This study seeks to explore, synchronically, the Story of Sin within John's Gospel, examining how the concept emerges and develops through the events and discourse of the narrative. The origin of sin, its consequences and the way in which sin is overcome provokes much discussion. Over many years, commentators on John's Gospel have concluded that sin does not usually function as a moral category within the narrative; many consider sin in John's Gospel as equivalent to unbelief. However, while the nature of belief and unbelief within the gospel has been the focus of much study, less attention has been paid to the way in which the concept of sin is portrayed within the drama of the narrative story. While the individual occurrences of the noun hamartia within the text have been examined, detailed study has not been carried out on the group of texts as a whole. From its beginnings in Jn 1 . the story of sin emerges cumulatively within the narrative to provide a clear and comprehensive depiction of sin. Exemplified through the reactions of key individuals to Jesus, the interaction produced by miracles, dialogue and discourse reveals that Jesus is the central character in the unfolding story of sin. Each of the passages, within which hamartia occurs, expose the intricate relationship between sin and the recognition of Jesus' identity. Sin may not always be directly associated with unbelief; but it remains tied to a failure to recognise who Jesus is. Within this study narrative-critical tools are brought bear on all of the occurrences of hamartia in John, examining the language of sin as it emerges and thereby tracing the developing story of sin throughout the whole gospel. The result is a more nuanced and comprehensive account of the story of sin than has been available to scholars hitherto.

No description available.

This thesis studies 'I am' on the lips of the Johannine Jesus. Although previous studies of this phrase have discovered many formal parallels, insufficient attention has been devoted to the function of the words in John. Thus there is a danger of imposing on the Gospel ideas that are foreign to it. The "I am" sayings should first be studied in the Gospel context to determine their function there. It is then possible to delimit any background material in terms of its relation to John's use of the phrase.

This thesis argues that the title ‘Son of Man’ in the Gospel of John is an apocalyptic reference that highlights, among a number of things, that Jesus is a heavenly figure. The background of ‘Son of Man’ can be traced from the ‘one like a son of man’ in Daniel 7 and the interactions of this figure in Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian literature. Although there is no established ‘Son of Man concept’, the Danielic son of man is interpreted with common characteristics that suggest there was at least some general understanding of this figure in the Second Temple period. Thos common characteristics are noticeable throughout the Son of Man sayings in John’s Gospel, and the context and the interpretation of these sayings point to an understanding of the Johannine Son of Man similar to those in the interpretations of the Danielic figure. However, even though these similarities exist, the Johannine figure is distinct from the previous interpretations, just as they are distinct from one another. One obvious difference is the present reality of the Son of Man’s role in judgment and salvation. The Johannine Son of Man is an apocalyptic figure, and thus ‘Son of Man’ does not function to draw attention to Jesus’ humanity in the Gospel of John. Nor is the title synonymous with ‘Son of God’. ‘Son of Man’ points to aspects of Jesus’ identity that are not indicated by any other title. Along with the other titles, it helps to complete the Johannine portrait of Jesus.

This thesis addresses the apparent puzzle of the theology of judgement in the Fourth Gospel. Throughout John’s Gospel, Jesus is presented as both judging and not judging while eschatological scenarios are presented and alluded to in which humanity will be judged at the last day and also in which will be no final judgement. This puzzling theology is particularly apparent in John 5 as has been noted many times in Johannine scholarship. In order to resolve this puzzle a hypothesis in initially proposed and the remainder of the study is devoted to affirming that the hypothesis does, in fact, provide a resolution. The hypothesis which is proposed at the beginning of this thesis is that John 5 presents a unified theology of judgement which is bicameral in that it consists of two eschatological compartments – one for Christian believers and one for the rest of humanity. The eschatology which John 5 presents for Christian believers is one in which they have been exempted from any end-time judgement process, but have already obtained the salvific benefit of eternal life which they shall continue to enjoy in a heavenly realm following bodily death. In parallel, John 5 presents a more traditional eschatology of a judgement tribunal for the rest of humanity at the eschaton where Christ, as God’s appointed judge, will sit in judgement of those who have rejected him and those who have not had the opportunity to accept him. The salvific benefits of such a bicameral eschatology are directed entirely in favour of Christian believers. In addition, the hypothesis proposes that the Christology of the Fourth Gospel has developed specifically to empower the Johannine Christ to act as the bringer of life to Christian believers and as the deliverer of Judgement to the non-Christian portion of humanity. This thesis seeks to substantiate the validity of the hypothesis by firstly establishing three prerequisites for its applicability to the text of John 5. Firstly, it is necessary to establish that the Christology and eschatology which the hypothesis addresses are indeed to be found in the Gospel and in John 5 in particular. Secondly, it is necessary to search through Johannine scholarship to establish how the problem has been addressed before and whether any proposed solutions can successfully stand as obstacles to the application of the hypothesis. Thirdly, the hypothesis requires that John 5 is a unified text with no redactional insertions by secondary editors. All three of these prerequisites are addressed and a case is made for proceeding with the application of the hypothesis.

