still say 'we did not know.'"

- Didier Pollefeyt, Professor, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, co-author of Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel and Paul and Judaism


"A meticulous study…a mammoth endeavor… goes beyond others in his interpretation of the evidence, tracing and documenting distinctions and tensions in the early Jesus movement."

- N. A. Beck, Professor of Theology and Classical Languages, Texas Lutheran University and author of Mature Christianity in the 21st Century: The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish Polemic of the New Testament.


"The topics Bibliowicz engages are complex. Although some of his interpretations are controversial... Gentile Christians should set aside apologetical agendas and honestly ponder the challenges put forward by the author."

- Dale C. Allison, Jr., Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, Author of Constructing Jesus: History, Memory, and Imagination


"In methodical and precise fashion Bibliowicz takes the reader through the relevant ancient Christian texts bearing on the question at hand. In so doing, he proposes an intriguing, compelling thesis. The book should prove to be a major voice in the ongoing debate."

- Brooks Schramm, Professor, Biblical Studies, Lutheran Theological Seminary


"A detailed and insightful exploration of the writings of the early Jesus movement… argues convincingly that the origins of Christian anti-Judaism are to be found among early non-Jewish followers of Jesus who were in conflict with Jesus' disciples and first followers … a must read."

- Tim Hegedus, Professor of New Testament, Waterloo Lutheran Seminary, Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada


"Well-researched and thorough. Intelligent and thoughtful... accessible, the argumentation compelling."

- M. Murray, Professor, Bishop's University, Canada, Author of Playing a Jewish Game: Gentile Christian Judaizing in the First and Second Centuries C.E.


"Bibliowicz uses solid scholarship to engage large and difficult topics while managing to be balanced and clear... invites Christians to walk a deep journey towards truth ... and suggests a compelling nuance; that the conflicts in the early texts were between Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus, not between Jews and Christians."

- David L. Coppola, Professor, Executive Director, Center for Christian-Jewish Understanding, Sacred Heart University

This essay was published in The Bible and Early Trinitarian Theology, edited by Christopher A. Beeley and Mark E. Weedman, for the CUAP Studies in Early Christianity (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2018); this is the uncorrected proofs. Exploring the humanity and divinity of Jesus, the Son's relation to the Father, and the agency of the Holy Spirit, it is one of five essays suggesting Johannine contributions to trinitarian discussions in the early church.

In his objective study of the texts, Maurice Bucaille clears' away many preconceived ideas about the Old Testament, the Gospels and the Quran. He tries, in this collection of Writings, to separate what belongs to Revelation from what is the product of error or human interpretation.

His study sheds new light on the Holy Scriptures. At the end of a gripping account, he places the Believer before a point of cardinal importance: the continuity of a Revelation emanating from the same God, with modes of expression that differ in the course of time. It leads us to meditate upon those factors which, in our day, should spiritually unite rather than divide-Jews, Christians and Muslims.

As a surgeon, Maurice Bucaille has often been in a situation where he was able to examine not only people's bodies, but their souls. This is how he was struck by the existence of Muslim piety and by aspects of Islam which remain unknown to the vast majority of non-Muslims. In his search for explanations which are otherwise difficult to obtain, he learnt Arabic and studied the Quran. In it, he was surprised to find statements on natural phenomena whose meaning can only be understood through modern scientific knowledge.

He then turned to the question of the authenticity of the writings that constitute the Holy Scriptures of the monotheistic religions. Finally, in the case of the Bible, he proceeded to a confrontation between these writings and scientific data.

The results of his research into the Judeo-Christian Revelation and the Quran are set out in this book.

This is the revised final draft of one of the two lead papers presented at the SNTS pre-conference on The Johannine Question. It covers the last half-century of Johannine paradigms, critiques Pierson Parker's 21 objections to the son of Zebedee having ANYTHING to do with the Johannine tradition, and introduces three aspects of overlooked evidence on the subject.

I believe it was published in 2018:

Paul N. Anderson, “The Son of Zebedee and the Fourth Gospel: Some Clues on John’s Authorship and the State of the Johannine Question.” El Evangelio de Juan. Origen, Contenido y Perspectivas--The Gospel of John. Origin and Perspectives, eds. B. Estrada and L. G. Sarasa, Colección Teología Hoy 80 (Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá 2018).

