In the Mail: @DeGruyter_TRS “A Textual Study of Family 1 in the Gospel of John (Arbeiten Zur Neutestamentlichen)”

This textual study of the Gospel of John in seventeen Greek manuscripts offers a fresh investigation into the important textual group known as Family 1. The study, based on a full collation of the seventeen manuscripts, has re-defined the textual contours of Family 1, by establishing the existence of new core family manuscripts and subgroups. The study includes a reconstructed Family 1 text with critical apparatus for the Gospel of John.

And from here:

This is a textual study of seventeen Family 1 manuscripts in the Gospel of John: Gregory-Aland 1, 22, 118, 131, 205abs, 205, 209, 565, 872, 884, 1192, 1210, 1278, 1582, 2193, 2372, and 2713. Part 1 contains an analysis of a full collation of these manuscripts in John and concludes with a family stemma that expresses the relationships between the manuscripts and how they connect to the non-extant Family 1 archetype. Part 2 contains a reconstructed Family 1 text with critical apparatus for John. The results of this thesis confirm that 1 and 1582 are leading Family 1 manuscripts in John, but demonstrate that a new subgroup exists, represented by 565, 884 and 2193, that rivals the textual witness of 1 and 1582. This subgroup descends from the Family 1 archetype through a different intermediate ancestor to that shared by 1 and 1582. The discovery of this subgroup has broadened the textual contours of Family 1, leading to many new readings, both text and marginal, that should be considered Family 1 readings. The reconstructed text is based on the witness of this wider textual group and is offered as a replacement to Kirsopp Lake’s 1902 text of John.

Can’t wait to dig into this one.

Working on my Dissertation – something I’ve murdered, for now

Image taken from page 97 of 'The Chinese as th...

Image taken from page 97 of ‘The Chinese as they are: their moral, social, and literary character. A new analysis of the language; with … views of their … arts and sciences’ (Photo credit: The British Library)

I had to remove some stuff from the prospectus when I turned it into chapter 1. I am studying under Dr. Francois Tolmie, at the University of the Free State, doing a literary analysis of the Fourth Gospel and its use of Deuteronomy. What I hope to do is to do a complete analysis of every way the author of the Fourth Gospel has used the Fifth Book of Moses to tell his tale. I will invest a heavy portion of the dissertation into quotations, allusions, and echoes — then, I hope, I will over something by way of the way “John” structures his book to look something like Deuteronomy. 

I *think I see something I would like to explore, so we will see.

What follows is an unedited portion I removed.

3.4       Example of Quotations and Allusions

In looking for possible quotations and allusions, I will begin with Hans Hübner’s work, Evangelium Secundum Iohannem.[1] This portion of my work will attempt to show a Johannine appreciation of Deuteronomy as well as his use of quotes and allusions to alert his readers to his grander literary design based on Deuteronomy. As Labahn has demonstrated, the use of Deuteronomy as a quotable source is limited.[2] He points to John 8:17 as the only likely quote attributed to Deuteronomy (calling to his side two Deuteronomic witnesses, 17:6 and 19:15). We must eliminate Deuteronomy 17:15 given (with the methodology to be developed later), the passage around it does not give itself to acting as a mnemonic cue.

That leaves us with two contending passages for John’s source, either Numbers 35:30 or Deuteronomy 19:15. The passage in John presents a challenge to Jesus by the Jewish leaders who questioned his manner of truth if he could only offer testimony on his own behalf. The passage in Numbers 35:30, following the discussion on the murderer, relates the requirements to have two witnesses to put the criminal to death. Deuteronomy 19:15, on the other hand, speaks to the accusation against someone who has sinned. Deuteronomy declares the priests must judge the accusation while including a warning against the false accuser. John’s passage includes Pharisees, the Temple setting, and a passive proclamation that Jesus’s accusers are making false statements. It is much more likely John is quoting from Deuteronomy rather than Numbers.

I will now offer, based on a proposed allusion by Hübner, an example of the work I plan to accomplish.[3] He proposes a possible connection between Deuteronomy 16:2 and John 2:15 based on πρόβατα καὶ βόας.[4] Exodus 12:32 contains the exact word order found in John, πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βόας, while the word order matching Deuteronomy 16:2 is found in Psalm 8:8. As to be discussed in the chapter on critical theory of allusions, for an allusion to work as an intentional ploy of the author, the allusion must serve as a cue to a larger intertextual frame. Neither Exodus 12:32 nor Psalm 8:8 give to John the needed imagery to allow us to consider this phrase an allusion. Only Deuteronomy does. Again, I must refer back to the imagery present to identify the likelihood of the allusive allowance. In John, Jesus is presenting his body as the Temple whereas in Deuteronomy, the Temple is in only view. This is not all. The Johannine passage takes place near the Passover (John 2:13) whereas Deuteronomy calls for the Passover to take place in the Temple (16:1). Both passages share the Passover and Temple imagery, as well as the ultimate Passover as an expected future event.[5] For Deuteronomy, it is the building of the Temple whereas for John, it is with the death of Jesus.

If we can find more allusions between Deuteronomy, using them to act as signs for larger intertextual frames, we will begin to see the larger role the Fifth Book of Moses plays in the Fourth Gospel. Such allusions, I contend, are replete, adding structure to John’s writing so that John should not be interpreted apart from Deuteronomy, but nestled in an almost inter-linear fashion. The search for allusions, rather than direct quotations will give us this possibility as well as allow us to examine what, if any, these additional recognized intertextual frames contribute to understanding an overall Johannine theology and intent.

