`Erubin
Mek. Mekilta
m. Mishnah
Bek. Bekorot
Ber. Berakot
Ketub. Ketubbot
Mid. Middot
Ned. Nedarim
Nid. Niddah
Pesah Pesahim
Rab. Rabbah
Roš Haš. Roš Haššanah
Sanh. Sanhedrin
Šabb. Šabbat
t. Tosefta
Tg. Exod. Targum on Exodus
Tg. Isa. Targum on Isaiah
Tg. Onq. Gen. Targum Onqelos on Genesis
Gen Rab. Genesis Rabbah
Exod Rab. Exodus Rabbah
Introduction
There have been many commentaries on the Gospel of John since 125 CE, when the Valentinian gnostic leader Heracleon first wrote one. Commentators, particularly after the Reformation, have usually taken an exegetical and sociohistorical approach. Some scholars have used rhetorical criticism, a social-scientific approach, narrative criticism, and/or a sociorhetorical perspective based on literary/rhetorical and cultural perspectives for interpreting John.1
Any writing of the first century needs to be set in its historical, religious, and social contexts for a proper understanding of its complexity. Previous studies have located John’s Gospel in a context of purported conflict between Jewish Christians and the unbelieving Jews in the late first century.2 By observing the literary and rhetorical texture of John’s Gospel, Keener attempts to reconstruct the social contexts in which John was written.3 The events recorded in the Gospel and the writings of the late first century and early second century help us to reconstruct the historical situation in which John’s Gospel was probably written.
In this commentary I attempt to set the Fourth Gospel in its historical setting and then to show that the vision of Jesus for the world, according to John, goes beyond his sacrificial death, resurrection, and appearance to the constitution and function of a new humanity, called “God’s new community,” that is bound to God by the new covenant made in Jesus.4
Who Wrote John’s Gospel and Where?
John’s Gospel declares that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” who “has seen” the crucified Jesus and has borne witness (19:35), not merely by verbal proclamation, but also by putting the Jesus tradition in writing. What this disciple spoke and wrote is categorically attested by a community as “true” (21:24).
The epithet “The Gospel According to John” appears in the papyri manuscripts P66 (second century CE) and P72 (ca. third century CE). Who is this John? Is he “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” who is traditionally identified as John the Son of Zebedee? Was he one of the Twelve or a disciple outside the Twelve? Was he a historical figure or a symbolic figure created by the writer? Why does he appear only in the later part of the Gospel (13:23; 19:26–27; 20:2–5, 8; 21:7, 20–24)? Some accept “the disciple whom Jesus loved” as both a historical and symbolic figure from Judea and as one of Jesus’ disciples, but not as one of the Twelve.5 There is little doubt about the Beloved Disciple as an eyewitness who wrote the Gospel. But scholars are not sure of the identity of this disciple.
The fact that this unnamed disciple was lying close to the breast of Jesus during the Passover meal (13:23) gives us the clue that he must have been one of the twelve disciples of Jesus. Otherwise, John’s use of the phrase “having loved his own” in the context of Jesus’ supper with them (13:1–2); the presence of Judas Iscariot (13:2, 27), Simon Peter (13:6, 24, 36, 37), Thomas (14:5), Philip (14:8–9), and Judas (not Iscariot; 14:22); Jesus’ exemplary act before those who called him “Teacher and Lord” (13:13–15); the whole “farewell discourse” after the Supper (13:31–16:33); and Jesus’ subsequent prayer for the men whom God had given to him (17:1–26) would all be inexplicable. The Synoptic tradition shows that the Twelve alone were eating the Passover with Jesus (Matt 26:20; Mark 14:17–18; cf. Luke 22:11, 14). The intimate relationship between the Beloved Disciple and Peter and their complementary roles in the community, as drawn from John (e.g., 13:23; 20:1–10), show that the Beloved Disciple is likely John the Son of Zebedee (cf. Acts 1:13; 3:1, 3, 4, 11; 4:13, 19; 8:14; see also comment on 13:23). The arguments against the view that the Beloved Disciple is John the Son of Zebedee6 depend mainly on the fact that John’s name is plainly mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels but not in John’s Gospel. This observation ignores the fact that John uses the Synoptic tradition freely in combination with his own tradition.7
The statement “This is the disciple who . . . has written these things” (21:24) does not necessarily imply that he wrote the Gospel as we have it today. The assumption that John the Son of Zebedee, a Galilean Jew, wrote the whole of John ignores the numerous Judean elements that the Gospel contains, including the correct geographical references to the events that took place in Judea.8 True, John, being a leader in Jerusalem church, would have known well the places and practices in Judea. However, the numerous parallels between John and the Qumran documents, the underlying rabbinic and targumic traditions, John’s christological apologetic rooted in the OT, and the reinterpreted Jewish mysticism, etc. presented in John far exceed the possible intellectual knowledge of a Galilean fisherman.
Hengel contends that the author of the Fourth Gospel, John the Elder, being a Jew from Jerusalem, migrated at the verge of the fall of Jerusalem in 66–70 CE to Asia Minor, most probably to Ephesus, where he started a school, normally known as the Johannine School.9 However, we have evidence for the migration of John the Son of Zebedee to Ephesus. The apocryphal Acts of John (ca. 150–60 CE) shows that John was widely involved in evangelistic and pastoral ministry in Asia, including Ephesus.10 Irenaeus (ca. 130–200 CE) had heard Polycarp (ca. 70 CE–160 CE), who received information about the works and words of the Lord from the eyewitnesses, including John (Eccl. Hist. 5.20.4). Irenaeus writes that John the disciple of the Lord ministered in the church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, until the time of Trajan (98–117 CE; Eccl. Hist. 3.23.3–4; cf. 5.8.4).
Dionysius of Alexandria (the third century CE) indicates that there are in Ephesus tombs of two Johns (see Eccl. Hist. 3.23.6; 7.25.16; cf. 3.31.3; 3.39.6; 5.24.3 for Polycrates’ confirmation that the resting place of John was in Ephesus). The Apostolic Constitutions (third century CE) mentions that the apostle John installed another John in Ephesus as his successor. Papias refers to two Johns in his writing (125–35 CE), in the context of his enquiry with those who had contacts with some of the disciples of Jesus about “what John and Matthew said” and about “the things which Aristion and John the elder, the disciples of the Lord, say” (Eccl. Hist. 3.39.4).
The
