Butler University

Digital Commons @ Butler University

Scholarship and Professional Work - LAS College of Liberal Arts & Sciences

1996

Johannine Christianity: Jewish Christianity?

James F. McGrath
Butler University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/facsch_papers

Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, and the History of Christianity Commons

Recommended Citation
McGrath, James F., "Johannine Christianity: Jewish Christianity?" Koinonia / (1996): 1-20.
Available at https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/facsch_papers/14

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences at Digital
Commons @ Butler University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarship and Professional Work - LAS by an
authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Butler University. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
Permission to post this publication in our archive was granted by the
copyright holder, Koinonia, published by Princeton Theological
Seminary (http://www.ptsem.edu/koinonia/index.html). This copy
should be used for educational and research purposes only.

The original publication appeared at:

James F. McGrath. "Johannine Christianity : Jewish Christianity?"
Koinonia 8.1 (1996): 1-20.

DOI: not available.

KOINONIA VIIJ/I (/996) 1-20

lohannine Christianity - Jewish Christianity?

JAMES F. MCGRATH

SINCE 1HE PUBLICATION OF 1. LouIs MARlYN'S DECISIVE STUDY, HISTORY AND

Theology in the Fourth Gospel (1979), there has been a growing consen­
sus among Johannine scholars that the Gospel of John was composed in
the context of conflict with the synagogue, and that it is thus best under­
stood and interpreted against the background of Judaism and Jewish
Christianity'. However, several recent studies have sought to challenge
this position, primarily on two fronts: 10hannine Christo logy (Casey
1991 :23-38) and the Johannine attitude towards the Torah (Schnelle
1992:31-36). These recent challenges to the growing consensus have also
pointed to the Johannine attitude toward 'the Jews' as corroborating evi­
dence to support their case. It would seem in order, then, to study these
three key aspects of lohn's Gospel-Christology, Torah, and 'the

The author wishes to thank Prof. James Dunn and Dr. Loren Stuckenbruck of
Durham University for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
1 So e.g. Ashton, Brown, Charlesworth, Cullmann, Dahl, Dunn, Meeks,
Pancaro, Smith and Whitacre. Some have followed Martyn in using the term
'Christian Jews' for this earlier period (Le. when some Jews happened to be
Christians), saving the tenn 'Jewish Christians' for the later period (when there
was a minority of Jewish believers in a predominantly Gentile church). This dis­
tinction is helpful, but the term' Jewish Christianity' is retained here because it is
more familiar, and also in order to retain the sense of continuity between the two
phenomena.
2 KOINONIA

Jews'-in order to see whether and to what extent they demonstrate

Johannine Christianity to be essentially Jewish or non-Jewish.

DEFINING JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

Schnelle, in the work just cited, mentions several times the need for a
clear definition of what precisely is meant by Jewish Christianity. J.
Danielou suggests three possible meanings for this term: "First, it may
designate those Jews who acknowledged Christ as a prophet or a Mes­
siah, but not as the Son ofGod, and thus form a separate class, half-way
between Jews and Christians ... The second possible reference for the term
'Jewish Christianity' is the Christian community ofJerusalem, dominated
by James and the tendencies for which he stood. This community was
perfectly orthodox in its Christianity but remained attached to certain
Jewish ways of life, without, however, imposing them on proselytes from
paganism ... Finally, a third possible reference of the term' Jewish Chris­
tianity' is a type of Christian thought expressing itselfin forms borrowed
from Judaism" (1964:7-9).
This definition provides a useful starting point for our discussion, but
it needs to be examined critically before we proceed. Firstly, the third cat­
egory (which is the one that Danielou himself is most concerned with) is
too broad for our purposes. Johannine Christianity, like all forms of
Christianity represented in the New Testament, was still working with the
language and images current in Judaism. Indeed, as Danielou's study
shows, Jewish imagery and modes of thought played a very important
role in many streams of Christianity even when it ceased to be a predomi­
nantly Jewish phenomenon. We must fmd a narrower definition of' Jew­
ish Christianity' for the purpose of this study.
The difficulties involved in defining Jewish Christianity are well
known (cf. Riegel 1977; Colpe 1993). For example, although one might
suggest that Jewish Christianity be defined in ethnic terms, this becomes
impossible when we consider that one may be ethnically Jewish and yet
apostatize from the Jewish religion. It would seem that the definition of
'Jewish Christianity' is plagued by all ofthe difficulties involved in defm­
ing 'Judaism' during this period (cf. Casey 1991, ch. 2). Rather than work
only with a theoretical definition, therefore, a better methodology will be
to relate the Gospel of John to what is universally recognized as a Jewish
 McGrath: lohannine Christianity 3

