Background of Johns Gospel Abstract While Critical scholars approach Johns Gospel, or the Fourth Gospel, seeking to elucidate

the traditions and sources influential in its composition, have variously located John as a Gnostic, an Essene, and an Hellenic Jew, the background of Johns gospel is more readily found as a reflection of its purpose. This piece suggests Johns purpose was to present Jesus as the central character in creation, as Lord, saviour, and Messiah, for all people. That it was a communiqu aimed to persuade the first century reader to repent and believe. And thus its background was broad, rather than specific. Introduction Good persuasive writing addresses its context, in terms its readers understand, and anticipates opposition. Furthermore, it provides comparisons and points of difference from alternative options. In this sense we can readily admit that the background of John, in terms of its context, is the melting pot of cultures in first century Palestine and the Roman Empire.

We will argue that while critical scholars have helped identify ideas and terminology common to other first century concerns, that this terminology was the language of the well informed first century citizen, and thus was naturally adopted as John made the case for Christ.

Scholars have proposed and debated various first and second century settings for the Gospel of John, and suggested the writer of the gospel emerged from, or addressed a variety of religious philosophies from the period. Much scholarship on Johns gospel seems determined to read the work not in the light of its own statement of purpose (John 20:30-31), but in opposition to it.1
Kysar, John: The Maverick Gospel, (Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 2007, 3rd Edition), 24-29, Kysar suggests the statement of purpose is slightly ambiguous due to an issue with the Greek, and uses this ambiguity as a means to speculate on a
1 So, for example, R.

We will suggest that John, the disciple, wrote his gospel in the mid first century, to a deliberately broad audience of Greeks, Jews, and Romans, to a culture that was religiously curious, engaged, and inclined,2 in order to persuade, and reassure, his readers that Jesus is the light and life (John 1:1-5), the word made flesh (John 1:1, 15), and the saviour of the world (John 1:29). We will argue that adopting this author and dating necessarily eliminates Gnosticism from the mix of backgrounds addressed.

On Author and Date The idea that John, the beloved disciple, could not possibly write the gospel that bears his name, has become a presupposition underpinning much scholarship surrounding the fourth gospel.3 But this is essentially a begged question, assumed because it is assumed, and no longer adequately demonstrated.4

Carson (1981) suggests that much critical scholarship around Johns gospel, and indeed, much speculation about the background of Johns gospel, falls away if John himself is shown to be the author of the gospel. We follow

completely unrelated purpose based on assumptions about the books efficacy as an evangelistic tool. For a view more in keeping with the statement of purpose see L. Morris, Jesus is the Christ: Studies in the Theology of John, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1989), 1, 42, 170-189 2 We suggest this case is made by the religious nature of first century life in the political, philosophical and social spheres, and the nature of texts recovered in the Qumran and Nag Hammadi collections. 3 G.L Borchet, The Fourth Gospel and its Theological Impact, Review and Expositor 78 (1981), 249-258, 251 suggests the change in scholarly opinion was motivated by the view that Johns theological sophistication could not have been a first century development. 4 D.A. Carson, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel: After Dodd, What? R.T. France & David Wenham, eds., Gospel Perspectives, Vol. 2: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. pp.83-145. 100-104, Is it possible that the scholarly

consensus regarding a school or circle or community, and regarding a long series of editorial steps and of redactional activity, has unwittingly provided a new generation of scholars with several functional non-negotiables which are rarely tested?

Carson in accepting the traditional authorship of Johns gospel.5 While critical scholars are quick to identify a Johannine school that is ostensibly responsible for the production of the Johannine corpus this runs directly against the traditions of the early church,6 and the internal testimony of the texts themselves (John 21:24-25, 1 John 1:1-4). Carson (1981) notes that we are dealing with essentially the same evidence that the early church used to ascribe authorship to John, and it is only modern presuppositions and questionable methodologies that cause questions of authorship.7 Carsons theory about the providence of John has the benefit of simplicity, and Occhams razor may apply, he suggests the most plausible account of the theology of John is that John wrote his own book, in his own style, with his own themes.8