3.5       Example of Neologism Work

The word dedicated to allusions will included a specialized section focused on examining the possibility of John’s use of the neologisms created by the septuagintal translator of Deuteronomy. There are two lists of neologisms, based on two different critical texts. The first is found in Wevers’ Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy.[6] The second is in Göttingen Septuagint. The second list is found in Cécile Dogniez and Marguerite Harl’s work, based on Rahlfs’ critical edition.[7] What I intend to do here, briefly, is to show a positive end to the search of neologisms as a possible allusion in John as well as a negative.

Towards the negative boundary of exploration is the exploitation of the neologism that evolved into the name of the fifth book of the Torah, Δευτερονόμιον (Deut. 17:18). In several instances, we find John referring to an action of Jesus with δεύτερος.[8] While we may wish to see something in the passages relating to a second birth of sorts, nothing quite approaches an allowance to see δευτερονόμιον behind the various instances of δεύτερος in the Fourth Gospel.

We may find a positive allusion to a Greek Deuteronomic neologism in John 19:5, referring to Deuteronomy 1:31.[9] The neologism created by the translator of Deuteronomy is τροφοφορέω, used twice in this verse. Likewise, it is used in 2 Maccabees 7:27. Both books are likely in John’s cognitive environment. Equally, both passages under review contain images likely to have influenced the author of the Fourth Gospel. However, whereas 2 Maccabees relates the natural course of the mother and the child, the passage in Deuteronomy contains the imagery of God who fights for Israel and, more importantly, εἴ τις τροφοφορήσει ἄνθρωπος τὸν υἱὸν. God is bearing Israel as a man bears his son. John uses this hapax legomenon to imagine Jesus φορῶν τὸν ἀκάνθινον στέφανον καὶ τὸ πορφυροῦν ἱμάτιον. Given the similarity in imagery, if only in theology, it is possible John uses for the only time in his Gospel a word to harken back to God bearing Israel as a man bears his son.We must admit, however, beyond the theological allusions, the use of a neologism in Deuteronomy with a similar hapax legomenon in the Fourth Gospel is not in of itself completely convincing.[10] It may be that we are seeing a Deuteronomic theological allusion in use by John because of a hyper-focus by the examiner; to remedy that, I will not insist on these as allusions, if the evidence is this flimsy, but seek to present them as echoes indicating some contextual verbal hints in John’s vocabulary.

Admittedly, this is a rather weak connection and while I will use one or two of these weak analogies to showcase the stronger ones, it is less likely such a exposed allusion will be used to prove any substantial connections between Deuteronomy and John. Of course, I will beg the reader to allow for echoes to abound in John’s vocabulary so that while choice may imply purpose, there are those choices in the author’s mind we cannot so well gauge as to remain confident as to their purpose, as if one purpose is more explicable than one accident.


[1] Hans Hübner, Antje Labahn, and Michael Labahn, Evangelium Secundum Iohannem 2003.

[2]Labahn in Menken and Moyise, 84.

[3]Hübner, Evangelium Secundum Iohannem, 59–60

[4] πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βόας (John 2:15)

[5] See Michael A. Daise, Feasts in John: Jewish Festivals and the Jesus’ “Hour” in the Fourth Gospel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). Daise proposed the use of feasts to denote a narrative aspect of John. If his premise is correct, then we can see more easily an allusion to Deuteronomy 16 (as opposed to Exodus 12 or Psalm 8) due to this particular pass of Deuteronomy focusing on the proper celebration of the feasts.

[6] John William Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1995.)

[7] Cécile Dogniez and Marguerite Harl, La Bible d’Alexandrie LXX, Tome 5: Le Deuteronome (Paris: Le Cerf, 1992).

[8] John 3:4, 4:54, 9:24, 21:16

[9] The ultimate purpose of using this neologism is to first show the work under the soon-to-developed methodology and not argue convincingly for its determined purpose.

[10] There are natural arguments against the allowance of this as a intertextual allusion. The first is the use of the figurative language in the LXX, something John either ignores or misses as the Evangelist strips the word (as with the removal of τροφο) of the language needed to conjure the image of a caring, or nursing, person. Jesus is not the caring individual here, but in need of care. Second, there are the other New Testament usages, such as in Matthew 11:8 and 1 Corinthians 15:49. The answer to a possible weakness in this example is to beg allowance that John may simply use the word to call attention to the larger intertextual framework he may employ here while the answer to the second opposition is to suggest we examine vocabulary in John as Johannine rather than as New Testament.

Review of @BakerAcademic’s “Encountering John : The Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective”

That this is a textbook is no secret; yet, it provides something to the autodicate as well. It is an introduction and commentary. Indeed, as far as textbooks go, this is a premier one and should be included in every Johannine scholar’s booklist. Written by Andreas J. Köstenberger, it provides a multi-perspective introduction to the Fourth Gospel.

The book, geared to students, is divided between 5 parts, including 2 appendices and 10 excursuses. Each chapter begins with “didactic material,” including a verse, an outline, objectives, and oftentimes, supplemental reading. At the end of each chapter are study questions and key words. In between the natural bookends, there are side boxes to give more detail about the examined chapter in John’s Gospel, such as “Jesus’s Display of Supernatural Knowledge.” (p58) Further, there are other helps as well. On p59, there is a box on the appearances of “the Son of Man” in the Fourth Gospel as well as a box on the seven signs of Jesus. The information in these boxes will aid the student in connecting the whole of the Gospel to what they are reading. I am not one given to an overly redacted Fourth Gospel, so to have these boxes acting almost like cross references connect the Gospel among its “various parts,” it helps to smother the need to dissect John unnaturally.