Christian document. For our purposes, we may consider in particular the

Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions2 . This work is generally accepted as
stemming from a Jewish Christian group, most likely Ebionites 3 .
We may take this line of approach because it appears, as has been sug­
gested by a number of recent scholars, that Danielou's first two categories
overlap to a large extent. James Dunn, in one of his studies of earliest
Christianity, has noted that "Heretical Jewish Christianity would appear
to be not so very different from the faith of the first Jewish believers"
(1990:242). Dunn examines three aspects of 'heretical' Jewish Christianity
(such as Ebionitism) which he finds to coincide largely with the beliefs of
earliest Palestinian Christianity as represented in the New Testament:
(a) adherence to the Law; (b) exaltation of James and denigration ofPaul;4
(c) adoptionism (1990:240-243). It would appear that, contrary to
Dani610u's suggestion, there is no firm boundary between the faith of the
earliest Jerusalem community of Jewish Christians and the later forms of
Jewish Christianity which were eventually deemed 'heretical'. This is not
to say that they were in all respects identical, but merely that they were fun­
damental1y similar, and that there was sufficient continuity between them
for it to be legitimate to group them together under the single heading,
'Jewish Christianity'. A similar conclusion has been reached by C. Colpe
(1993:75) and G. Quispel (1972:137-140; see also Schoeps 1949:257).

2 On the Pseudo-Clementine Literature see Schoeps (1949, 1956); Strecker

(1981). Schoeps himself adopts the method offocusing on documents rather than
abstract definitions of Jewish Christianity (1949:7), and considers the Pseudo­
Clementine literature an extremely important witness (1949:37). The Recogni­
tions have been chosen because they bear a greater affinity to Johannine thought
than do the Homilies.
3 The earliest strata of the work is perhaps as early as the second century C.E.
(DanieJou 1964:59; Schoeps )949:54f), and it had probably, after a complicated
process of composition and development, reached more or less its final fonn by
some time during the third or fourth century (cf. Strecker 1981 :255-270).
4 It will not be worth dwelling on this feature: it is notable in John only by its
absence. There is no defence of Paul or his views, nor are these opposed. Given
the evidence noted below, we cannot say that the Gospel of John provides any
clear indication that the teaching of Paul is presupposed. Certain developments
(such as Wisdom Christology) which are reflected in Paul are found also in John,
but these can be understood as part of their common inheritance from earlier
Christianity rather than in terms of Johannine dependence on Paul (so also
Scroggs 1988: 105). See further n.16 below.
4 KOINONIA

In this study, therefore, we can limit ourselves for the most part to a
study of the similarities which exist in these three key areas between the
Gospel of John on the one hand, and Jewish Christianity as represented
by later literature such as the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions on the
other. Obviously, given the difference in date between these works, we
may expect to find significant differences as well. However, it is still a
useful undertaking to attempt to deteITIline whether there is a 'trajectory',
a continuous stream of development in which both John and the Recogni­
tions are included, which may be categorized as 'Jewish Christianity' (cf.
Schoeps 1949:257; Martyn 1977b). A study of these similarities, and an
attempt to answer the objections raised by scholars such as Casey and
Schnelle, will be the focus of the rest of this work. For convenience we
may continue to speak of' Jewish Christianity' as an umbrella teITIl for the
Pseudo-Clementines and for other literature and streams of thought which
contain the features which will concern us in this study (See further
Quispel 1972:137-139; Schoeps 1949:8).

CHRISTOLOGY

The Christology of Jewish Christianity has been characterized as

'adoptionist', a relatively modem term denoting a Christology in which
Jesus becomes 'Son of God' in a unique sense at his baptism. S In this
stream of early Christian thought, the Christ/Holy Spirit comes upon or
enters into the man Jesus. The heavenly being who comes upon Jesus is
subordinate to God,6 and this incarnation takes place at the baptism of
Jesus rather than at his birth.
What is interesting is that several scholars have proposed that John be
read in precisely this way (So e.g. Watson 1987, Fuller 1990, Talbert
1992:45f, 75f; 1993; cf. Schoonenberg 1986). As Talbert notes (1992:75),
we are accustomed to read John in light of the Synoptics, as has tradition­

5 It should be noted that Danielou's statement (1964:56) that 'heretical' Jew­

ish Christians such as the Ebionites did not accept Jesus as Son of God is mis­
taken: they did accept this title, but did not understand it in the same way that
later Nicene and Chalcedonian orthodoxy would.
6 Cf. Hofrichter (1992). The exact relationship of Jesus/the Logos to God did
not become a major issue, and therefore was not clearly defined, until much later
than John's time.
 McGrath: lohannine Christianity 5