Latin use in inscriptions shows evidence of intersections between Roman and Greek languages and culture during the first century CE. Although the provenance for the Gospel of John is not definitively determined, this evidence is present in each proposed location as well as in the text of the Gospel itself (e.g., πραιτώριον in 18:28, 33 and 19:9). This suggests, based on Umberto Eco’s semiotics, that the Roman cultural encyclopaedia could shed light on the Gospel of John, particularly in the Roman trial narrative for a Roman-aware audience. Some words in particular intersect with important Roman concepts: πραιτώριον, βασιλεύς, υἱὸς θεοῦ and ἐξουσία. The phrase Ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος in John 19:5, when analysed from a Roman perspective, seems sufficiently close to hic vir, hic est from Vergil’s Aeneid (6.791) to mark it as a literary allusion. An exegetical analysis of John 18:28—19:22, the passages most imprinted with Latin words and Roman concepts, reveals a Roman Pilate who tests the loyalty of both Jesus and ‘the Jews’ to Caesar. This exegesis, furthermore, provides the data for a social-scientific reading of the passage which constructs a superordinate identity for Romans (and, although outside the main focus of this thesis, for Jews as well). It also conveys a hidden transcript that creates honour for the marginalized Jesus-believers and calls those with power to become vulnerable for the sake of God’s empire. Although others have looked at empire in the Gospel of John, and some have made connections between specific verses and the Roman cultural encyclopaedia (e.g., 19:2), no one has noted the literary allusion in 19:5 nor offered an in-depth and sustained Roman reading of the trial narrative.

This thesis investigates the presence and significance of creation imagery in the Gospel of John. This is an issue that Johannine scholars have been discussing for nearly a century, since Edwin Hoskyns’ 1920 article “Genesis I–III and St John’s Gospel,” but it is still by no means a settled question. Many scholars continue to insist that John employs creation imagery in this Gospel by making numerous subtle allusions to Genesis 1–3. Others find this imagery in what they consider to be the creation-like structure of the text or parts of it. By contrast, this thesis argues that John has intentionally included only a limited number of instances of creation imagery and that he has positioned them carefully to highlight their significance. The thesis establishes the actual instances of creation imagery in the Gospel, demonstrating that a number of allusions that scholars have suggested to Genesis 1–3 are actually questionable. It contends that John has included direct references to the creation of the world specifically in 1:10; 17:5; and 17:24; and that only in 1:1–5; 5:17, 20, 36; 6:19; 9:3–4, 6; 17:4; and 20:22 has he also drawn on and creatively deployed terms and images stemming from Genesis 1–2 and other creation discourses found in the Old Testament. Although John uses these limited instances of creation imagery in varying contexts, this thesis argues that they function collectively in a threefold way that is consonant with John’s overall argument. First, John uses them to portray Jesus in close relationship with his Father, existing apart from and prior to the created order. This relationship authorizes his participation in divine activities. Second, John uses creation imagery to assert the primal and universal significance of Jesus and the message about him, and to privilege him over other important figures in the story of Israel. Third, John uses creation imagery to link past reality with present and future reality, portraying Jesus as the agent of creation whom the reader should regard as the primal agent of revelation and salvation. The thesis concludes by underscoring how these findings may inform our understanding of John’s Christology and Johannine dualism.

This thesis explores Karl Barth's use of John's Gospel in the Church Dogmatics. It seeks to read John with Barth, tracing the roles which the Fourth Gospel plays in his theology, while identifying gaps and distortions in Barth's use of John. Another interpreter of John, Rudolph Bultmann, is also significant: despite early parallels, much of Barth's theology is shaped by his deep disagreement with Bultmann. The first two chapters therefore discuss the beginnings of dialectical theology. Bultmann and Barth retreat from systems of thought which have overwhelmed theology and have changed its subject matter. They look to the scriptures in seeking to develop theology which is genuinely about God, but hold different assumptions about the place and form of revelation. Chapter 3 considers Bultmann's existentialist interpretation of John. Chapters 4 to 9 examine a series of different aspects of Barth's use of the story of Jesus in John's Gospel. Although Barth emphasises the picture of Jesus Christ shown through his actions, he is more of a strategist than a story-teller. He presents the Word made flesh in a way which allows him to restructure the whole of theology so that it looks towards Jesus Christ rather than fitting in with human systems of ideas. His emphasis on divine decision and his exploration of the content of theology contrast with Bultmann's focus on individual human decisions. The role of other characters is diminished, and the narrative sequence of the story is compressed and distorted by Barth's emphasis on the paramount significance of God's decision to be incarnate. The dualism of John's Gospel, which becomes a dualism of human decision in Bultmann's theology, becomes a dualism of knowledge and falsehood in the Church Dogmatics, in which the real drama of the story is not the interactions between the characters but the struggle to proclaim the truth. Chapter 10 contains some concluding reflections on the wider implications of John's Gospel, showing how Barth's retreat and restructuring could be followed by a process of reengagement with all areas of truth and experience.