On other hand, the author’s almost outright refusal to introduce historical criticism to his students does leave me worried. While he marvelously deals with textual criticism (for instance, his discussion on John 1.18), Köstenberger refuses to allow a theological agenda uniquely Johannine. In discussing the “Johannine Pentecost,” Köstenberger rails against those who would see John has offering a view different than Luke of the beginning of the Church. He writes that the view “charges John with altering historical fact in order to accommodate his particular theological bent. And while this is a serious enough offence for you and me, it is infinitely more serious for a writer of inspired Scripture.” (p174) The author presupposes an unprovable, and still yet theological controversial tenet, that of inspiration. Further, he presumes an apparent monolithic orthodoxy at an early stage of Christianity, something not proven and in reality, the opposite of what we believe we know. His need to merge John with evangelical inspiration is made readily clearly when he runs into Johannine disagreements with the Synoptics (for instance, his discussion on the chronology of the passion, p133).

With an evangelical wind at this back, Köstenberger delivers a wonderful introductory textbook to facilitate deeper studies of the Fourth Gospel. While his exclusions of notable Johannine commentators, such as Rudolph Bultmann, is noticeable, his inclusion of relevant data such as Rabbinic sources and his use of literary criticism makes this book a welcomed addition to my library. Further, the ten execursuses, addressing topics ranging from the asides to the Aporias gives me pause to consider the deep majesty not just of the last canonical Gospel but of those who have take it in their hands and attempted to extract to the last full measure the supreme mystery buried in the Gospel According to St. John.

(Re)discovered Uncial Fragment of John’s Gospel (0323)

…yet exciting (re)discovery: a forgotten uncial fragment of John’s Gospel in one of the most famous manuscripts in the field of New Testament textual criticism, the Syrus Sinaiticus. The presence of some palimpsest leaves with a Greek Gospel text in this manuscript (Sinaiticus gr. 30, fol. 142, 144, 147 and 149) has been known to the scientific community for more than 100 years, but it always remained in the shadow of the Old Syriac text and apparently no one realized that it had gone unregistered in the GA list of New Testament manuscripts.

via A “New” Uncial Fragment of John’s Gospel (0323) | Marginalia.

In working on my dissertation, I am weary of the textual completeness of John. Not really sure, yet, how this will factor in, but it is always interesting!

Review: The Courageous Gospel: Resources for Teachers, Students, and Preachers of the Fourth Gospel

Robert Hill, Dean of the Chapel and Professor of New Testament and Pastoral Theology at Boston University School of Theology, has with everyone in mind written a marvelous introduction to not only the Gospel of John itself but so too to recent scholarship on the Fourth Gospel. I was pleasantly surprised to see such a balanced view and presentation of critical scholarship around the Gospel of John while maintaining what appears to be a faithful commitment to certain theological tenets. 

The book is clearly a designed to be a textbook, but one cleverly disguised as something infinitely more usable. It is divided into four parts. The first part serves as a theological introduction, introducing the book and the scope of the scholarship. In here, we find that while Hill has written the majority of the book, he has included essays from others. Part Two is a dual commentary and autobiographical attempt at marking Hill’s interaction with the Gospel of John. Here, we are introduced to lectures, sermons, and even presentations by such Johannine luminaries as Raymond Brown. Part Three tackles various scholarly issues as well as propositions presented by various scholars, such as the aforementioned Brown and J. Louis Martyn. We are also given a short brief on Hill’s thesis as to the course of John. The final part includes theological summaries as well as examinations for a graduate level Johannine class.

What started off as a “why do I need this book” quickly became “why wasn’t this book given to me before.” I am currently working  a Ph.D. in the Fourth Gospel. This book is a welcomed addition to that work. As a small group leader, this book is equally accessible to the lay reader and will serve as a fine addition in lesson planning. Finally, for preachers, it helps to connect the Church and the Academy is a fashion honoring both.

#SBLAAR13 – John, Jesus, and History (John and Luke) #loveblogging

This has to be the most attended session I’ve seen at SBL. The rather large room is rather filled.

Paul Anderson opens up with the three year plan for this seminar. Turid Karsel Seim (Oslo) begins by discussing Mary, Martha, and Bethany in Luke and John. Notes her paper is “very open to discussion” and one marking a shift to a different area than she is usually invested into. Moving past literary sources? Focusing on the names now.

Speaking about D. Moody Smith and his seminal work, John Among the Gospel. Smith believed there were fewer connections between John and Luke than, say, John and Mark/Matthew. I think this is a rather strict view of borrowing, but… Smith seems to note this as well, seeing connections even in departures and “suppression of information.” She and Smith notes how difficult this is to tract.

And thus my area of focus on John and his use of Deuteronomy. It is this “ambience of tradition” that fascinates me and is the germ of my interpretative strategies. We simply cannot allow anything not to be considered a shared connection.

Seim speaks about pre-canonical versions of stories. Watson, in his latest, suggests that for John, the Egerton “Gospel” precedes him. Seim is along the same lines, believing sources cannot be limited to “intra-canonical” sources. Her focus on the names is going to be detailing because of the myriad Marys in the Gospels.

Seim’s opinion sees Luke as unaware to the traditions supplanting John at various points, such as the anointing of Jesus among the various Gospels. I would imagine she believes in a Q theory or multiple sources for the Gospels. She notes the switch of Lazarus’s role between Luke and John. Sees any connection between the shared name as “far-fetched.” Sees that in both stories: the identify of Lazarus is non-important. Rather, it is what happens to the character.

I dunno… she mentions the so-called Secret Gospel of Mark. I don’t she buys it. She believes the 2 sisters constitute a narrative material prior to the Gospel of John. But, does Luke know the tradition? In the end, she believes that an actual tradition existed of two sisters and a bother underlies the pericope in Luke and John. She must consider Luke and John as rather late, even into the early 2nd century.

