Moloney, F.J., The Gospel of John Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2005 INTRODUCTION Introductions to commentaries on biblical books traditionally discuss the place, date, and origins of the particular book, the history of its com- position, its language and style, and the Greek (or Hebrew) text of the book in question, and give an overview of the book's theology, the cur- rent state of scholarly reflection on it, and an initial introduction to the structure of the book as a whole. The Introduction that follows covers most of these issues, and they will appear in a more detailed fashion in the commentary. Readers wanting to find scholarly treatments of tradi- tional introductory questions should consult the major commentaries (cf. Brown 1xxi-cxlvi; Schnackenburg 1:11-217; Barrett 3-146; Lindars 24-73; Becker 1:15-61; Haenchen 1:1-97) and the excellent introduction to Jo- hannine Christianity by John Painter (Quest 33-135). The pages that fol- low situate the present volume within the context of contemporary Johannine scholarship, but introductory matters must be dealt with as a part of that process: the place of the Fourth Gospel within the larger body of literature found within the New Testament, commonly called “the Jo- hannine literature,” the author, “the Jews” in the Fourth Gospel, and a survey of scholarly approaches to the Gospel. Against that background the approach adopted in this commentary will be introduced. A. The Johannine Literature Several documents in the New Testament have been regarded by Christian tradition as originating from a single person named “John.” The Johannine literature comprises the Gospel of John, the three Letters of John, and the book of Revelation. Only Revélation refers to its author by the name “John” (cf. Rev 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8). Scholarly opinion would re- gard this John, an elder writing from the island of Patmos (Rev 1:9),'as someone other than the author of the Gospel and the Letters, but tradi- tion gradually associated all the so-called “Johannine” documents with the disciple of Jesus, John the son of Zebedee. In a chapter that should be read as an addendum to the original Gospel (ch. 21. See Interpretation and Notes to 21:1-25), the narrator of the story identifies the Beloved 12 The Gospel of John Disciple found in the Gospel story as its author (see John 21:24: “This is the disciple . . . who has written these things”). As early as 180 CE. Ire- naeus made the link between John, the son of Zebedee, and the Beloved Disciple. From then on the apostle John was almost universally recog- nized as the author of the Fourth Gospel. All the Johannine literature appears to have been written near the turn of the first century (ca. 100 c.t.). While Revelation is generally associated with the persecutions of the Roman emperor Domitian (81-96 C.£.), the Gospel and the Letters, although dated at about the same period, come from a different background, Debate over the place and time of the Gospel’s appearance continues, but the following details indicate a date toward the end of the first century of the Christian era, (1) The Gospel of John is marked by a conflict between Jesus and “the Jews" (f, for example, 2:13-25; 5:10-18; 7:1-9, 14-31, 40-44; 8:12-20, 39-47, 48-59; 10:31-39; 11:45-52) that indicates the period when the hostility between the two emerging sects of Christianity and post-70 rabbinic Judaism was leading to a breakdown in relations. However widespread this break- down might or might not have been toward the end of the first century, the Fourth Gospel reflects a situation in which people called “the Jews” (see below) are in relentless conflict with Jesus and his followers (cf. 9:22: 12:43; 162). (2) Onthree occasions in the Gospel of John mention is made of the eviction from the synagogue of those who believe and confess that Jesus is the Christ. A technical word (aposunagdgos) is associated with this eviction (cf. 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). On two of those occasions the reason for exclusion from the synagogue is explicitly named as confession (homologein) that Jesus was the Christ (9:22; 12:42). The final breakdown between the Jo- hannine community and the local synagogue seems to have been cre- ated by a public recognition of Jesus as the Christ. In the story of the man ‘bom blind (9:1-34) there is a gradual growth of faith in Jesus as the Christ that leads to the blind man’s being cast out of the synagogue (see 9334). The experience of the man born blind is widely regarded as a re- flection of the experience of the Johannine Christians (ef. Martyn, History and Theology 24-62). The history of the process that led to the elimination Of Christians from the synagogue worship is complex, but signs of a sep- aration began to appear between 80 and 90 c.