ally been done in the Church, and thus to understand the incarnation in
John as having taken place at Jesus' conception. However, given that the
conception and birth of Jesus are not recounted in John, and that, for the
vast majority of Jews and Christians of this period, the Logos and the
Holy Spirit were not clearly distinct entities,? it becomes a strong possi­
bility that early readers of John's Gospel would have understood the de­
scent of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus as describing the same event as that
described in the prologue as the Word becoming flesh. Further evidence
for this may perhaps be found in 1 John 5:6-8, which is regarded by many
as evidence that there was a debate between the author of 1 John and his
opponents about whether the Christ left Jesus before the crucifixion, and
thus did not suffer. 8 If this is a correct reading, then the author of 1 John
agreed with his opponents that the Christ came 'through water,' i.e. at
Jesus' baptism.9
C. K. Barrett, in his article on subordinationist Christology (1982),
noted that John, while in one sense the basis of later orthodox
Christological formulas, is in another sense a challenge to traditional
Christology, containing elements that do not seem to fit. The key aspect
which he focuses on is subordinationism, a feature which is represented
both in John and in Jewish Christianity. In John, the main objection which
'the Jews' bring against the Jesus is that he 'makes himself equal with
God' or 'claims to be God.' Jesus, however, is not presented as readily
defending his equality with God or divinity, but rather as emphasizing the
Son's dependence on the Father in all things (John 5:19), or as appealing
to the wider use of the term 'God' in the Hebrew Bible (John 10:34-36).10

7 The most notable example is Justin Martyr, who frequently uses the terms
interchangeably. On the similar phenomenon in Philo see Talbert (1993:45f). This
point is also noted by Dunn (1989:266).
8 This is not to imply a wholesale identification of the opponents with
Cerinthians, but simply to note a similarity in this one area. See the discussion of
this passage in Brown (1982:573-578); Talbert (1993:49f).
9 Of course, the Fourth Gospel does not mention that Jesus was baptised by
John. However, this is presumably due to a concern not to present Jesus as in any
way inferior to the Baptist. There is no real reason to doubt that the author knew
the tradition attested to in the Synoptics that it was at Jesus' baptism that John the
Baptist witnessed the descent of the Spirit upon him.
10 In John 10:30, Jesus claims oneness with the Father. In the context of the
chapter, and of the Gospel as a whole, this clearly should be understood in tenns
6 KOINONIA

His 'blasphemy' in using the divine name for himself (8:58f) is the use of
a name rightly his, not because of his own inherent and eternal possession
of it, but because the Father has given it to him (17: II). The same is true
of his 'glory' (17:22).
The argument in John 10 concerning the use of the title 'God' is re­
markably close to the argument in the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions
2.42, 1J where Peter is described as explaining that there is only one true
God, the God of the Jews, and yet also explains how the tenn 'god' can
be used more widely, including for Christ. The same work also speaks of
Jesus in very Johannine terms: "although he was the Son of God, and the
beginning of all things, he became man" (1.45), and further: ''the
Son ... has been with the Father from the beginning, and through all gen­
erations ... the Son reveals the Father to those who honour the Son as they
honour the Father" (2.48). In 1.43, Peter is described as asserting that the
only difference between Christians and Jews is the acceptance of Jesus as
the Messiah; for John, this is also the key (if not the only) difference.
Further, as even Maurice Casey would himself agree, the Johannine
Christians did not move from Jewish monotheism to pagan polytheism:
they regarded Jesus as divine, but would not have accepted the exaltation
of other persons or beings to similar status (I 991:37f). For John, the Fa­
ther of Jesus, who is the God of the Jews, is "the only true God" (John
17 :3), even though John, like the author of the Pseudo-Clementine Rec­
ognitions, can use the tenn God more broadly. The reason why Casey
cannot regard Johannine Christology as a Jewish development is that he
will not allow John the broader definition of monotheism which he allows
to Philo and other clearly Jewish authors (Casey 1991 :93; for a helpful
discussion and bibliography on the difficulty of defming monotheism, see
Stuckenbruck 1995:15-21). One cannot help but wonder whether, if
'Philonism' had developed into an independent religion, he would not
have rejected Philo as well for having moved too far away from 'orthodox
Judaism'. As scholars are continuously seeking to remind us, it was only

of unity rather than identification. 'The Jews' in this chapter apparently under­
stood Jesus to be claiming the latter, but this is a misunderstanding on their part,
which results (as so frequently in John) from Jesus' use of a double entendre.
II Both Schoeps (1949:51) and Strecker (1981 :265) consider this passage to
come from a source used by both the Pseudo-Clementine works, thus making it
somewhat earlier than the finished Recognitions or Homilies.
 McGrath: lohannine Christianity 7

after A.D. 70 that an 'orthodox' Judaism even began to emerge, and when
it did, both Philo and John were defined out. 12 As Philip S. Alexander re­
marks, "There can now be no question that early Judaism did know of
powerful semi-divine mediator figures, so the high Christology of some
of the early Christian writings can actually be given a Jewish context"
(Alexander 1992: 19f; see further the balanced criticisms of Casey in
Dunn 1994).
We have thus seen that John's Christology can be understood in such a
way as to be essentially in agreement with that of Jewish Christianity.
That the Johannine Christians were expelled from their local synagogue
largely on account of their christological beliefs does not present a prob­
lem, since it is not by any means clear that the group of Jewish Christians
represented by the Pseudo-Clementine literature were still attending syna­
gogue, or that their christology was any more acceptable to their local
Jewish community than that of the Johannine Christians. However, it
must be acknowledged that the Recognitions does not express the same
depth of hostility to 'the Jews' which we find in John, and an explanation
for this aspect of the Fourth Gospel will need to be provided (see below).