Bauckham (2007), while baulking at identifying the disciple Jesus loved as John the apostle, suggests the most plausible reading is that Johns gospel is written by an eye-witness who was not one of the twelve. He argues that reconstructions based on a Johannine school are largely based on fantasy.9

Kostenberger (2005) argues that John writes in response to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, a view which dates John significantly earlier than most

D.A. Carson, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 130-134 From the documents of the second century until the 19th century the consensus was that these books were the work of John the apostle, see, for example, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 11, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xii.html, or as expressed by M. Silva, Approaching the Fourth Gospel, Criswell Theological Review 3.1 (1988) 17-29, 18 one must recognize that the external evidence attesting to the authorship of John is ancient, clear, and explicit. 7 D.A. Carson, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 131 8 D.A. Carson, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 129 9 R. Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History and Theology in the Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic Group, 2007), 12-15
6 5

critical scholars suggest.10 Most of Kostenbergers argument, that John is framing a post-temple reality centred on Jesus, remains cogent even if it comes before the destruction of the temple as Jesus supersedes the Temples place in the life of Gods people. This, though taking the shape of an argument from silence, would explain the lack of specific mention of the destruction, a direct reference to the event would consolidate Kostenbergers position, the absence of such references adds weight to an earlier than 70AD date for Johns Gospel.

On Background At various points in the history of Johannine scholarship the Fourth Gospel has been located against every imaginable first, and second, century background. Once scholars rejected this traditional view of authorship, speculation abounded. John was Aramaic,11 Egyptian, Hellenistic, Essene, or Mesopotamian. 12 The disciple Jesus loved was John Mark, Lazarus, or John the elder.13 John was second century, then the first gospel written. Most of these positions were adopted based on presuppositions about the gospels theology.14

It became popular, after Dodd, to read Johns gospel in the light of Hellenistic, and particularly Platonic, concerns.15 Bultmann went further, suggesting

10 A.J. Kostenberger, The Destruction Of The Second Temple And The Composition Of The Fourth Gospel, Trinj 26ns (2005) 205-242 11 C.C Torrey, The Aramaic Origin of the Gospel of John, Harvard Theological Review 16 (1923), 305-344 12 For a summary of developments on this front see G.L Borchet, The Fourth Gospel and its Theological Impact, 250-251 13 ibid 14 ibid 15 P. Borgen, The Gospel of John and Hellenism, Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith, ed. R.A Culpepper, and C.C Black, (Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 98-99

Johns theology represented a Gnostic syncretism of Platonism and Judaism, and thus that Gnosticism predated Christianity (we will address this below). Evidence, such as Philos decidedly Hellenistic Judaism, makes it difficult to suggest an exclusively Hellenistic influence or setting for John.16 In a survey of modern approaches, Matson (2007) suggests that rather than being specifically Hellenistic, or Judaic, the background of Johns gospel is potentially a combination of the two, but not possibly exclusively Hellenistic.17 Matson suggests possible dependence on John in the synoptic gospels is not definitive in establishing an early date, because the synoptics might be late, but for those holding to an early dating of the synoptics this possible literary dependence will bring the dating of Johns gospel into the middle of the first century.18

Qumran and the Jewish Background of John Johns gospel is undeniably Jewish in its concerns. While scholarly opinion on Johns backgrounds has fluctuated, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was a pivotal moment that corrected a particularly Hellenistic view of Johns themes.19

Attempting to prove the case for a definitive individual formative source for Johns philosophy is the kind of anachronistic approach to first century history foisted on us by critical scholars with strange obsessions. Just it

16 P. Borgen, The Gospel of John and Hellenism, 116, suggests John cultivates practices that are Jewish-Christian versions of trends from the Hellenistic world. I would argue that it is more a case of John adopting the language of the world in which he lives to present the gospel. Borgen (117) suggests that the background for Johns dualism is more likely Jewish than Greek, which we will discuss below. 17 M.A Matson, Current Approaches to the Priority of John, Evangel, 25.1, SPRING 2007, 4-14, 12 18 M.A Matson, Current Approaches to the Priority of John, 11-12 19 M. Silva, Approaching the Fourth Gospel, 18

became increasingly apparent that neither Gnosticism, nor pure Hellenism, nor Judaism, would suffice as this definitive source, a young goat herds thrown stone opened up a new avenue for scholarly discussion. The discovery of the Qumran collection of the Essene community provided new fodder for this search for a source.20 This discovery provided some physical evidence that Johns theology could be related to the theology of second temple Judaism. Where, in the past, Johns dualism had been equated with Hellenism (particularly Platonism), now there was evidence that this was consistent with Palestinian Judaism.21