This essay is an expanded version of the essay published in "John and Judaism: A Contested Relationship in Context," Resources for Biblical Study 87 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017) 265-311. It includes expanded sections on the Johannine situation, John's composition, and an extended bibliography.

Biblical prooftexts for the prophethood of Muḥammad play a prominent role in early Muslim interest in the Bible. This study re-examines the earliest known attempt by Muslims to find such a biblical prooftext in the New Testament – the Arabic version of Jesus’s sermon on the ‘advocate/comforter’ (Gk. paráklētos) in John 15:23-16 found in Ibn Isḥāq’s Kitāb al-Maghāzī. Key to understanding Ibn Isḥāq’s adaptation of the Johannine text, this study argues, is the Christian Palestinian Aramaic Gospel behind it as well as the climate of late-antique apocalypticism and messianism out of which Ibn Isḥāq’s distinctively Islamic version emerged. This study concludes with an interpretation of Qurʾān 61:6, which appears to claim that Jesus prophesied a future prophet named Aḥmad.

This essay is a Foreword by Paul N. Anderson to Ernst Käsemann's The Testament of Jesus, translated by Gerhard Krodel, The Johannine Monograph Series,  Vol. 6 (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2017) xi-xxxviii. It considers the life story of Ernst Käsemann, including his resistance to Nazi Germany and liberal theology, while at the same time analyzing critically his controversial claims in this book and the ensuing discussions among New Testament scholars over the next half century--with important implications for church leadership and Christian discipleship. Uncorrected proofs, here.

This is my extensive introduction to Bultmann's commentary on John as the first volume in the Johannine Monograph Series edited by Alan Culpepper and myself. It covers over a century of Johannine scholarship, including Bultmann's contribution and scholarship before and after.

A finales del siglo II d.C. la Iglesia apostólica reconoció el evangelio tetramorfo, es decir, las cuatro versiones del único evangelio predicado desde el principio y en el que los seguidores de Jesús vieron plenamente reflejada la buena noticia de su Maestro.
La presente obra parte de una sencilla convicción: los cuatro evangelios reclaman ser leídos y estudiados conjuntamente.
Una extensa introducción sitúa al lector en el contexto de los libros sobre Jesús escritos en aquel tiempo y explica por qué únicamente estos cuatro fueron los evangelios seleccionados. A continuación se accede al díptico central, cuya primera tabla presenta el proceso de formación de los evangelios; profundiza en las relaciones que se establecen entre ellos, analiza la transmisión oral de los recuerdos sobre Jesús e identifica las composiciones utilizadas por los evangelistas. La segunda tabla, que es la más extensa, se centra en el examen pormenorizado de cada evangelio, su proceso de formación, su disposición literaria y su contexto vital.

Given that the Johannine "I-Am" sayings of Jesus are distinctive in their form, this raises questions as to their origin--was it the historical ministry of Jesus or the theological construct of the evangelist? Given that all nine of the I-Am metaphors in John are present in the Synoptic accounts of Jesus' teachings, it cannot be said that the Johannine paraphrase of Jesus' words is truncated from the Jesus of history on that basis. This is a draft of the article published in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 9 (2011): 139-206.

Zechariah has been used by the author of the Fourth Gospel to address one of the most important issues for both the early Church and first century AD Judaism: the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. The Johannine references to this prophecy served to express the revolutionary truth that there is a new temple, the body of Jesus, the King-Messiah, which is rebuilt by means of his resurrection. The same prophecy served to illustrate yet another dramatic truth: just as the eschatological Jerusalem Temple is the source of the outflow of paradisiac water, so this Temple-Messiah is the source of the re-creating Spirit. Thus, the main contribution of this study is to show the relevance of Zechariah for the Johannine christology and pneumatology, both centered around the idea of the Temple.

This essay covers six decades of scholarly analyses of the relation between the Qumran writings and the Gospel of John. It performs the analysis using punctuation marks as categories of analysis--from exclamation points to question marks to commas to periods. It was published as the second essay in the third volume published by the John, Jesus, and History Project, edited by Mary L. Coloe and Tom Thatcher, pp. 15-50. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/51120638.pdf

This essay was presented at the Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research and the Gospel of John (March 2016); it is slated for publication in The Gospel of John in Historical Inquiry: The Third Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, Princeton 2016, edited by James H. Charlesworth with Jolyon and G. R. Pruszinski, in consultation with Petr Pokorný and Jan Roskovec (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017).