£. However local the expe- rience of the Johannine Christians might have been, the Fourth Gospel reflects that process. The composition history of the Gospel may have been very complex, but the final Gospel, in its present shape, appeared late in the frst century. (8) Despite the efforts of several Belgian scholars under the leadership of Frans Neirynck (cf. Jean et les Synoptiques: Examen critique de Vexégise de ‘MCE. Boismard, BETHL 49; Leuven: University Press, 1979), the painstak- ing work of M-E, Boismard and Amaud Lamouille (jean), and theIntroduction 3 speculative connections made by Thomas L. Brodie (The Quest for the Origin of John’s Gospel. A Source-Oriented Approach, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), it is impossible to trace any direct literary rela- tionship between John’s gospel and the synoptic gospels. Behind this af- firmation lies an answer to the question posed in 1938 by Percival Gardner-Smith (St. john and the Synoptic Gospels, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938): is it easier to explain the differences between the Fourth Gospel and the synoptic gospels with a theory of dependence, or the similarities between the Fourth Gospel and the synoptics without ‘one? The complexity of the suggestions of Neirynck, Boismard-Lam- ouille, and Brodie points to the strength of the second possibility. Yet be- hind the Fourth Gospel one senses traditions from the story of Jesus that are also found in the synoptic gospels: the calling of disciples (135-51), the purification of the Temple (2:13-25), the curing of a paralytic (:1-9), -the multiplication of the loaves and fishes (6:1-15), walking on the water (6:16-21), Peter’s confession (6:68-69), the curing of a blind man (9:1-7), the theme of Jesus as a shepherd (10:1-18), a woman washes Jesus’ feet (121-8), the passion story (18:1-19:42), the resurrection story (20:1-29), the miraculous draught of fishes (21:1-14). While once it was taken for granted that John knew the synoptic gospels and was rewriting them, nowadays the position taken above is widely accepted. John’s gospel comes later than the synoptics and does not depend directly upon them. Many of the stories are common, but they show that they have been de- veloped over a longer period and reflect a slightly later stage in the his- tory of the early Church (cf. Dodd, Historical Tradition) If, as is widely accepted, the gospels of Matthew and Luke appeared toward the middle of the eighties of the first century, the Fourth Gospel must have ap- peared after that date. ‘One can never be certain of the accuracy of the world an interpreter reconstructs from the evidence of an ancient text, but putting points (1), (2), and (3) together suggests that the Johannine community and its gospel had the following history. A group of like-minded Christians began within Judaism but was expelled from the synagogue and exposed to the wider world. Within that wider world the early Christians whose experiences produced this gospel had to come to a clear understanding of who Jesus Christ was, what he meant for them, and how they should live their Christian lives in response to the challenge of Jesus. Their story of Jesus no doubt had a long literary development, traces of which remain in the text. The Gospel of John in its final shape was written in a way that is rooted in the Jewish origins of the Christian Church yet open to the wider world, in a way that is somewhat foreign to the synoptic gospels. ‘The use of the expression logos to refer to Jesus (cf. 1:1, 14), the importance of knowledge (cf,, for example, 6:69; 173), a stress on a region “above” and another “below” between which both angels (cf. 1:51) and Jesus (cf. 3:13;4 The Gospel of john 6:62) move, and a number of other words and ideas found only in this gospel (cf. Notes to the commentary for details) suggest that the world into which this gospel was written was markedly different from the one that received the earlier stories of Jesus. Although not all would agree (cf Robinson, Priority), itis widely accepted that this particular story of Jesus, and the language used to tell it, belong to the end of the first century. Whatever might be said of Revelation, the Johannine Gospel and the Letters belong together. They are written in much the same language and have many ideas that are parallel; yet there are differences. Most of all, ‘one is a story of the life of Jesus (the Gospel) and the others are letters. ‘The Letters do not tell the story of Jesus, but they presuppose it. Indeed, much that is in the Letters presupposes the Gospel of John. Itis the stim- ulating, novel understanding of God, Jesus, the Spirit, and the Christian life found in the Gospel that has generated many of the difficulties the au- thor of the Letters addresses (cf. the magisterial demonstration of this re- lationship in R. E. Brown, The Epistles of John, AB 30; Garden City, N.Y. Doubleday, 1962, 47-115). The Letters were written later than the Gospel that, as was mentioned earlier, is marked by a strong conflict between Jesus and “the Jews.” It appears that those who confessed that Jesus was, the Christ had been thrown out of the synagogue (cf. John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). There had been a painful breakdown between the Johannine com- munity and the local synagogue. The Letters show no interest in this process that must have been long since past. The problem with people “outside” the Johannine communities had been resolved, for better or for worse. The Letters face an inevitable further stage in the story of the people for whom they were written: problems emerging “within” the communities. Indeed, it appears that the catalyst for the writing of the Letters is further breakdown. While the Gospel responds to a breakdown in the relationship between the Johannine Christians and the synagogue Jews, the Letters are occasioned