Some possible parallels between Essene practice and the description of John the Baptist led some to speculate that he was a member of the Essene community, John the Disciple was already held to be a former disciple of John the Baptist, so both were now imagined as Essenes.22 This was purely speculative, even in the early days of integrating the Qumran discovery with New Testament theology it was noted that even if John borrowed from the Qumran community, any borrowing involved radical modification.23

20 For a discussion of the scene in the lead up to the Qumran discovery, and some initial reactions to it with regards to Johannine scholarship see L. Mowry, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Background for the Gospel of John, The Biblical Archeologist, XVII, (1954), 78-97 21 G.L Borchet, The Fourth Gospel and its Theological Impact, 250-251, M.A Matson, Current Approaches to the Priority of John, 10, D. Rensberger, Johaninne Faith and Liberating Community, (Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1989), 18-20 suggests this discovery removed, in one fell swoop, decades of Johannine scholarship that was determined to read John against a Greek backdrop. 22 J.A Charlesworth, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel According to John, Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith, ed. R.A Culpepper, and C.C Black, (Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 89 For a response to the allegations that locust eating does one an Essene make, see J.A Kelhoffer, Did John the Baptist Eat Like a Former Essene? Locust Eating in the Ancient Near East and Qumran, Dead Sea Discoveries, Nov2004, Vol. 11 Issue 3, 293-314, it is more likely that John the Baptist represented, or fulfilled, the role of an Old Testament Prophet, see J.C Hutchison, Was John the Baptist an Essene from Qumran? Bibliotheca Sacra 159 (April-June 2002), 187-200 23 L. Mowry, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Background for the Gospel of John, 97

Qumrans dualistic treatment of sons of light and sons of dark is one point of obvious continuity between the beliefs of the Essene sect, and the presentation of Christianity in Johns Gospel.24 Charleworth (1996) in his discussion of the impact of the Qumran discovery on the study of Johns gospel, suggests that it is now untenable to hold to a purely Hellenistic view of John, and that is rather our most Jewish gospel.25 While are similarities between some of Johns themes and the concerns of the Qumran community, a community whose messianic and apocalyptic expectations find parallels with those expressed in the New Testament (albeit on a different time frame if we reject the critical construct of the tension created by the delay of parousia),26 it is the Old Testament that provides the most fertile ground for establishing a formative background for the Fourth Gospel. The similarities with Essene theology are more likely a result of this shared antecedent than any type of dependency, though it is probable that the language of the Essenes was familiar in the first century context of Johns gospel.27

Some have suggested that John employs the phrase the Jews as a pejorative against Judaism, they see this as evidence for a non-Jewish, and anti-Jewish, author attacking the old way of the world to establish distance between
Borchet, The Fourth Gospel and its Theological Impact, 250-251, M.A Matson, Current Approaches to the Priority of John, 10 25 J.A Charlesworth, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel According to John, 90, Charlesworth conducts his survey from the view that John was composed by a second generation Johannine school that had input from previous members of the Essene community. He suggests Essene theology had a profound impact on John. 26 L.W Hurtado, Qumran Evidence for the Reliability of the Gospels, Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society, 11.4 (Fall 1968), 159-168 27 We suggest that while J.A Charlesworth, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel According to John, 89 presents the Essenes as a significant community in Jesus time, this represents the setting of John, rather than a formative influence on John, and thus John writes to people who may have Essene concerns and expectations. For an argument that the Old Testament was the common ancestor of both Qumran and John, rather than Qumran being a parent of John, see R. Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History and Theology in the Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic Group, 2007), 125-136
24 G.L