TORAH

Another key feature of Jewish Christianity is continued adherence to the

Torah and observance of Jewish customs and practices. Schnelle consid­
ers that "The Gospel of John cannot be interpreted as a witness to Jewish
Christianity. 'On the contrary, it reflects both a historical and a theological
distance from Judaism ... The distance that already exists between the
Fourth Gospel and Judaism is clearly evident from the Gospel's under­
standing of the law" (1992:31). However, it is not clear anywhere in the
Gospel of John that the Johannine Christians no longer kept the Torah; in
fact, S. Pancaro has arrived at exactly the opposite conclusion from
Schnelle:

12 On the diversity of first-century Judaism see also Johnson (1989:426-428);

Neusner (1993:2-3). Overman's description (1990:38-43) of Jamnia as "the be­
ginning of the end of sectarianism" is a helpful and balanced formulation.
8 KOINONIA

[l]t would appear that Jn is to be situated in a Jewish milieu, that his

community is formed by Jewish-Christians who observe the Law, but
who differ from their Jewish brethren because of the faith they have in
Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God and, consequently, in the attitude
they assume towards the Law. While they follow it, they do not agree
that their relationship to God is detennined by their relationship to the
Law, that God has revealed himself and his will exclusively in the Law.
They claim that a Jew, however faithful to the Law of Moses, cannot
be saved unless he believes in Jesus as the Christ (Pancaro 1975:530;
similar conclusions are reached by J. L. Martyn 1977a: 158f; Whitacre
1982:64-68. See also the discussion in Smiga 1992: 141-148).

Schnelle's reading of John is not as convincing as Pancaro's precisely

because it does not do justice to the depth of feeling in John surrounding
the controversy with the Jews and the expulsion from the synagogue (this
criticism is also raised against him by Menken 1993:308). He also does
not sufficiently justify his readings of certain passages, and throughout
his discussion he gives the impression that he is reading John, as it were,
through Pauline spectacles. It is by no means clear to the present writer
why John 6:32 and 7:22 prove that "the divine legitimation given to
Moses is clearly disparaged" (Schelle 1992:31) 13 nor why 4 :20-24 means
that "Christians ... have left the stage of a religion of law behind them"
(Schelle 1992:31 ).14 He criticizes Pancaro for leaving his treatment of
John 1: 17 until the end of his book (Schnelle 1992:31 n.200), but it is not

13 In 6:32 there is presumably a contrast between the Torah and/or Moses and
Christ (cf. Brown 1966:262; Lindars 1972:250), but 'disparaged' is unjustifiably
harsh in this context. The contrasts between Jesus and Moses or Torah must be
placed in the context of the conflict between the Johannine Christians and the
synagogue: the rabbis claimed to be Moses' disciples (John 9:28f), and John em­
phatically makes the point that Moses is not God's final word, that Moses himself
pointed to one who would come in the future. It may be further noted that, even
if it is the case that John 6 contrasts Jesus with the Law or with Moses more
sharply than the rest ofthe Gospel, this may also be because the chapter is part of
the latest strata of the Gospel, as Lindars (1972:50) has suggested. See further the
debate about the relationship between Moses and Jesus in Ps.-Clem. Recogni­
tions, 1.58-59.
14 The reference in John 4:20ff is to worship which does not involve the
Temple; the Ebionites also rejected the Temple and sacrifice while still feeling
loyal to Torah in other respects.
 McGrath: lohannine Christianity 9

clear that this rather ambiguous verse should be used to interpret the rest
of John, rather than vice versa. On its own, and even in the context of
the whole prologue, 1: 17 could be either antithetic or synthetic parallelism
(pancaro 1975:537). It is possible to read 1:16f in a way quite different
from that proposed by Schnelle (for one such reading, cf. Edwards 1988).
Further, as Pancaro notes (1975:499), apart from a passing reference to
circumcision in 7:21-23, the only precept of the Torah mentioned in John
is the Sabbath. It is frequent to note that in John, Jesus is more clearly
presented as breaking the Sabbath (giving an order to take up the mat;
making mud and anointing the eyes). Yet the key force of John's argument
in a Jewish context is frequently missed. Scholars frequently note the fact
that it appears to have been generally accepted in Jewish thought that God
'works' in some sense on the Sabbath (cf. the references in Dodd
1953:320-323 and Barrett 1978:256). What needs to be noted in addition
to this is that in Judaism to keep the Sabbath was conceived of in terms of
imitating God (Gen.2:2f). This point seems to lie behind the argument in
John: in what sense can it be a breaking of the Sabbath to participate in
the work of God? John wishes to show not that the Sabbath is abolished,
but that doing God's work (of healing), like obeying the Law of Moses in
circumcising a child, overrides the Sabbath, precisely because it is a par­
ticipation in the work of God himself.
A further point which needs to be examined is the fact that John con­
sistently speaks of 'your Law' or 'the Law ofthe Jews'. Several scholars
have suggested that this does not in fact imply that John is putting dis­
tance between himself and Judaism/Torah, but that he is using the lan­
guage of polemic: 'the very Law to which you appeal in condemning us
says ... .' Quite recently, B. G. Schuchard has suggested that this feature
of Johannine language does not have any negative connotations, but
rather emphasizes Jewish blindness in respect to their own scriptures
(1992:154fn.13). It is for this reason dubious to appeal to this feature in
the Fourth Gospel as evidence that the author wished to distance himself
and his community from Judaism and its scriptures.
We may note briefly the relationship between John and the Pseudo­
C1ementines in this area. 15 If in John the observance of the precepts of
Torah is not an issue, by the time the later Ebionite literature was com­