The Johannine literature has been a cornerstone of Christian theology throughout the history of the church. However it is often argued that the church in the late second century and early third century was actually opposed to these writings because of questions concerning their authorship and role within “heterodox” theologies. Despite the axiomatic status that this so-called “Johannine Controversy” has achieved, there is surprisingly little evidence to suggest that the early church actively opposed the Johannine corpus. This thesis is a detailed study of the primary evidence recorded by the fourthcentury Church Father, Epiphanius of Salamis, which is the earliest record to explicitly note ecclesiastical opposition towards the Gospel and Apocalypse of John, taken together. In his Panarion, Epiphanius states that a group called the “Alogi” rejected the Gospel and Apocalypse of John, and attributed both to the heretic Cerinthus. He does not record any identifying features of this group’s provenance, theology or constituency; rather he only notes two objections that these Alogi had against the Gospel of John, and three against the Apocalypse. The identity of this group remained a mystery for centuries until consideration was given to the testimonies of two later Syrian writers who indicate that a certain “Gaius” made similar criticisms against the Gospel and Apocalypse of John in a debate with Hippolytus of Rome. As a result, the consensus view throughout modern scholarship is that an early churchman, Gaius of Rome, was the leader of this group that sought to eradicate the Johannine corpus from the church, and that Epiphanius as well as the later Syrian writers used a work of Hippolytus, now lost, as the primary source of their information. This thesis is a careful examination of the evidence that supports the theory that the early church actively opposed the Johannine literature. Thus, particular attention is given to the testimony of Epiphanius concerning the Alogi. It is demonstrated here that when priority is given to the early evidence, the Alogi is a fictional heretical sect, created by Epiphanius from various testimonies to account for what he believed to be antagonism primarily against the Gospel of John, and secondarily the Apocalypse. The later Syrian evidence is also examined in light of the early evidence, not the other way around, as is often the case. As a result, these sources are shown to be less reliable in their portrayal of the early reception of the Johannine literature than has previously been recognized. The first section of this thesis engages the question regarding the likelihood that Epiphanius derived his knowledge of this group from an earlier work of Hippolytus. The internal and external evidence about this group suggest that it is Epiphanius’ own creation. The second section explores the testimonies of earlier writers, namely Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius and Dionysius of Alexandria, and the way in which Epiphanius used these sources in the construction of this heresy. The third and final section critically examines the reliability of the later Syrian evidence concerning Gaius and his supposed ties to the Alogi. I argue that these later sources are not as reliable as many scholars maintain, and that Gaius of Rome was not associated with the Alogi, nor was he a heretic.

One of the distinctive features of the Fourth Gospel is the emphasis placed on the divine name (ὄνομα). The name occurs eight times (5.43; 10.25; 12.13, 28; 17.6, 11-12, 26), in key passages and in striking expressions such as “I have made known your name” (17.6) and “your name, which you gave me” (17.11). This thesis uses historical-critical methodology in a close reading of the Fourth Gospel to determine why John is so attracted to the name category. It is argued that, for John, the divine name was fundamentally an eschatological category with a built-in duality or “associative” significance, which he derives primarily from his reading of Isaiah. It is plausible that Isaiah was the primary impetus for John’s interest in the divine name, because name language is bound up with the “I am” expression and glory language in Isaiah— both of which more clearly underlie John’s “I am” sayings and glory motif. Furthermore, the significance of the name in Isaiah as the object of eschatological expectation (Isa 52.6), and as a concept by which God is associated with his Servant, attracted John to the name category as ideal for his nuanced presentation of Jesus. In John’s use of the name category, it is possible to distinguish the question of significance from that of referent, meaning, and function. This, in turn, facilitates a clear evaluation of possible catalysts for John’s name concept. It is demonstrated that a variety of Jewish and Christian background influences contributed to John’s name concept at the level of referent, meaning, and function. However, the eschatological and associative significance of the name in the Fourth Gospel is particularly indebted to the name concept in Isaiah. This is significant, in part, because Isaiah places such emphasis on the exclusivity of God. It may be that a zeal for God’s exclusivity had generated accusations against the community of believers known to John, that, by their allegiance to Jesus, they were guilty of blaspheming the name in particular. The name was, perhaps, a “flashpoint” for the community, and the text of Isaiah a key battle-ground for defining fidelity to God, and the identity of the people of God. By associating Jesus with the divine name, John legitimates the allegiance of believers to Jesus in the face of Jewish opposition, as well as comforts those who were troubled by the continued absence of Jesus, with the point that they were yet identified by the divine name (17.11), and that eschatological revelation of the name promised in Isaiah was extended to their own time as well (17.26b).