Christianity and Judaism.28 But while John uses the term to demarcate those who recognise Jesus as Messiah from those who dont, this is a statement about religious identity rather than race.29 The prologue of Johns Gospel establishes Jesus as the fulfillment of two Jewish institutions the law, and the Temple (John 2:18-21).30 Kostenberger (2005) demonstrates the John carries this theme of supplanting the practices of second temple Judaism, and demonstrates that post-temple relationships with God find their basis in the Messiah, Jesus Christ, the word tabernacling with the people (John 1:14), and then in the people (14:17). 31 John is determined to present Jesus as the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law (John 1:17, 5:46).32 Old Testament allusions in the fourth gospel take the form of direct quotes, structural pastiches,33 and common theological themes.34 The language and theology of Johns gospel is undeniably evocative of the Old Testament, as John is making the case that the Old Testament is undeniably about Jesus (5:46, 12:41), the long awaited Messiah (20:30-31). Kostenberger (1998) observes that while John presents a high Christology, he also depicts Jesus as a teacher firmly entrenched in the Jewish Rabbinic tradition. Jesus is addressed in the narrative only as Rabbi, teacher, and master.35

28 R.M Grant, The Origin of the Fourth Gospel, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Dec, 1950), 305-322, 320-321, Grant thinks John is a gnostic book, with a negative view of the Jews, who reinterprets the gospel story from beginning to end to fit these two positions. 29 J.W Pryor, John: Evangelist of The Covenant People, (London, Darton, Longman and Todd, 1992), 181-184, R. Kysar, John: The Maverick Gospel, (Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 2007, 3rd Edition), 28 30 D.A Reed, How Semitic Was John: Rethinking the Hellenistic Background to John 1:1, Anglican Theological Review, 85:4, Fall (2003), 709-726 31 A.J. Kostenberger, The Destruction Of The Second Temple And The Composition Of The Fourth Gospel, Trinj 26ns (2005) 205-242 32 M. Silva, Approaching the Fourth Gospel, 27-28 33 E. E. Ellis, Jesus Use of the Old Testament and the Genesis of New Testament Theology, Bulletin for Biblical Research 3 (1993): 59-75, 66-67 suggests Jesus adopts forms used by Qumran writers and other exegetes of his time, highlighting a proem-like pattern in John 6:31-58 34 M. Silva, Approaching the Fourth Gospel, 27-29 35 A.J. Kostenberger, Jesus as Rabbi in the Fourth Gospel, Bulletin for Biblical Research 8 (1998): 97-128, 100-102

The Role of Background Johns theology is intricate, but largely consistent with Pauline theology, it is indeed Christian. Johns background, or setting, is evident not so much in the theology he presents, or the theology that is suggested as formative in his thinking, but in the language he uses as he approaches his task. While the terminology John adopts is consistent with Hellenistic and Judaic thought, and overlaps with Essene themes, this does not necessarily mean that these philosophies were formative influences on Johns theology. His background shapes his style, not his substance. John frames his presentation of the gospel to persuade his audience. Using their terms. John is interested in persuading his audience to believe, a verb he uses 98 times.36

Its no secret knowledge that Johns no Gnostic Bultmanns pre-Christian Gnosticism is an unproven non-negotiable assumption that was influential for a short time.37 Fischel (1946) adopted this assumption to argue that Johns use of the lable the prophet has Gnostic undertones in a Rabbinic-gnostic setting.38 But eventually even Bultmanns disciples distanced themselves from this position.39 As outlined above, the Dead Sea Scrolls were particularly influential in dismissing this theory of Johns origins, because his theology appeared much more Jewish than Gnostic (with Gnosticism treated herein as a subset of Hellenistic thought).40
Morris, Jesus is the Christ: Studies in the Theology of John, 170 D.A. Carson, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 100-101 38 H.A Fischel, Jewish Gnosticism in the Fourth Gospel, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Jun., 1946), 157-174 39 E.M Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism, the New Testament and Nag Hammadi in recent debate, Themelios 10.1 (September 1984): 22-27, retrieved 28 July 2011, http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_gnosticism_yamauchi.html 40 G.L Borchet, The Fourth Gospel and its Theological Impact, 250-251
37

36 L.

The discovery of the Nag Hammadi corpus swung consensus back towards this view a little, some were quick to draw parallels between Midrashic interpretation of the Old Testament, the theology of Ecclesiastes (with an assumed late date), and a perceived fusion of Hellenistic and Jewish thought occurring within the texts.41 But there are a number of salient points against the use of these texts in this manner.