15 On this subject see Schoeps (1949, ch.3); Strecker (1981:162-171,179­

184). The view of the Pseudo-Clementines concerning the Law is found in both
10 KOINONIA

posed it had become one. The reason for this is presumably the move
from being a minority of believers in Jesus among a Jewish majority to
being a minority of Jewish believers in a predominantly Gentile church.
One distinctive aspect of the Pseudo-Clementine literature is its emphatic
opposition to the Temple cult. While this may bear some relation to John
4:20-24, there are also significant differences. The most striking of these
is the Ebionite teaching that positive references in the Old Testament to
sacrifice (and other practices to which they were opposed) were 'false
pericopae.' Here there is a striking difference from John, and in this case
John would appear closer to the position of the majority of Jews in his
time than the Pseudo-Clementines were. If the latter are rightly called
Jewish Christian, then the title would seem to be appropriate to John as
well, at least as far as his attitude to the Law is concerned.
Here again, it cannot be said that we have proved that the Gospel of
John is a Jewish Christian document. However, it has hopefully been
demonstrated that there is simply no clear evidence in the Gospel of John
itself that Johannine Christians were not Torah-observant. Most scholars
who consider that the Johannine Christians did not keep the Law have to
suggest that the debate over Torah (in which Paul was engaged) lies in the
past, so that John can assume it without mention. This is not impossible,
but seems unlikely given the conflict with the synagogue that appears to
be reflected in John. John reflects the accusations of 'the Jews' against
the Johannine Christians in Christology and other areas and seeks to ad­
dress them, and it would be surprising for him not to do so concerning the
issue of Torah observance, were this at issue in the conflict. In fact, the
only accusation of failure to observe Torah in John is made by Jesus
against the Jews (John 7: 19)! The most that is said of the Johannine
Christians is that they are 'ignorant of the Law,' i.e. 'amme ha-aretz '. The
most logical explanation for the evidence of John is that the issue be­
tween the Johannine Christians and the synagogue was Christology and
not Torah observance. 16 This again would match what we know of Jew­
ish Christianity.

the Recognitions and the Homilies, and is traceable to their common source, the
Preaching ofPeter.
16 So also Pancaro (1975:530f); Smith (1995:51 f). Smith also helpfully points
out that "the theological, terminological, and conceptual agreements between
 McGrath: lohannine Christianity II

'THE JEWS'

This aspect of John is one of the most perplexing for those who suggest
a Jewish context for John. If any feature in the Fourth Gospel suggests
'distance from judaism,' this would have to be it. The fact that John
also uses 'the Jews' in a completely neutral sense does not alter the fact
that he does use it in a way that suggests that the Johannine Christians
would not be happy to be known as 'Jews'. Even given their claim to
the title 'Israelites', the Johannine attitude towards 'the Jews' would at
first glance seem to make it difficult to class Johannine Christianity as
'Jewish Christianity'.
What must be noted first of all in connection with this subject is that
the Gospel in its present fonn was written in the wake of the expulsion of
the Johannine Christians from the synagogue. This was clearly a trau­
matic event for the group, since they did not leave by choice, but were
expelled. If the Johannine Christians in this context had feelings of alien­
ation from' Judaism', this is hardly surprising. And for this reason, to
draw conclusions about the relationship of the Johannine community to
Judaism prior to the expulsion on the basis of a document written in the
wake ofthis traumatic event is as ill-advised as judging' Jewish' views of
Gentiles on the basis of literature written in the aftennath of the war of
A.D. 70. 17
However, we should note here as well that the Johannine references to
'the Jews' can be read very differently than is done by Casey. Dunn, for