She mentions textual criticism and how this plays into textual dependence investigations. Which text do we use? And that is a huge issue to over come.

Why couldn’t John just have developed the Lukan material using mimesis or other forms of creative literary preservation?

Mark A. Matson (Milligan College) is up. He provided his paper as a hand out so, I have no need to summarize it. I think he sees a tradition underlying the stories, creating independence, in the Gospels.

Next up is John T. Carroll. I have to get his paper. I lot of minutia. But good stuff.

Is the Gospel of John History or is it Theology?

Michael Kruger asks

Is the Gospel of John History or Theology? | Canon Fodder.

But answers, in my opinion, wrongly. As a snippet, he relies too heavily on Richard Bauckham.

For instance, he notes, “In the ancient world, good history was eyewitness history. For a historical account to be credible, a historian either needed to have witnessed the events himself…” Except you have Virgil, Livy, and others who wrote about the history they did not see but received an authoritative reception. Count in Strabo and Plutarch as well. A good history was not one told by eyewitnesses, but one that made sense — and usually, this meant not angering anyone at the top and preserving whatever historical myth was needed. That’s not to say all of the historians were liars, but the narrative they created proves Hayden White too right.

He cites the geography of John. I would contend John has had years to consider the mythical geography of Mark (which was somewhat corrected by Matthew because it did not fit his purpose). Because John was not writing with the same theological spin on geography as Mark, he could afford to do it “right.” Further, the geography of John does not mean it is the geography of Jesus, but of the Johannine community.

And I could tackle the length of discourses, but this is a rather odd argument to make. I mean, John could have developed the discourses from several sources. And it was noted in the ancient world how discourses were often developed, compact or otherwise, and present as historical.

I’m not sure I would I would go so far to say as Jim has that the entire bible is theology. I would allow for some history in John, but this is going to be reserved to a literary, canonical, and theological history.

I would love to have John as more historical, or even simply good, plain history, but it is not. John shows signs of using the Synoptics, and I would say Mark, to develop his Gospel. Watson believes John used what is now known as the Egerton fragment/gospel. If this is the case, then John is long removed from being an eyewitness.

And again, the only possible eyewitness to Jesus is Mark, but that didn’t stop him from (re)writing (his theological) history of Jesus.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Winn, Watson, John, Egerton, Jewish-Christian, and Christian-Jewish literary transitions @eerdmansbooks

My working – and this is super secret so don’t tell anyone because I haven’t done the research yet to back it all up – thesis, in part, is to suggest John wrote in such a way as to close the Torah of the Gospels.

I will maintain a distinctive Jewish quality to Mark and Matthew, and a different sort to L(eviticus)uke. But, then there is John… We all know John has some issues with us v. them, us v. Jews. This has been explained in a variety of ways. But, in the literary sense, there is little way to mark the transition. I mean, how did we go from Mark to John?

And this is where Watson comes in.

(for a fuller treatment of Watson’s chapter on John, see Rick Brannan’s post here.)

After discussing the movement from Egerton to John, Watson comments, ‘the Egerton evangelist is consciously seeking to counter the Johannine distancing of Jesus from Judaism, reincorporating him into the community’ of a more Judaism-centric /an/Christianity. He goes on, ‘This Jewish-Christian or Christian-Jewish feature of GEger is of a piece with its pre-occupation with the Moses/Jesus relationship… it is more likely to be pre-Johannine.”

That’s interesting… Might whatever Egerton represents be the literary transition between Luke and John?

Another note — Watson, after comparing Egerton and P. Köln 255r to Mark 1.40–5, suggests the Egerton-Köln story “may derive from a  version independent of Mark (322). Unfortunately, I think Watson stresses too much the importance of direct literary parallels. See Adam Winn‘s notes on this in Elijah-Elisha Narrative (3–4, and no less a reason than he specifically compares a story from Matt/Luke to John). Watson does, however, allow for some similar language at this point between Egerton–Köln and John. Had Watson allowed for a dependence on Mark, we might have seen another hallmark of a transition from the rather rabbinical Jewishness of the Synoptics to whatever new creation John is trying to be.

If his thoughts on the closing paragraph on 324 was carried out, we could easily see John pulling from Egerton-Köln and the Synoptics as he built his Gospel.

 

Was John a theological liberal? John 19.34 and 2 Macc 15.39

This is supposed to be a tad bit ironic and/or humorous while allowing me to add something else to the category. It is something I want to keep a record of, and not necessarily something I’m going to expound upon right now. #holla

But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. (John 19.34 NASB)

In John 6.50-8, Jesus plainly declares the wine his blood.

Notice that the other accounts do not include the spear.

Now, read 2 Maccabees

For, just as it is disagreeable to drink wine by itself or water by itself, whereas the mixing of the two produces a pleasant and delightful taste, so too variety of style in a literary work charms the ear of the reader. Let this, then, be my final word. (2 Maccabees 15.39 REB)

Maybe John really was a forerunner of Rudy Bultmann and tried to take the myth out of it. I dunno… maybe John really was a theological liberal and tried to mix a little water with communion’s wine.

 

 

 

 

Hypothesis – Historical Present (Mark, John, Revelation)

I wanted to write this for first to start my thought process and second, perhaps, for discussion:

Matthew        94/78
Mark               150/151
Luke               13
John               163
Acts                14
Revelation     54

Mark is the first, and as I explained in my book, uses this for a particular reason. I think it is a rhetorical ploy. This explains Matthew’s continued use with it (keeping in mind the textual tradition you use and hoping we have a fairly accurate representation of the original text). In Luke-Acts, it is almost done away with and thus becomes just another verb choice.