Yamauchi (1984) suggested that while the Nag Hammadi documents demonstrated how Gnostic thought may exist outside Christian thought, those positing a pre-Christian, Jewish, Gnosticism, fail to account for Gnosticisms negative view of the world. The Gnostic view of the physical world flies in the face of the Genesis declaration that the material world is good. The Gnostic position represents a fundamental switch from that view.42 Gnosticism doesnt emerge as a philosophical force until the late first century, and the fully articulated Gnostic worldview relies on a particularly Christian view of the incarnation of the word.43 In this sense some have argued that the prologue of John can be understood as a Gnostic hymn,44 but Carson points out the so called Gnostic language of contrast, for example between light and dark, used in the prologue, is universal to religious expression.45 Others, considering the overwhelming evidence against a pre-existent Gnosticism
41

E.M Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism, the New Testament and Nag Hammadi in recent debate, electronic edition. 42 ibid 43 ibid 44 ibid, Bultmann's formulation that the Johannine prologue was a pre-Christian Gnostic baptist hymn has not convinced even his own students - H. Conzelmann and E. Ksemann. Most recently another former student, W. Schmithals, has repudiated his master's theory quite categorically: 'The hymn does not betray direct Gnostic influences.... The concept that the hymn was pre-Christian is rash. Bultmann's guess that it concerned an original baptismal hymn has rightly found no reception.' 45 D.A Carson, Recent Literature on the Fourth Gospel: Some reflections, Themelios, 8-17, 12, M.A Matson, Current Approaches to the Priority of John, 5

have suggested that the prologue is a later redaction aimed at either a Hellenistic or Gnostic audience. The prologue is better understood as a summary of the content of the gospel, integral to its form and message.46

There are also no extant pre-Christian Gnostic documents.47 Perkins (1990) suggests that the Nag Hammadi evidence cuts the other way, ruling out Gnosticism as an influence on Johns Gospel. In Perkins view the Nag Hammadi corpus provides a snapshot of streams of Johannine theology in the process of evolving into full-blown Gnostic mythology.48

John certainly had a role to play in correcting Gnostic thought,49 Irenaeus relied on elements of John in his polemic against Gnosticism, Against Heresies, and the prologue of John employs the mixture of Judaism and Hellenistic thought, along with Christian claims about the spiritual world, that eventually created Gnosticism, so it is no surprise that Gnostic terminology appears in John.50 Bultmanns attempt to put egg before chicken has rightly been dismissed. Johns theology is anti-proto-gnostic in that it addresses the issues Gnosticism raises, before Gnosticism raises them.51

S. R Valentine, The Johannine Prologue a Microcosm of the Gospel, Evangelical Quarterly, 68:3 (1996), 291-304 47 E.M Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism, the New Testament and Nag Hammadi in recent debate, electronic edition. 48 P. Perkins, John's Gospel and Gnostic Christologies: The Nag Hammadi Evidence, Anglican Theological Review, 11 Mr 1990, Supplement Series, 68-76, 69-71, 73-75, for further support of this view, against Bultmanns theory of pre-Christian Gnosticism see A.H.B Logan, John And The Gnostics: The Significance Of The Apocryphon Of John For The Debate About The Origins Of The Johannine Literature, JSNT 743 (1991)41-69 49 R. Kysar, "The Gospel of John," in Anchor Bible Commentary David Noel Freedman eds., (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 912 "In its defense against Gnosticism the Church embraced the Gospel of John and attempted to demonstrate that the gospel affirmed the 'Orthodox Christian faith. 50 G.L Borchet, The Fourth Gospel and its Theological Impact, 249 suggests the gnostics saw a powerful vehicle for the proclamation of their distorted message in the Gospel of John. 51 D.A Carson, Recent Literature on the Fourth Gospel 14
46