Paul and John do not go beyond what could have been established on the basis of
widely held early Christian emphases and beliefs. In other words, it is a dubious
procedure to attempt to understand the theology of John as if it were a develop­
ment on the basis of, and beyond, Paul" (1995:51). See further n.4 above.
17 Cf. McKnight (1991:20). We may also ask, in light of the widespread view
that expulsion from the synagogue decisively renders the Johannine Christians as
'no longer Jews' (so e.g. Barrett 1975:70), at what stage a sectarian group ceases
to be part of its parent body and becomes a clearly distinct group, and whether the
clarity with which we may view such issues with hindsight does not indeed ob­
scure the real ambiguity of the situation at the time. For example, one may ask
when the Methodists ceased to be Anglicans, or when Martin Luther ceased to be
a Catholic. Similar questions illustrating the difficulties involved in this issue
may be drawn from the whole history of Christianity as well as from the histories
of other religions and groups.
12 KOINONIA

example, considers that "The prominence and character of this tension

between Jesus and 'the Jews' point the exegete firmly toward a mainly
Jewish context for the fourth Gospel" (l991a:303; see his more detailed
discussion, 1994:442f). It is also important to acknowledge, as Casey
himself does (1991: 187), that at least one stream of the Johannine com­
munity maintained a Jewish self-identity, referring to outsiders as 'Gen­
tiles' (3 John 7). A far better explanation than Casey's for the phenom­
enon of Johannine Christianity is that its origins are firmly Jewish
Christian, but that the community had to redefine itself and its identity in
response to the attempt by post-70 Jewish leaders to establish their own
particular form of Judaism as the dominant form, and to exclude, along
with many other aspects of earlier jewish diversity, the Johannine Chris­
tians. As Dunn concludes, "John's usage indicates not so much a clear
distancing of the Johannine congregation from 'the Jews' ... as an
acknowledgement of a dispute over the heritage of pre-70 Jewish reli­
gion," with the Johannine Christians ceding the term' Jews' to their oppo­
nents but keeping the term 'Israelites,' generally preferred by 'the Jews'
as a self-designation, for themselves (Dunn 1992:200; cf. further on this
issue: Dunn 199Ia:304; 199Ib:222; Meeks 1975; 1986; Pancaro
1975:494; Smiga 1992:160-171).
The Johannine use of 'the Jews' is thus best explained, not in terms of
the Johannine Christians abandoning their Jewish roots, but rather in
terms of the process of sect formation. The Johannine Christians refer to
the Jews en masse because they are engaged in religious controversy of
the sort which tends to produce factions and sects, and in this context
such mass denunciations of one's opponents is a typical phenomenon. 18
Further, John's language of denunciation, however strong, is not correctly
classed as 'anti-semitic' if we conclude that it is in fact a Jew who is
speaking this way.19 The Old Testament prophets frequently denounce the
nation as a whole, even though they often speak alongside this of a faith­
ful remnant who will be saved. That such images were taken up by van­

18 Freyne (1985), Johnson (1989). This is not to excuse or explain away the
Johannine attitude towards the Jews, but simply to show how it is possible for this
to be an attitude held by Jewish Christians.
19 Barrett (1975:70) notes that "In the Fourth Gospel there is nothing stronger
than the sayings ofthe Jew Paul: To the Jews I became as a Jew (l Cor 9.20); and:
Christ is the end of the Law (Rom 10.4)."
 McGrath: lohannine Christianity 13

ous Jewish sects or parties in and around New Testament times is more
than adequately attested by the literature which was found at Qumran.
There, as in John, we find a group of Jews with distinctive beliefs de­
nouncing the rest of their nation as 'children of darkness' and 'children of
Beliar.' Yet in the Qumran scrolls we do not find the key tenn for our dis­
cussion, 'the Jews'. When we turn to the Pseudo-Clementine Recogni­
tions, however, we do find the phrase used in a way that resembles the
Johannine use. For example, in 1.50 and V.l1 'the Jews' is the designation
used for the nation as a whole in its unbelief. It is of course true that, in
general, the author does not use this phrase without qualification,
speaking for the most part of 'the unbelieving Jews'. However, that a
Jewish Christian author can present the apostle Peter as speaking about
'the Jews' as opponents, while he himself was a Jew, suggests that we
should not too hastily draw conclusions concerning the nature of
Johannine Christianity on the basis of the references to 'the Jews' in
John's Gospel.
Before concluding our discussion of this aspect of the Fourth Gospel,
we may note one further insight that may shed light on this Johannine
phenomenon. Bruce Malina, in his seminal study of the cultural tenden­
cies in the New Testament world, has pointed out that ancient Mediterra­
nean cultures focused identity on groups rather than individuals
(1981 :53-60). In other words, the ancient mind tended to think in terms of
what we today might call stereotypes. The individual was judged in terms
of what was generally thought to be the case concerning his or her race,
country, town or family. Numerous examples of this way of thinking can
be found in the New Testament and other literature from the time, and it
may fruitfully be suggested that the Johannine attitude to 'the Jews' is an
example of the same phenomenon. The majority of Jews in John's time
did not believe in Jesus, and had rejected the appeal made by Christians
for them to do so. 'The Jews' as a whole could thus be considered in light
of this factor and stereotyped accordingly. Just as Paul can refer to 'the
Gentiles' as sinful while also apparently acknowledging that there are in­
dividual upright Gentiles,20 so also John uses 'the Jews' to refer to the na­
tion as a whole who do not believe, even though he is aware that there are