However, in Revelation, we see another uptick.

Wait. Go here and read this paper by Steve Runge first.

Anyway, here is my current hypothesis:

Mark begins the Gospel genre. His use is rhetorical. Matthew sees this and uses it, expanding Mark’s story with his own. Luke‘s rhetoric goes into a different direction and thus doesn’t need word choice, or rather, doesn’t need this particular grammar choice. Or, he may not get the entire theme as displayed in Mark and Matthew and thus attempts to correct the “poor” grammar. Acts doesn’t really count here, except to show the author(s) of Luke-Acts as a single-minded writer who likes tidiness.

John reworks the Markan narrative including other narratives along the way and his own material but unlike Matthew and Luke, retains more of Mark’s rhetorical flair.

Oh, yes. Thomas (the Greek fragments such as P. Oxy 654) uses the historical present in relation to Jesus. The Coptic has it as past tense, indicating a translation from the Greek, I’d argue. Wonder if this means Thomas knew the Synoptics? —->

What does this mean for Revelation? First, I would argue Revelation is written by the same author(ial community) as The Gospel of Mark. Second, I believe there are direct literary connections between Revelation and Mark, such as the borrowing of certain phrases. Not words. Phrases.

I think the use of the historical present as we move from Mark to Revelation indicates an awareness — perhaps a theological intent — of the original literary use in the first written Gospel. I think it also indicates reliance (especially for Matthew, Luke, and John) on Mark.

What about Thomas? I don’t know, really, but it would be interesting to do a vivisection of the use of historical presents and where each of them end up. Numbering the usage starts us on a path, but the path should lead us to examining the exact use — where are the HP’s used in relation to one another.

Anyway, just wanted to jot this down.

A brief bibliography on John’s Gospel – Your help needed

Your additions are always helpful. I have a copy of other additions I found from the defunct Johanne Studies website, but haven’t combined the list just yet.

See, scholarship is not just appending two leTTers to your name and pretending you maTTer. It involves work.

___

Allen, David M. Deuteronomy & Exhortation in Hebrews: A Study in Re-presentation. Coronet Books, 2008.