The Purpose of Johns Gospel Why would John address so many concerns of his day in their terminology? Critical scholars in their insatiable desire to dissect a text into its components, pay scant regard to the text in its final form. There are possible, and plausible, motives for adopting a variety of forms, and speaking in the terminology of various traditions within a single composition.52 Carson suggests Johns use of terminology common to his era is a form of missiological contextualization, he is communicating the gospel in a manner that those in his setting will understand.53 This fits with Johns own statement of purpose (John 20:30-31). Carson (2005) suggests identifying the you addressed in this verse is fundamental to making the argument that John is an evangelistic treatise rather than designed to reinforce the beliefs of Christians.54 Moloney (1992) in a discussion of the picture painted of Johns implied reader within the gospel, suggests that the reader is an ideal narrative device, essentially an everyman of the first century. He suggests that where actual readers might identify with certain elements of Johns account, the implied reader is expected to be conversant with Jewish traditions and Greek wordplay, and they are hearing the narrative of Jesus life and death, and its significance, for the first time in the pages of the gospel.55 The implied reader is who the author intends the real reader to become. A first century citizen, convinced that Jesus is light and life.56

Even the word composition speaks to the nature of bringing together different ideas or forms into the one piece. 53 D.A Carson, Recent Literature on the Fourth Gospel 14 54 D.A Carson, Syntactical And Text-Critical Observations On John 20:3031: One More Round On The Purpose Of The Fourth Gospel, JBL 124/4 (2005) 693714, 713 55 F.J Moloney, Who is the Reader of the in/of Fourth Gospel, Australian Biblical Review, 40 (1992) 20-33, 32-33 56 F.J Moloney, Who is the Reader, 31
52

There is some evidence that first century religious attitudes, particularly in Hellenized Judaism, involved the search for eternal life. By presenting Jesus as the answer in common terms and addressing common concerns, John was engaging with the culture.57 While sharing the reservations expressed by Carson,58 and Bauckham,59 regarding Dodds landmark study of Johns Gospel, we can endorse Dodds conclusion regarding Johns purpose, quoted by Bruce (1958):

The Evangelist, he concludes, was concerned to commend Christianity to a wide public consisting primarily of devout and thoughtful persons... in the varied and cosmopolitan society of a great Hellenistic city such as Ephesus under the Roman Empire in terms which would be familiar to them. Yet, however much he employed new thought-forms and new terminology to convey the Christian message, it was the authentic Christian message that he conveyed.60

Bauckham (2007) suggests that John is both complex and accessible, it employs in-group language that it explains,61 it employs concepts common to religious belief and presents them in the light of the life of Jesus.

John is making a case for Jesus as the Messiah, as the king, in the most persuasive way possible. While many interpret his statement of purpose is indicative of a Christian audience, namely the Johannine community, this
J. Painter, CH Dodd and the Christology of the Fourth Gospel, Journal of Theology for Southern Africa, 59, (1987) 42-56, 44-46, John is addressing areas of concern addressed by Philo and in Corpus Hermeticum 58 D.A. Carson, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel: After Dodd, What? 83-145. 59 R. Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple, 23 60 F.F. Bruce, "The Fourth Gospel in Recent Interpretation," Terminal Letter of the Theological Students' Fellowship (Spring 1958): 2-6, 2 61 R. Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple, 119-122
57

missiological engagement with the society of his time, and place, his use of terminology, and his careful presentation which preempts possible objections (so, the inclusion of the confirmation of Jesus death, John 19:35, Jesus interaction with Thomas, John 20:24-29) suggest an evangelistic purpose is plausible. Johns treatments of potential objections often take place in didactic dialogue, so, for example Jesus apparently transformative encounter with Nicodemus (John 3, and 19:39-42). These factors suggests that while affirming the beliefs of a Christian audience is a product of a close reading of the gospel, a reading of Johns Gospel as an exercise in persuasion has merit. Silva (1988), in his treatment of the ambiguity of the verb in 20:31 opens up the possibility that this dual purpose is deliberate. Johns gospel has initial and lasting value for readers from a variety of backgrounds.62