20 Romans 2:13-16, 26. For otherexarnples of this phenomenon see the pas­
sages cited by Malina (1981:57).
14 KOINONIA

Jews who believe in Jesus, and can say that 'salvation is of the Jews'
(John 4:22).
There are thus a number of important factors which are frequently
overlooked in considering the use of the expression 'the Jews' in John.
Through their use of this phrase, the Johannine Christians show their
awareness that the religious leaders of the Jewish community from which
they were expelled refused to recognize them as 'Jews.' If we are correct,
with the majority of scholars, to set the Fourth Gospel in the context of
Judaism as it was attempting to reformulate and redefine itself in the pe­
riod after the council of Jamnia, then the Johannine Christians were prob­
ably not the only ones who felt that they were being unjustly deprived of
their identity as 'Jews'. The Johannine Christians concede this title, but
claim for themselves the generally preferred title 'Israel,' an unlikely pro­
cedure if the Johannine Christians were consciously and intentionally
moving away from their Jewish roots and identity. The Johannine use of
this phrase ('the Jews'), although distinctive, is not without parallel, as
we have seen, and can be explained not only in tenns of the social and
historical setting of the community, but also the culture of the time. In
light of the numerous factors we have reviewed, it is in no way implau­
sible to suggest that John's Gospel is correctly classed as Jewish Christian
and, rather than demonstrating distance from Judaism, represents part of
the debate over 'who is a Jew?' which was so important in this period.

CONCLUSION

Given the diversity in both first century Judaism and in early Christianity,
it would be reasonable to presume that there was also a certain amount of
diversity in jewish Christianity. One corollary of this is that there is no
need to force John into a set mould: John could differ from a given defi­
nition of Jewish Christianity in one or more areas, and yet possibly still be
rightly classed as a Jewish Christian work in some sense. Yet what is
striking is the fact that it is possible to read and understand John quite
naturally as containing precisely those features which have been singled
out by many scholars as distinctively Jewish Christian: adoptionist
Christology, Torah observance, and a continuing Jewish or Israelite self­
identity. Although there is still work to be done in this area, it would seem
reasonable to conclude that, in light of the evidence we have surveyed
and the many other indicators of Jewish influence on and Jewish elements
 McGrath: lohannine Christianity 15

in John's Gospel,21 the burden of proof rests on those who seek to deny
a Jewish/Jewish-Christian setting for the Fourth Evangelist's community
and Gospel.

21 See, e.g., the evidence presented in Quispel (1972) and in the other essays
in the same volume.

REFERENCES

Alexander, Philip S.
1992 "'The Parting of the Ways' from the Perspective of Rab­
binic Judaism." Jews and Christians: The Parting of the
Ways A.D. 70 to /35. WUNT, Vol. 66, pp. 1-25. Ed. James
D. G. Dunn. TUbingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

Ashton, John
1991 Understanding the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Clarendon.

Barrett, Charles K.
1975 The Gospel ofJohn and Judaism. London: SPCK.
1978 The Gospel According (0 SI. John: An Introduction with
Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (Second edition).
London: SPCK.
1982 "'The Father is Greater then l' (John 14:28):
Subordinationist Christo logy in the New Testament."
Essays on John, pp. 19-36. London: SPCK.

Boismard, Marie-Emile
1988 Moise ou Jesus. Essai de Christologie Johannique.
BETL, Vol. 84. Leuven: Leuven University Press.

Brown, Raymond E.
1966 The Gospel According to John. I-XII. Anchor Bible,
Vol. 29. New York: Doubleday.
1979 The Community of Ihe Beloved Disciple. London: Geoffrey
Chapman.
1982 The Epistles ofJohn. Anchor Bible, Vol. 30. New York:
Doubleday.
16 KOINONIA

Casey, Maurice
1991 From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God: The Origins and
Development ofNew Testament Chrislology. The Edward
Cadbury Lectures at the University ofBirmingham, 1985­
86. Cambridge: James Clarke and Co.

Co)pe, Carsten
1993 "The Oldest Jewish-Christian Community." Christian
Beginnings: Word and Community from Jesus to Post­
Apostolic Times, pp. 75-102. Ed. JUrgen Becker. Louisville:
Westminster/John Knox.

Cullmann, Oscar
1976 The Johannine Circle. Its Place in Judaism, Among the
Disciples ofJesus and in Early Christianity. London: SCM.

Dahl, Nils Alstrup

1986 "The Johannine Church and History." The Interpretation of
John, pp. 122·140. Ed. John Ashton. Philadelphia: Fortress
fLondon: SPCK.

Danielou, Jean
1964 The Theology ofJewish Christianity (A History of Early
Christian Doctrine before the Council ofNicaea; v. J).
London: Darton, Longman and Todd.