Anderson, Paul N., Felix Just, and Tom Thatcher, eds. John, Jesus, and History, Volume 1: Critical Appraisals of Critical Views. First Edition. Society of Biblical Literature, 2007.
Anderson, Prof Paul. Riddles of the Fourth Gospel: An Introduction To John. Fortress Press, 2011.
Ashton, John. Understanding the Fourth Gospel. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, USA, 2009.
Attridge, Harold W. Essays on John and Hebrews. Reprint. Baker Academic, 2012.
———. “Genre Bending in the Fourth Gospel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 121, no. 1 (April 1, 2002): 3–21. doi:10.2307/3268328.
Aune, David Edward. The Cultic Setting of Realized Eschatology in Early Christianity. No Statement of Edition. Brill, 1972.
Bailey, John Amedee. The Traditions Common to the Gospels of Luke and John. First. E.J. Brill, 1963.
Barrett, C. Kingsley. The Gospel According to St. John, Second Edition: An Introduction With Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. 2nd ed. Westminster John Knox Press, 1978.
Barth, Karl. Witness to the Word: A Commentary on John 1. Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2003.
Barton, Stephen C., Loren T. Stuckenbruck, and Benjamin G. Wold, eds. Memory In The Bible & Antiquity: The Fifth Durham-Tubingen Research Symposium; Durham, September 2004. Mohr Siebeck, 2007.
Bauckham, Richard. Testimony of the Beloved Disciple, The: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John. Baker Academic, 2007.
Bauckham, Richard, and Carl Mosser, eds. The Gospel of John and Christian Theology. Eerdmans Pub Co, 2008.
Beasley-Murray, George R. Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 36, John. 2nd ed. Thomas Nelson, 1999.
Bennema, Cornelis. Encountering Jesus: Character Studies in the Gospel of John. Paternoster, 2009.
Beutler, Johannes. Judaism and the Jews in the Gospel of John. Gregorian Biblical BookShop, 2006.
Bieringer, Reimund, Didier Pollefeyt, and Frederique Vandecasteele-Vanneuville. Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel. 1st ed. Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
Bird, Michael F., and Jason Maston, eds. Earliest Christian History: History, Literature & Theology, 2012.
Boismard, M.-E. Moses or Jesus. An Essay in Johannine Christology. Translated by B.T. Viviano. Peeters, 1993.
Borchert, Gerald L. The New American Commentary Volume 25 B – John 12-21. Holman Reference, 2002.
———. The New American Commentary Volume 25A – John I-II. Holman Reference, 1996.
Borgen, Peder. Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo. First Edition. E. J. Brill, 1965.
———. Early Christianity and Hellenistic Judaism. Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2000.
Braulik, Georg. “Law as Gospel: Justification and Pardon According to the Deuteronomic Torah.” Interpretation 38 (1984): 5–14.
Brodie, Thomas L. The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Oxford University Press, USA, 1997.
———. The Quest for the Origin of John’s Gospel: A Source-Oriented Approach. Oxford University Press, USA, 1993.
Brown, Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah, From Gethsemane to the Grave, Volume 1: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. 1st ed. Yale University Press, 1998.
———. The Death of the Messiah, From Gethsemane to the Grave, Volume 2: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. 1st ed. Yale University Press, 1998.
Brown, Raymond E., and Francis J. Moloney S.D.B. An Introduction to the Gospel of John. 1st ed. Yale University Press, 2003.
Brown, Raymond Edward. The Community of the Beloved Disciple: The Life, Loves and Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times. Edition Unstated. Paulist Press, 1978.
Brunson, Andrew C. Psalm 118 in the Gospel of John: An Intertextual Study on the New Exodus Pattern in the Theology of John. Coronet Books, 2003.
Burridge, Richard A. Imitating Jesus: And Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007.
Bynum, Wm Randolph. The Fourth Gospel and the Scriptures: Illuminating the Form and Meaning of Scriptural Citation in John 19:37. Brill Academic Publishers, 2012.
Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. William B Eerdman Co, 1991.
Carson, D. A., and G. K. Beale, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Baker Academic, 2007.
Carson, D. A., and Hugh Godfrey Maturin Williamson, eds. It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF. Reissue. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Casey, Maurice. From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God. First Edition. Ingram Publisher Services, 2001.
———. Is John’s Gospel True? Routledge, 1996.
Charlesworth, James H., Raymond E. Brown, James L. Price, A. R. C. Leaney, A. Jaubert, Gilles Quispel, Marie-Emile Boismard, and William H. Brownlee. John and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Herder & Herder / The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1990.
Chilton, Bruce. Redeeming Time: The Wisdom of Ancient Jewish and Christian Festal Calendars. First Printing. Hendrickson Pub, 2002.
Coloe, Mary L. God Dwells with Us. The Liturgical Press, 2001.
Coloe, Mary L., and Tom Thatcher. John, Qumran, and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Sixty Years of Discovery and Debate. Edited by Mary L. Coloe and Tom Thatcher. Bilingual. Society of Biblical Literature, 2011.
Cribbs, F. Lamar. “A Reassessment of the Date of Origin and the Destination of the Gospel of John.” Journal of Biblical Literature 89, no. 1 (March 1, 1970): 38–55. doi:10.2307/3263637.
Crowe, Brandon D. The Obedient Son: Deuteronomy and Christology in the Gospel of Matthew. Walter de Gruyter, 2012.
Cullmann, Oscar. Early Christian Worship. SCM Press, 2012.
Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel. 1St Edition. Fortress Press, 1983.
———. John the Son of Zebedee. Fortress Press, 1993.
Culpepper, R. Alan, and C. Clifton Black, eds. Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith. Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.
Culpepper, R. Alan, and Fernando F. Segovia, eds. Semeia 53: The Fourth Gospel from a Literary Perspective. Society of Biblical Literature, 1991.
Daise, Michael A. Feasts in John: Jewish Festivals and the Jesus’ “Hour” in the Fourth Gospel. Mohr Siebeck, 2007.
———. “‘If Anyone Thirsts, Let That One Come to Me and Drink’: The Literary Texture of John 7:37b-38a.” Journal of Biblical Literature 122, no. 4 (December 1, 2003): 687–699. doi:10.2307/3268072.
Daly-Denton, Margaret. David in the Fourth Gospel: The Johannine Reception of the Psalms. Brill Academic Pub, 1999.
Dennis, John A. Jesus’ Death and the Gathering of True Israel: The Johannine Appropriation of Restoration Theology in the Light of John 11.47-52, 2006.
Dodd, C. H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge University Press, 1976.
Donne, Anthony Le, ed. The Fourth Gospel in First-Century Media Culture: Reconsidering 1 Peter’s Commands to Wives. T & T Clark International, 2012.