by breakdowns among members of Jo- hannine communities. Indeed, the Letters indicate that conflicting “Jo- hannine” communities now exist: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:19. Cf. also 2 John 7). ‘While it is impossible to be certain of the identity of the author(s), the Gospel and the Letters come from the same background, even though the Letters reflect a situation of conilict quite different from the Gospel. The Letters also reflect a later situation where the original Johannine group is gradually spreading (and dividing) into a number of communities. This, is evident in all the Letters, but especially in 3 John where the author of the Letter, an “elder,” a senior figure in a Christian community, pleads with the leader of another community, Gaius, to disregard the thoughtIntroduction 5 and behavior of a third party, Diotrephes (3 John 9-10). Without the doc- trines of the Gospel, however, there would be no letters written some time early in the second century of the Christian era. They attempt to re- solve the theological and community problems generated by the highly original story of the life of Jesus found in the Gospel. "The Johannine churches were deeply divided. There are hints that the division led the parties in the argument into very different forms of Christianity during the second century. The author of the Letters and the Christians he represented may have become members of the larger es- tablished Church, while Diotrephes and his friends may have become Gnostics, but one cannot be sure of this. In the Johannine Letters we have only one side of the argument. No doubt Diotrephes and his community would have some hard things to say about the author of the Letters. The term “antichrist” (cf. 1 John 2:18, 22; 433; 2 John 7) may also have been used about him! We have only one end of a telephone conversation, and we must speculate about what was being said or not said at the other end. Nevertheless, the early Church found its faith reflected in these Let- ters, and thus they form 2 part of the New Testament, a Christian trea- sure house that continues to support and inspire believers through all ages The Fourth Gospel was probably written at the turn of the century, and the Letters shortly after that time. It was written in a place where Ju- daism, early Christianity, the complex religions of the Hellenistic and Greek world, and incipient Gnosticism’ rubbed shoulders—often painfully. Contemporary scholarship, reversing earlier suggestions that the Gospel was evidence for the hellenization of Christianity (e.g., C. H. Dodd), the christianization of gnosticism (e.g, Rudolf Bultmann) or the gnosticizing of Christianity (e.g., Emst Kasemann), is looking more and more to the close links that exist between the Fourth Gospel and syn- cretistic and sectarian Judaism, especially evident in the Dead Sea Scrolls (cf. Painter, Quest 35-52). Some suggest that the author was an Essene, and that the Gospel is the product of this more “oriental” world (cf. Ash- ton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel 205-237). It is clear that the thought world of the type of syncretistic and sectarian Judaism evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls has influenced the traditions that produced the Gospel, but there are elements in the Gospel that cannot be satisfactorily ex- plained by this background. The traditional site for the writing of the Gospel of John—Ephesus—remains one of the best locations for the blend of traditions that lies behind the Gospel. Arguments can be marshaled against this setting (cf. Smith, Theology 6), and if it were not for the tradi- tion associating the Gospel with that city a more general statement about a place where an emerging Christian community dealt with its separation from Judaism and its insertion into the broader maelstom of religions and6 The Gospel of John religious practice in the late first century would suffice. Within such a set- ting a remarkable Gospel was forged. The result of decades of early Christian experience, strongly influenced by the thought world of sectar- ian Judaism, of the telling and retelling of Christian stories over several generations and into different situations, the Fourth Gospel cannot be conveniently situated in any one cultural milieu (cf. Painter, Quest 119-131; Smith, Theology 10-20). It is Greek and Jewish, and its language, background, and theological point of view would resonate within a num- ber of worldviews. It looks back to the foundational story of Jesus of Nazareth, but tells it in a way that addressed the religious and cultural maelstrom of Asia Minor at the end of the first century. “An effort to begin from a single presumed background in order to interpret the Gospel against it will be too narrow, or ill focused, or both” (Smith, The- ology 20). The Fourth Gospel tells an old story in a new way. It is more dif- ficult to locate the Letters and the several “communities” behind them. They are not, however, too far from one another geographically. There is easy movement from one community to another (2 John 12; 3 John 3, 5- 6), but access to increasingly hostile communities made up of former friends is.clearly becoming a problem (2 John 10-11; 3 John 10). The changed circumstances, however, do not detract from their “Johannine” background. Indeed, the language, background, and theological