The third printing of The Christology of the Fourth Gospel (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2010) updates my first Johannine monograph with five outlines of new paradigms comprising my overall theory: the Dialogical Autonomy of the Fourth Gospel (pp. xxxv-lxxxix).

«Due modi per dire lo stesso amore. Rileggere il Quarto vangelo alla luce del Cantico dei cantici (e viceversa)», in M. Zattoni – G. Gillini – G. Michelini, Il Cantico di tutti i cantici. La gioia della relazione tra uomo e donna, Porziuncola, S. Maria degli Angeli – Assisi (PG) 2016, 115-169.

The relation between Mark and John, the Bi-Optic Gospels, is one of the most difficult and most important subjects in biblical studies. Upon correct inferences of this set of intratraditional and intertraditional relationships many other judgments falter or stand. Seeking to make an advance over monodimensional source- and redaction-critical theories, an overall theory of Markan-Johannine interfluentiality identifies at least six stages in the developments within and between these two traditions, seeking to make the best sense of their textual similarities and differences. Along the way, several advances are argued over prevalent critical approaches, leading to an assessment of John’s relation to Mark as being interfluential in the oral stages of their traditions, augmentive and corrective to Mark in John’s first edition as “the second gospel”, and harmonizing - in that the final edition of John tends to reconcile itself with the other Markan Gospels. As the final Markan interpolation includes Johannine content, interfluentiality indeed continues. In service to an overall theory of interfluentiality stands Mikhail Bakhtin’s theory of polyvalent dialogism, applicable to historical narratives as well as fictive ones, wherein answerability within the cognitive experience of authors seeks to reconcile disparities between life and art. In that sense, an ongoing history of dialectical engagement between these bi-optic renderings of Jesus’ ministry inform also a broader understanding of John’s distinctive relations to the Lukan, Q, and Matthean traditions, and most importantly to their common subject: Jesus.

Though New Testament scholars have written extensively on the Roman Empire, the topic of the military has been conspicuously neglected, leading many academics to defer to popular wisdom. Against this trend, The Roman Army and the New Testament provides a clear discussion of issues that are often taken for granted: Who served in the military of early Roman Palestine? Why did men join the Roman army, seemingly at odds with their own interests as subject peoples? What roles did soldiers serve beyond combat? How did civilians interact with and perceive soldiers? These questions are answered through careful analysis of ancient literature, inscriptions, papyri, and archaeological findings to paint a detailed portrait of soldier-civilian interactions in early Roman Palestine. Contrary to common assumption, Judaea and Galilee were not crawling with Roman legionaries with a penchant for cruelty. Rather, a diverse mix of men from Palestine and nearby regions served as soldiers in a variety of social roles: infrastructure construction, dispute mediation, bodyguarding officials like tax-collectors, etc. Readers will discover a variety of complex attitudes civilians held toward men of Roman violence throughout the Roman East.

The importance of these historical issues for biblical scholarship is demonstrated through a verse-by-verse commentary on relevant passages that stretches across the entire New Testament, from the Slaughter of the Innocents in Matthew's nativity to the climactic battle with the Great Beast in Revelation. Biblical scholars, seminarians, and military enthusiasts will find much to learn about the Roman army in both the New Testament and early Roman Palestine.

In the first century CE Jewish identity was defined in a context of significant religious diversity. This presents those who read Paul’s Letters with a problem: how to locate Paul’s thought within the complicated matrices of Jewish intellectual traditions of this period. This study locates Paul within the matrix of Jewish messianic thought between the second century BCE and the first ccentury CE by comparing conceptual elements of messianic traditions in the Parables of Enoch and the undisputed Letters of Paul. Comparative analysis of the nature and functions of the messiah figures in the Parables and the Letters of Paul demonstrates a remarkable combination of shared elements, indicating that Paul was familiar with the Enochic messiah traditions. The extraordinary combination of shared elements is so striking as to preclude the possibility that the Parables and Paul constituted independent developments. The evidence indicates that Paul developed his concept of the Kyrios out of the Enochic Son of Man traditions, or that Paul was at least influenced by these traditions.

This essay is one of my first treatments of the John-Mark relationship, showing John as something of an augmentation and modest correction of Mark. John is different on purpose! Pages 175-188 in Jesus in Johannine Tradition, ed. by Robert Fortna and Tom Thatcher, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001.