Evans, C. A., and W. R. Stegner. The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel. JSNT Supplement Series 104, Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 3. Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press, 1994.
Evans, Craig A. Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel. Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford University Press, USA, 1989.
———. Biblical Text and Texture: A Literary Reading of Selected Texts. Oneworld, 1998.
Freed, Edwin D. Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John. E.J. Brill, 1965.
Frey, Jorg, Jan G. Van Der Watt, and Ruben Zimmermann, eds. Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament). Bilingual, 2006.
Freyne, Sean. Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels: Literary Approaches and Historical Investigations. Fortress Press ed. Fortress Pr, 1988.
Fuglseth, Kare Sigvald. Johannine Sectarianism in Perspective: A Sociological, Historical, and Comparative Analysis of Temple and Social Relationships in the Gospel of John, … … Qumran. Brill Academic Pub, 2005.
Gamble, Harry Y. The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning. Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2002.
Gathercole, Simon. The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas. Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Girard, Marc. “La Structure Heptapartite Du Quatrième Évangile.” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 5, no. 4 (March 1, 1976): 350–359. doi:10.1177/000842987500500403.
Glasson, T. F. Moses in the Fourth Gospel. Wipf & Stock Pub, 2009.
Goppelt, Mr Leonhard. Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982.
Gordley, Matthew. “The Johannine Prologue and Jewish Didactic Hymn Traditions: A New Case for Reading the Prologue as a Hymn.” Journal of Biblical Literature 128, no. 4 (December 1, 2009): 781–802. doi:10.2307/25610219.
Grant, Robert M. “The Origin of the Fourth Gospel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 69, no. 4 (December 1, 1950): 305–322. doi:10.2307/3261383.
Grayston, Kenneth. The Gospel of John. Trinity Pr Intl, 1990.
Green, William S. Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Volume 5, Studies in Judaism and Its Greco-Roman Context. University Of South Florida, 1978.
Guilding, A. The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship. Oxford Clarendon Press, 1960.
Haenchen, Ernst. John 1 (Hermeneia: A Critical & Historical Commentary on the Bible). Translated by Robert Walter Funk. Fortress Press, 1988.
———. John 2: A Commentary on the Gospel of John, Chapters 7-21 (Hermeneia: a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible). Fortress Pr, 1984.
Hanson, Anthony. The Prophetic Gospel: Study of John and the Old Testament. T&T Clark, 2006.
Harnack, Adolf. The Origin of the New Testament. Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004.
Harrill, J. Albert. “Cannibalistic Language in the Fourth Gospel and Greco-Roman Polemics of Factionalism (John 6:52-66).” Journal of Biblical Literature 127, no. 1 (April 1, 2008): 133–158. doi:10.2307/25610110.
Hengel, Martin. Johannine Question. Translated by J. Bowden. SCM Press, 1990.
Hubner, Hans, Antje Labahn, and Michael Labahn. Evangelium Secundum Iohannem. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003.
Hylen, Susan. Allusion and Meaning in John 6. Walter de Gruyter, 2005.
Jr, Gary T. Manning. Echoes of a Prophet: The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John and in Literature of the Second Temple Period. 1st ed. T&T Clark, 2004.
Kazen, Thomas. “The Christology of Early Christian Practice.” Journal of Biblical Literature 127, no. 3 (October 1, 2008): 591–614. doi:10.2307/25610141.
Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John, Volume One & Volume Two. Reprint. Baker Academic, 2010.
Kelly, Douglas. The Conspiracy of Allusion : Description, Rewriting, and Authorship from Macrobius to Medieval Romance. Brill Academic Pub, 1999.
Knight, Mark. “Wirkungsgeschichte, Reception History, Reception Theory.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 33, no. 2 (December 1, 2010): 137–146. doi:10.1177/0142064X10385858.
Koester, Craig R. Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community. Fortress Pr, 1995.
Kostenberger, Andreas J. A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters: The Word, the Christ, the Son of God. 1st ed. Zondervan, 2009.
Kruse, Colin G. The Gospel According to John: An Introduction and Commentary. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004.
Kysar, Robert. John, the Maverick Gospel, Third Edition. 3rd ed. Westminster John Knox Press, 2007.
Lacomara, Aelred. “Deuteronomy and the Farewell Discourse (Jn 13:31-16:33).” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36, no. 1 (Ja 1974): 65–84.
Lapin, Hayim. Rabbis as Romans: The Rabbinic Movement in Palestine, 100-400 CE. Oxford University Press, USA, 2012.
Di Lella, Alexander A. “The Deuteronomic Background of the Farewell Discourse in Tob 14:3-11.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41 (1979): 380–389.
Lierman, John, ed. Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John, 2006.
Lincicum, D. “Paul’s Engagement with Deuteronomy : Snapshots and Signposts.” Currents in Biblical Research 7, no. 1 (2008): 37–67.
Lincicum, David. Paul and the Early Jewish Encounter with Deuteronomy. Baker Academic, 2013.
Lindars, Barnabas. New Century Bible Commentary the Gospel. New edition. Eerdmans, Wm B Pub Co, 1981.
———. New Testament Apologetic. Study ed. SCM-Canterbury Press Ltd, 1973.
Macdonald, Nathan. Deuteronomy & the Meaning of  ’Monotheism. Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
Malina, Bruce J., and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John. Fortress Press, 1998.
Manser, Martin H. The Facts on File Dictionary of Allusions. Edited by David H. Pickering. Checkmark Books, 2009.
Mark, G. “Jesus ‘Was Close to the Authorities’ : The Historical Background of a Talmudic Pericope.” Journal of Theological Studies 60, no. 2 (2009): 437–466.
Martyn, J. Louis. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, Revised and Expanded. 3rd ed. Westminster John Knox Press, 2003.
McCaffrey, James M. The House with Many Rooms: The Temple Theme of Jn 14:2-3 (Anelecta Biblica). Biblical Institute Press, 1988.
McCasland, S. Vernon. “Signs and Wonders.” Journal of Biblical Literature 76, no. 2 (June 1, 1957): 149–152. doi:10.2307/3261285.
McGrath, James F. John’s Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
McKnight, Scot, John K. Riches, William Telford, and Christopher M. Tuckett. The Synoptic Gospels. 1st ed. T&T Clark, 2001.
Meagher, John C. “John 1:14 and the New Temple.” Journal of Biblical Literature 88, no. 1 (March 1, 1969): 57–68. doi:10.2307/3262833.
Meeks, Wayne A. Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. E.J. Brill, 1967.
Menken, Maarten J. J. Deuteronomy in the New Testament: The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Steve Moyise. 1st ed. Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2007.
———. Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form. Peeters Publishers, 1996.