point of view of the Gospel lie behind the conflicts, especially in the areas of chris- tology and Christian behavior, that are emerging among different Johan- nine communities. Both the letter writer and those he is accusing of failure appear to be looking back to the Gospel for their christological and Christian inspiration (cf. Brown, Epistles 73-86). B. The Author ‘The Beloved Disciple who leaned on Jesus’ breast at the Last Supper (cf. 13:23) was present at the foot of the cross (cf. 19:25-27), and saw and believed when he found the clothes of death empty and folded in the tomb (cf. 20:3-10). John 21:24 claims that this character in the story is the author of the Gospel: “This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has wiitten these things; and we know that his testi- mony is true.” The further identification of the Beloved Disciple with John, the son of Zebedee, is well attested in Christian art and history. This identification owes much to the work of Irenaeus (about 130-200 c.E.) who is often credited with having rescued the Gospel of John from the Gnostics of the second century, but Irenaeus may have been depending on even earlier traditions (cf. Hengel, Die Johanneische Frage 9-95), The Gnostics found the poetic, speculative nature of the Johannine story suited their myth of a redeemer who descended to give knowledgeIntroduction 7 (Greek: gndsis) to the unredeemed, wallowing in the darkness of igno- rance. They found that the Johannine story of Jesus suited their schemes, and the earliest commentaries we have on the Fourth Gospel come from the Gnostic world (cf. Elaine H. Pagels, The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Ex- egesis: Heracleon’s Commentary on John. Nashville and New York: Abing- don, 1973). Part of Irenaeus’s defense of the Gospel of John was to insist on the link between this story and an original disciple of Jesus. This au- thenticated the tradition: this story is not mere speculation; it goes back to the first-hand witness of John, the son of Zebedee. Was Irenaeus right? It is impossible to give a certain answer one way or the other. The vast majority of contemporary scholars do not regard it as a significant question, claiming that there is insufficient evidence within the Gospel to substantiate such claims, and that Irenaeus might have been strongly influenced by the need to authenticate the Johannine tradition, to save it from the speculations of the Gnostic writings. Most who have pursued the matter in recent times conclude that the author was a founding figure in the community, possibly a disciple of Jesus, but not the son of Zebedee or one of the Twelve. From the story of the Gospel itself, however, an interesting figure emerges. As John the Baptist sends two of his disciples to follow Jesus (cf. 1:35-42), one of them is eventually named: Andrew (1:40). The other remains incognito. There is the repeti- tion of this practice in the non-naming of a character in the story known as “the other disciple” (cf. 18:15, 16; 20:3, 4, 8). This enigmatic character eventually comes to be known as “the other disciple . . . whom Jesus loved” (cf. 20:2). In 20:2 it looks as if an early stage of the tradition sim- ply had “the other disciple” (cf. 18:15, 16; 20:3, 4, 8), but that in a final edi- tion (or at least a later stage in the writing of the Gospel) the words “whom Jesus loved” were added. This is “the Beloved Disciple (cf. 13:23; 19:26), identified in the Epilogue to the Gospel (John 21) as the au- thor of the Gospel (21:20, 23, 24). From such evidence it appears that the narrative of the Gospel has traces of its “author.” He was an ex-disciple of the Baptist (although many scholars would discount the non-named character in 1:35-42. Cf. note to 1:40), with Jesus from the beginnings of his ministry, present at the climactic events of the first Easter, the found- ing father of a community whose Gospel we today call the Gospel of John. Precisely because of his centrality to the birth, development, and life of the community in which he was such an important figure, his de- sire to keep his name out of the account of the life of Jesus was respected even after he had died. However much they respected the desire to re- main incognito, those responsible for the present shape of the Gospel could not resist inserting a description that expressed their memory and their admiration. They described “the other disciple” as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (cf. 20:2).8 The Gospel of John It is presupposed by 21:20-23 that the disciple is dead when the Gospel reaches its final stages of writing. Chapter 21, the addendum to the Gospel, provides information about the slightly later situation of the Johannine commisnity. As Peter “follows” Jesus (21:19), he looks back to the Beloved Disciple who is, in turn, following (v. 20). He inquires about the destiny of this other important figure (v. 21). Jesus tells Peter that he is not to concem himself about whether or not the Beloved Disciple will live on until Jesus returns (v. 22), but the narrator adds a further ex- planatory comment to the words of Jesus (v. 23). Jesus did not say that the Beloved Disciple would not die, but that whether or not he would die should not be Peter's concern. This comment is called for because “the rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die” (v. 23) ‘The