The Qur'an is a book of guidance for all of humanity, and Allah has promised that He will preserve it in its original pristine form until the Day of Judgment. The inimitable style of the Qur'aan and the superior wisdom in it are definitive evidences that it is the Word of God. Besides, the Qur'an has many miraculous verses proving that it is undoubtedly a revelation from God and not the work of a human.

Although the Qur'an is not just a book of science, it clearly states a number of scientific truths that were uncovered only with the help of modern technology in the 20th century. How can we explain the numerous scientific facts mentioned in its verses over 1400 years ago?

Time after time, respected scientists and renowned experts from all over the world, upon studying the verses of the Qur'an (Quraan) have had no other choice but to acknowledge that there were no means of knowing these scientific facts 1400 years ago. The only way they could have reached us is through revelation: proving that the Qur'an is the word of God.

Just as scientists and researchers are fascinated by the wealth of knowledge and depth of meaning carried in the verses of the Qur'an (Koran/Coran), modern readers too will find a great deal of benefit in the amazing information and insight offered by this book.

This contribution introduces a critical translingual approach to the Hebrew reconstruction of the Lord’s Prayer, based on the knowledge accumulated on the subject to date. The author attempts to demonstrate that, despite the established dominant usage of Aramaic in 1st-century Palestine, the text of the Prayer in Matthew reflects linguistic peculiarities of the broader setting of the Sermon on the Mount and the presumed Hebrew background of Mt. Besides, the paper uncovers the existence of the Hebrew and Aramaic diglossia in the New Testament, arguing that both languages were used, each in its own context.

Palaeographic estimates of the date of P.Bodmer II, the well preserved Greek papyrus codex of the Gospel of John, have ranged from the early second century to the first half of the third century. There are, however, equally convincing palaeographic parallels among papyri securely dated to as late as the fourth century. This article surveys the palaeographic evidence and argues that the range of possible dates assigned to P.Bodmer II on the basis of palaeography needs to be broadened to include the fourth century. Furthermore, a serious consideration of a date at the later end of that broadened spectrum of palaeographic possibilities helps to explain both the place of P.Bodmer II in relation to other Bodmer papyri and several aspects of the codicology of P.Bodmer II.

The temple incident has been a popular episode in Jesus’ ministry from which Christians since Augustine have drawn to justify Christian violence ranging from punishing schismatics and heretics to justifying war and the death penalty. However, another tradition of reading this passage nonviolently began well before Augustine. Whether contextualizing the passage in a narrative reading so that it would have spiritual meaning or seeing the Greek grammar as disallowing that Jesus hit people with the whip, these nonviolent strategies effectively undercut any notion that Jesus’ action could provide a model for Christian violence. A close reading of the Greek text, I believe, supports these nonviolent strategies for reading the text, which simply denies based on Greek grammar that Jesus used his whip on any person.

This study explores the functionality of the literary device, “irony,” in two episodes of the Gospel of John, namely the Nicodemus episode (John 3) and the Samaritan woman episode (John 4). The study begins with an etymological survey of the uses of irony in antiquity. Based on the findings in this survey, we discover that irony was used in many different ways by Greco-Roman and Jewish authors in the past. Since the Gospel of John was written in the milieu where Greco-Roman and Jewish influences were still strong, we assume that John, the author of the Gospel, was using irony with multiple purposes in mind. Hence, the study proposes to examine the irony in the Gospel of John and highlight the three functionalities of irony, namely (1) rhetorical, (2) sociological, and (3) theological. In this study, we will analyse the Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman episodes in the Gospel of John. The study first analyses the irony in the local context of each episode. In both episodes will be demonstrated how the irony functions rhetorically, sociologically, and theologically. Then, we analyse the irony in the extended context that includes both the Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman episodes. Again, the study will demonstrate the three functionalities of irony in the extended context. This study will point out that the irony in the Gospel of John, specifically in the Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman episodes, has multiple functions. As such, ignoring the irony in the interpretation of the Gospel of John is taking the risk of misunderstanding the intended meaning of the Gospel.   

Note: This is my M.A. thesis from my time at the University of Georgia.