62 M.

Silva, Approaching the Fourth Gospel, 20-22

Bibliography R. Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History and Theology in the Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic Group, 2007) G.L Borchet, The Fourth Gospel and its Theological Impact, Review and Expositor 78 (1981), 249-258 P. Borgen, The Gospel of John and Hellenism, Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith, ed. R.A Culpepper, and C.C Black, (Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 1996) F.F. Bruce, "The Fourth Gospel in Recent Interpretation," Terminal Letter of the Theological Students' Fellowship (Spring 1958): 2-6. D.A. Carson, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel: After Dodd, What? R.T. France & David Wenham, eds., Gospel Perspectives, Vol. 2: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. pp.83-145. D.A Carson, Recent Literature on the Fourth Gospel: Some reflections, Themelios, 9 no 1 (1983), 8-17 D.A Carson, Syntactical And Text-Critical Observations On John 20:3031: One More Round On The Purpose Of The Fourth Gospel, JBL 124/4 (2005) 693714 J.A Charlesworth, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel According to John, Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith, ed. R.A Culpepper, and C.C Black, (Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 1996) E. E. Ellis, Jesus Use of the Old Testament and the Genesis of New Testament Theology, Bulletin for Biblical Research 3 (1993): 59-75. H.A Fischel, Jewish Gnosticism in the Fourth Gospel, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Jun., 1946), 157-174 R.M Grant, The Origin of the Fourth Gospel, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Dec, 1950), 305-322 L.W Hurtado, Qumran Evidence for the Reliability of the Gospels, Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society, 11.4 (Fall 1968), 159-168 J.A Kelhoffer, Did John the Baptist Eat Like a Former Essene? Locust Eating in the Ancient Near East and Qumran, Dead Sea Discoveries, Nov2004, Vol. 11 Issue 3, 293-314 A.J. Kostenberger, The Destruction Of The Second Temple And The Composition Of The Fourth Gospel, Trinj 26ns (2005) 205-242 A.J. Kostenberger, Jesus as Rabbi in the Fourth Gospel, Bulletin for Biblical Research 8 (1998): 97-128.

R. Kysar, "The Gospel of John," in Anchor Bible Commentary David Noel Freedman eds., (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 912 R. Kysar, John: The Maverick Gospel, (Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 2007, 3rd Edition) A.H.B Logan, John And The Gnostics: The Significance Of The Apocryphon Of John For The Debate About The Origins Of The Johannine Literature, JSNT 743 (1991)41-69 M.A Matson, Current Approaches to the Priority of John, Evangel, 25.1, SPRING 2007, 4-14 F.J Moloney, Who is the Reader of the in/of Fourth Gospel, Australian Biblical Review, 40 (1992) 20-33 L. Mowry, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Background for the Gospel of John, The Biblical Archeologist, XVII, (1954), 78-97 L. Morris, Jesus is the Christ: Studies in the Theology of John, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1989) J. Painter, CH Dodd and the Christology of the Fourth Gospel, Journal of Theology for Southern Africa, 59, (1987) 42-56 P. Perkins, John's Gospel and Gnostic Christologies: The Nag Hammadi Evidence, Anglican Theological Review, 11 Mr 1990, Supplement Series, 68-76 J.W Pryor, John: Evangelist of The Covenant People, (London, Darton, Longman and Todd, 1992) D.A Reed, How Semitic Was John: Rethinking the Hellenistic Background to John 1:1, Anglican Theological Review, 85:4, Fall (2003), 709-726 D. Rensberger, Johaninne Faith and Liberating Community, (Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1989) M. Silva, Approaching the Fourth Gospel, Criswell Theological Review 3.1 (1988) 17-29 C.C Torrey, The Aramaic Origin of the Gospel of John, Harvard Theological Review 16 (1923), 305-344 S. R Valentine, The Johannine Prologue a Microcosm of the Gospel, Evangelical Quarterly, 68:3 (1996), 291-304 E.M Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism, the New Testament and Nag Hammadi in recent debate, Themelios 10.1 (September 1984): 22-27, retrieved 28 July 2011, http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_gnosticism_yamauchi.html

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 11, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xii.html