author of John 21 is at pains to point out that this is not exactly what Jesus said. The community must be taught exactly what Jesus meant. What is the problem? The Beloved Disciple is no longer alive as this chap- ter is being written so that it might be added to the original Gospel. Part of the task of this additional chapter is to set right some of the miscon- ceptions of the Johannine community. There were obviously some who expected the Beloved Disciple to be alive for the return of the Lord. How- ever, he had died, and this had to be explained. Was the anonymous, other, Beloved Disciple John the son of Zebedee? Irenaeus might have been correct in identifying the two figures, and the massive support that this identification has received across the centuries has given this identification a popularity lending the hypothesis a weight that the evidence cannot support. Whether or not the son of Zebedee was the author of the Fourth Gospel is the subject of never-ending debates. ‘The weight of the evidence is against their being one and the same figure. Many confusing traditions surround the death of John, the son of ‘Zebedee (cf. M.-E. Boismard, Le Martyre de Jean I'Apétre. CRB 35; Paris: Gabalda, 1996), and the existence of several significant figures in the early Church called “John” may have led to this confusion. The fact that the au- thor of Revelation is called “John” (cf. Rev 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8) has been a major element in the emergence of the traditional association with John the au- thor and John, the son of Zebedee (for a comprehensive study of the tra- ditions surrounding “John,” see Culpepper, John, The Son of Zebedee). Yet there are still contemporary scholars who locate the apostle at the origins of the Fourth Gospel (cf. Morris 4-25; Carson 68-81; Robinson, Priority 92-122). However much the scholarly assessment of the internal and ex- ternal evidence militates against the traditional identification of John the son of Zebedee with the Beloved Disciple, there is always the chance that the apostle John may have been in some way “author” of the Gospel we traditionally call “of John.” It is arrogant to rule any possibility out of court. It should not worry us that we cannot be sure. The authority of this,Introduction 9 Gospel flows from the way it tells the story of God and God's Son, Jesus Christ, and its challenge to all who would wish to be his followers. These issues do not depend upon the apostolicity of its author. Perhaps the most telling feature about the ancient text we call the Gospel of John is that it has stood the test of time. Today, after almost two thousand years of Christian history, we continue to read this life story of Jesus. It remains one of the most fascinating of all the Gospels, as the unflagging and vo- luminous commentary upon it indicates. Its perennial fascination is not determined by whether or not John the apostle was its author. C. “The Jews” in the Fourth Gospel Frequently during the Johannine story of Jesus the opponents of Jesus are bluntly called “the Jews.” After initial hints that all is not well be- tween Jesus and “the Jews” (cf. 1:19; 2:13-22) they gradually enter into public conflict (5:16-18), and a decision is made that Jesus must be slain (6:18). From that point on “the Jews” are presented as hostile to Jesus and to all who would confess that he is the Christ (cf. 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). They plot against him (cf. 11:45-53) and browbeat Pilate into handing him over to them for execution (18:28-19:16). Even after his death, when Pilate ironically places the title, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews” on the ‘cross, they reject this claim (19:17-22), and on the day of the resurrection the disciples are huddled behind closed doors “for fear of the Jews” (20:19). Uncritical reading has led to two dangerous consequences di- rectly related to the misunderstanding of what is meant by “the Jews” in the Fourth Gospel. (1) The Gospel of John has been accepted as the inspired and infallible Word ‘of God that roundly condemns the Jewish people because of their rejec- tion and eventual slaying of Jesus of Nazareth. For centuries this inter- pretation of the Fourth Gospel has legitimated some of the most outrageous behavior of European Christian people, including pogroms and the attempted genocide of the Holocaust. @) Itis also possible to come to a different, but equally damaging conclu- sion. It could be claimed that the language used to speak of the Jews is so violently anti-Semitic that the Fourth Gospel should not be used in today’s Christian churches, that itis time to lay the Gospel of John qui- etly to rest. Inflammatory rejection of the Jewish people has marked much of the history of European Christianity and, because of this, of European cul- ture as a whole. The Christian involvement in—or at best non-opposition to—the Holocaust, and a large part of European history and culture, including the European theological tradition, are but indications of the10 The Gospel of John immeasurable damage that has resulted from the misreading of one of Christianity’s foundational texts. However, there is a rich and significant presence of the Fourth Gospel in Christian life, spirituality, and both Western and Eastern liturgical traditions. It has inspired Christian