During the formative years of Christian thought, little is known concerning what people believed due to a lack of information concerning what the church definitively taught. Because of this, there exist divergent views concerning what views were held from the beginning and how they evolved. My thesis hopes to contribute to this discussion with respect to Jesus' inclusion within the divine identity by focusing on three authors in particular,​ Paul, Mark, and John, with the hope of showing that substantial continuity exists in their basic portrayal of Jesus' relation to the one God of Israel. This will be accomplished by showing that there is continuity between all three in their use of Scripture, specifically their use of Scriptural allusions, particularly those to Isaiah and the Shema. I also examine the subordination language in these texts to show that there is a consensus view of Jesus in the New Testament.

Scholars of the New Testament generally regard a small papyrus scrap of a page of the Gospel of John, P52, as the oldest surviving manuscript of any part of the New Testament.  C.H. Roberts, who first published this papyrus in 1935, dated it on palaeographical grounds to "the first half of the second century."  Since then, scholars of the New Testament have tended to assign to P52 a date closer and closer to the early end of Roberts' tentative range, and they have provided little or no evidence for doing so.  In this paper, I have collected images of the papyri Roberts used to date P52, and I have provided images of several other more securely dated documentary papyri to demonstrate that, on palaeographical grounds, any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries.  This conclusion has serious implications for those scholars who have attempted to use an early dating of P52 to argue for a correspondingly early date of composition for the Gospel of John.

The first of six reviews of the 2017 CNN series on Finding Jesus, this essay shows how Pilate's trial of Jesus in the Gospels (attested by the Pilate Stone found in Caesarea Maritima) actually becomes "the trial of Pilate" when analyzed in narratival perspective.

https://www.augsburgfortress.org/store/product/9781451470062/Encountering-Jesus. Applying a comprehensive theory of character to the Gospel of John, Cornelis Bennema provides a fresh analysis of both the characters and their responses to Jesus. While the majority of scholars view most Johannine characters as “flat,” Bennema demonstrates that many are complex, developing, and “round.” John’s broad array of characters and their responses to Jesus correspond to people and their choices in real life in any culture and time. This book highlights how John’s Gospel seeks to challenge its readers, past and present, about where they stand in relation to Jesus.

The Johannine letters contain warnings against false teachers who deny that Jesus was the Christ come in the flesh, and who seem to have once been members of the author’s own group. According to the standard interpretation, these false teachers were proponents of a heterodox Christology that denied the reality of Christ’s incarnation and either considered Christ’s flesh a mere illusion (“docetism”) or made a distinction between the human Jesus and the divine Christ who descended into and benignly possessed Jesus at his baptism (separation or possession Christology).

Both views have been connected with “Gnosticism” in previous scholarship. What is more, the standard interpretation is ultimately based on a mere few polemical passages in 1 and 2 John that have often colored the interpretation of the letters in general. Misguided mirror-reading and over-interpretation are also at play in readings of the polemical passages themselves. Such methodological problems derive in part from a lack of understanding of ancient rhetorical conventions.

Once insights from ancient rhetoric are applied to the reading of the letters, a different picture of the opponents begins to emerge. This picture matches well with polemical scenes in the Fourth Gospel but poorly with Ignatius’ letters or Irenaeus’ heresy catalog. A small but growing number of scholars–including B. Olsson and D. Streett–argue that the Johannine opponents are simply members of the local Jewish community, some of who had once been Christ-believers, but had since become convinced that Jesus was not the promised messiah after all. There is no strong evidence that any of them had held a “Gnostic”-like Christology of any kind.

On the other hand, as Käsemann famously stated, the Johannine gospel itself is “naïvely docetic.” The divinity of Jesus pervades the gospel and, since there are no birth or infancy narratives, it is easy to understand why some Valentinians later understood the Word having become flesh only at Jesus’ baptism. Also, while one does not have to accept Bultmann’s thesis of a Gnostic (Mandean) background of the gospel prologue, it is interesting to note that the prologue contains a rare feature that during the first two centuries is mainly found within the Classic Gnostic tradition; namely, application of Jewish Wisdom traditions to Jesus’ baptism. It thus remains possible that what might in retrospect be called heterodox tendencies did play a role in the Johannine “schism,” but that it was the Johannine author himself whose views approached Gnostic ones.

Presented at the Salzburg Symposium, "For and Against the Priority of John," organized by Peter Hofrichter and published in his edited volume, Für und Wider die Priorität des Johannesevangeliums (Olms, 2002, 19-58), this essay lays out my overall theory of what I cal "A Bi-Optic Hypothesis."