Michaels, J. Ramsey. The Gospel of John. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010.
Mlakuzhyil, George. Christocentric Literary Structure of 4th Gospel. Loyola Pr, 1987.
Moloney, F. J. “The Gospel of John as Scripture.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 67, no. 3 (2005): 454–468.
Moloney, Francis J. “The Gospel of John: The ‘End’ of Scripture.” Interpretation 63, no. 4 (October 1, 2009): 356–366. doi:10.1177/002096430906300403.
Moloney, Francis J., and Daniel J. Harrington. The Gospel of John. Michael Glazier, 1998.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. Revised. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.
Moyise, Steve. Jesus and Scripture: Studying the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Reprint. Baker Academic, 2011.
———. , ed. The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J.L. North. 1st ed. T&T Clark, 2000.
Myers, Alicia D. Characterizing Jesus: A Rhetorical Analysis on the Fourth Gospel’s Use of Scripture in Its Presentation of Jesus. 1st ed. T&T Clark, 2012.
Neusner, Jacob. Sifre Deuteronomy. University Of South Florida, 1987.
Neyrey, Jerome H. The Gospel of John. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Nohrnberg, James. Like Unto Moses: The Constituting of an Interruption. Indiana University Press, 1995.
Orton, David E. The Composition of John’s Gospel: Selected Studies from Novum Testamentum. Brill Academic Pub, 1999.
Pancaro, Severino. The Law in the Fourth Gospel: The Torah and the Gospel, Moses and Jesus, Judaism and Christianity According to John. Brill Academic Pub, 1975.
Parsenios, George L. Departure and Consolation: The Johannine Farewell Discourses in Light of Greco-Roman Literature. 1St Edition. Brill Academic Pub, 2005.
Pate, C. Marvin. Communities of the Last Days : The Dead Sea Scrolls, the New Testament & the Story of Israel. First Edition. InterVarsity Press, 2000.
Petersen, Norman R. The Gospel of John and the Sociology of Light: Language and Characterization in the Fourth Gospel. Trinity Press, 1993.
Phillips, Peter. The Prologue of the Fourth Gospel: A Sequential Reading. 1st ed. T&T Clark, 2006.
Pucci, Joseph Michael. The Full-Knowing Reader: Allusion and the Power of the Reader in the Western Literary Tradition. Yale University Press, 1998.
Reinhartz, Adele. Befriending The Beloved Disciple: A Jewish Reading of the Gospel of John. 1ST ed. Continuum, 2001.
Reynolds, Benjamin E. The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John, 2008.
Robinson, John A. T. The Priority of John. Edited by J. F. Coakley. Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2011.
Ronning, John. Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Theology, The. Baker Academic, 2010.
Roth, W. “Scriptural Coding in the Fourth Gospel.” Biblical Research 32 (1987): 6–29.
Salier, Willis Hedley. Rhetorical Impact of the Semeia in the Gospel of John. Paul Mohr Verlag, 2004.
Segovia, Fernando, ed. What Is John? Readers and Readings in the Fourth Gospel, Vol. 1. Society of Biblical Literature, 1996.
Setzer, Claudia J. Jewish Responses To Early Christians. 1st Edition / 1st Printing. Fortress Press, 1994.
Skinner, Christopher W. John and Thomas: Gospels in Conflict?: Johannine Characterization and the Thomas Question. Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2009.
Sloyan, Gerard Stephen. What Are They Saying About John? Revised. Paulist Pr, 2006.
Smith, D. Moody. John Among the Gospels. 2nd ed. University of South Carolina Press, 2001.
Smith, Dwight Moody. The Theology of the Gospel of John. Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Staley, Jeffrey Lloyd. The Print’s First Kiss: A Rhetorical Investigation of the Implied Reader in the Fourth Gospel. Society of Biblical Literature, 1988.
Suid-Afrika, Nuwe-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap van. Essays on the Jewish Background of the Fourth Gospel : [proceedings of the Eighth Meeting of Die Nuwe-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap Van Suid-Afrika Held at the University of Pretoria from the 11th to the 14th of July 1972]. N.T.W.S.A., 1973.
Thatcher, Tom. The Fourth Gospel in First-Century Media Culture. Edited by Anthony Le Donne. 1st ed. Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2011.
———. What We Have Heard From the Beginning: The Past, Present and Future of Johannine Studies. Edited by Tom Thatcher. Baylor University Press, 2007.
———. Why John Wrote a Gospel: Jesus–Memory–History. Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.
Therath, Antony. Jerusalem in the Gospel of John: An Exegetical and Theological Inquiry into Johannine Geography. Intercultural Publications, 1999.
Thettayil, B. In Spirit and Truth: An Exegetical Study of John 4:19-26 and a Theological Investigation of the Replacement Theme in the Fourth Gospel y B. Thettayil. Peeters, 2007.
Thomas, John Christopher. “The Fourth Gospel and Rabbinic Judaism.” Zeitschrift Für Die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Und Die Kunde Der Älteren Kirche 82, no. 3–4 (1991). doi:10.1515/zntw.1991.82.3-4.159.
Thompson, Marianne Meye. The God of the Gospel of John. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001.
Trumbower, Jeffrey A. Born from Above: The Anthropology of the Gospel of John. J.C.B. Mohr, 1992.
Tuckett, C. Feasts and Festivals. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 53. Leuven: Peeters, 2009.
Varghese, Johns. The Imagery of Love in the Gospel of John. Gregorian Biblical BookShop, 2009.
Waters, G. The End of Deuteronomy in the Epistles of Paul. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe 221. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.
Watson, Alan. Jesus and the Jews: The Pharisaic Tradition in John. First Edition. Univ of Georgia Pr, 1995.
Watson, Francis. Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2013.
———. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. 1st ed. T&T Clark, 2004.
Weingreen, J. From Bible to Mishna: The Continuity of Tradition. Manchester University Press, 1976.
Westermann, Claus. The Gospel of John in Light of Old Testament. Translated by Siegfried S. Schatzmann. Hendrickson Publishers, 1998.
Whitacre, Rodney A. John. IVP Academic, 2010.
Wickham, Chris, and James J. Fentress. Social Memory: New Perspectives on the Past. ACLS Humanities E-Book, 2008.
Winsor, Ann Roberts. A King Is Bound in the Tresses: Allusions to the Song of Songs in the Fourth Gospel. Peter Lang Publishing, 1999.
Winter, M. Das Vermächtnis Jesu Und Die Abschiedsworte Der Väter : Gattungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung Der Vermächtnisrede Im Blick Auf Joh. 13–17. Forschungen Zur Religion Und Literatur Des Alten Und Neuen Testaments 161. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994.
Young, Franklin W. “A Study of the Relation of Isaiah to the Fourth Gospel.” Zeitschrift Für Die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Und Die Kunde Der Älteren Kirche 46, no. 3–4 (1955): 215–233. doi:10.1515/zntw.1955.46.3-4.215.