iconography, being outstandingly present in the many paintings and stat- ues of the crucified Jesus, his mother, and the Beloved Disciple (cf. 19:25- 27), and has inspired music from J. $. Bach to Arvo Part, both of whom have written unforgettable renditions of the Johannine passion account. There can be no wholesale rejection of the Fourth Gospel, as neither the condemnation and persecution of “the Jews” nor the elimination of the Gospel of John from Christian literature can claim to be based upon cor- rect reading of the Fourth Gospel. The expression “the Jews” in this gospel must always be placed within quotation marks because it does not represent the Jewish people. ‘A critical reading of the Johannine Gospel makes it clear that “the Jews" are those characters in the story who have made up their minds about Jesus. They are one side of a christological debate, and this language was, forged within the Johannine community, that formed the other side of the debate. The conflicts between Jesus and “the Jews” are more the reflection of a christological debate at the end of the first century than a record of encounters between Jesus and his fellow Israelites in the thirties of that century. They do not accurately report the experience of the historical Jesus. The Johannine community had come to believe that Jesus was the one sent by God, the Son of God, and as such the expected Messiah (cf. 20:31). This is, the authorial point of view portrayed in Jesus’ actions, words, death, and resurrection. The Gospel exists because an author wished to express this viewpoint by means of a gospel. However, while one group in the story is passionately committed to this viewpoint there is another group equally passionately committed to the belief that Jesus is not the Messiah. This group casts out the man bom blind from the synagogue (9:22, 34); some of its members are afraid to confess that Jesus is the Christ lest they too be cast out of the synagogue (12:42); and Jesus warns his disciples that they will be thrown out of the synagogue and even slain by people who regard their actions as rendering praise to God (16:2). Because these people believe that Jesus’ claims are false (7:10-13, 45-52) and that he is a blasphemer (5:16-18; 19:7) they are portrayed as systematically rejecting him and those who believe and follow him. This is the point of view rep- resented by “the Jews.” Historically, these opponents of the Johannine point of view were doubtless ethnically Jewish people with a fierce commitment to the reli- gion of Israel, especially as it was being established after the devastations of the Jewish War (66-73 C.E.). They were locked in bitter conflict with Jo- hannine Christians. We cannot be sure how widespread this conflict was.Introduction aby There is evidence, both in the New Testament and outside it, that Jews and Christians clashed. Some scholars have attempted to associate the ex: perience ofthe Johannine Christians with Rabbi Gamalil If and a formal Eeparation between Jews and Christians in the eighties ofthe frst century (Martyn, History and Theology; W. D. Davies, “Reflections on Aspects of the Jewish Background of the Gospel of John,” Exploring the Fourth Gospel 43.64), but the evidence linking the decisions of Gamaliel II with the eventual breakdown of relationships between Jews and Christians is hard to evaluate with certainty (cf. P. W. van der Horst, “The Birkat ha-minim in Recent Research.” ET 105 [1993-1994] 363-368). The situation behind the Fourth Gospel may have been a very local affair. Whatever may have been happening in the Mediterranean world at large, the Fourth Gospel comes from a situation where those who believed and confessed that Jesus was'the Christ were forcibly excluded from the synagogue (9:22; 12-42), It is most likely that the separation from the synagogue was now behind the Christians, a thing of the past, but the memory of the pain and anger it generated is still very present. The fact that the Johannine Chris: Gans were being ejected from the synagogue indicates that many members of the Johannine community were also ethnically Jewish, and committed to the religion of Israel. Jewish people as such are not represented by the term “the Jews,’ and the Fourth Gospel must not be read as if they were. Both “the Jews” and many members of the Johannine community were Jews, and the expres: tion “the Jews” in the Gospel indicates those people who have taken up 2 theological and christological position that rejects Jesus and the claims made for him by his followers. Thus they also reject his followers. The ex- pression “the Jews” does not represent a race. Indeed, the expression eeuld be applied to anyone of any age and any nation who has decided, Gree and for all, that Jesus of Nazareth is not the Messiah, but a sinner Ghose origins are unknown (9:24-28). As a recent important study of the Fourth Gospel has said so well, one must “recognise in these hot-ter- pered exchanges the type of family row in which the participants face one aeother across the room of a house that all have shared and all call home” @. Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel 151). Over the centuries since the appearance of the Fourth Gospel this text has been used violently to demalish one of the families in that row. This has greatly impoverished those who claimed to have unique rights to the home.