Dodd, C. H.
1953 The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Dunn, James D. G.
1989 Christology in 'he Making. A New Testament Inquiry into
the Origins ofthe Doctrine ofthe Incarnation (Second
edition). London: SCM.
1990 Unity and Diversity in the New Testament. An Inquiry into
the Character ofEarliest Christianity (Second edition).
London: SCM.
1991a "Let John Be John: A Gospel for Its Time." The Gospel and
(he Gospels, pp. 293-322. Ed. Peter Stuhlmacher. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans.
1991b The Partings ofthe Ways Between Judaism and Christianity
and their Significance for the Character ofChristianity.
London: SCM.
1992 "The Question of Anti-Semitism in the New Testament
Writings of the Period." Jews and Christians: The Parting
 McGrath: lohannine Christianity 17

ofthe Ways A.D. 70 to 135. WUNT, Vol. 66, pp. 177-211. Ed.
James D. G. Dunn. TUbingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
1994 "The Making of Christology-Evolution or Unfolding?"
Jesus ofNazareth: Lord and Christ. Essays on the Histori­
cal jesus and New Testament Christology, pp. 437-452. Ed.
Joel B. Green and Max Turner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Edwards, Ruth B.
1988 "CARIN ANTI CARITOS (John 1.16): Grace and Law in
the Johannine Prologue." Journal for the Study of the
New Testament 32:3-15.

Freyne, Sean
1985 "Vilifying the Other and Defining the Self: Matthew's and
John's Anti-Jewish Polemic in Focus." ''To See Ourselves
as Others See Us ": Christians, Jews, "Others" in Late
Antiquity, pp. 117-143. Ed. Jacob Neusner and Ernest S.
Frerichs. Chico: Scholars Press.

Fuller, Reginald H.
1990 "Lower and Higher Christology in the Fourth Gospel." The
Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John in
Honor of1. Louis Martyn, pp. 357-365. Ed. R. T. Fortna
and B. R. Gaventa. Nashville: Abingdon.

Hofrichter, Peter
1992 "Logoslehre und Gottesbild bei Apologeten, Modalisten
und Gnostikem. Johanneische Christologie im Lichte ihrer
frUhesten Rezeption." Monotheismus und Christologie:
Zur GOllesfrage im Hellenislischen Judentum und im
Urchristentum. Quaestiones Disputatae, 138, pp. 186-217.
Ed. Hans-Josef Klauck. Freiberg: Herder.

Johnson, Luke T.
1989 "The New Testament's Anti-Jewish Slander and the
Conventions of Ancient Polemic." Journal of Biblical
Literature 108:419-441.

Malina, Bruce 1.
1981 The New Testament World Insights from Cultural
Anthropology. Atlanta: John Knox.

Martyn, J. Louis
1977a "Glimpses into the History of the Johannine Community."
L 'Evangile de Jean: Sources, redaction, theologie.
18 KOINONIA

BETL, Vol. 44, pp. 149-175. Ed. M. de Jonge. Leuven:

Leuven University Press.
1977b "Clementine Recognitions 1,33-71, Jewish Christianity, and
the Fourth Gospel." God's Christ and His People:
Studies in Honour of Nils Alstrup Dahl, pp. 265-295. Ed.
Jacob Jervell and Wayne A. Meeks. Oslo:
Univers itetsforlaget.
1979 History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (Second
edition). Nashville: Abingdon.

McKnight, Scot
1991 A Light Among (he Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Ac(ivity
in the Second Temple Period. Minneapolis: Fortress.

Meeks, Wayne A.
1967 The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine
Christology. Supplements to Novum Testamentum, Vol.
XIV. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
1975 "'Am I a Jew?'- Johannine Christianity and Judaism."
Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults:
Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty. Part One: New Testa­
ment. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity, Vol. 12, pp.
163-186. Ed. Jacob Neusner. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
1986 "The Man From Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism." The
interpretation ofJohn, pp. 141-173. Ed. J. Ashton.
Philadelphia: FortressfLondon: SPCK.
1990 "Equal to God." The Conversation Continues: Studies in
Paul and John in Honor of 1. Louis Martyn, pp. 309-321.
Ed. RobertT. Fortna and Beverly R. Gaventa. Nashville:
Abingdon.

Menken, Maarten J. 1.
1993 "The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: A Survey of Recent
Research." From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and
New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus de
Jonge. Journal for the Study of the New Testament­
Supplemental Series, Vol. 84, pp. 292-320. Ed. Martinus
C. De Boer. JSOT/Sheffield Academic Press.

Neusner, Jacob
1993 Judaic Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: A Systematic
Reply to Professor E. P. Sanders. South Florida Studies
in the History of Judaism, Vol. 84. Atlanta: Scholars
Press.
 McGrath: lohannine Christianity 19

Ovennan, J. Andrew
1990 Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social
World ofthe Matthean Community. Minneapolis: Fortress.

Pancaro, Severino
1975 The Law in the Fourth Gospel: The Torah and the
Gospel, Moses and Jesus, Judaism and Christianity
According to John. Supplements to Novum Testamen­
tum, Vol. 42. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Quispel, Gilles
1972 "Qumran, John and Jewish Christianity." John and
Qumran, pp. 137-155. Ed. James H. Charlesworth. London:
Geoffrey Chapman.

Riegel, Stanley K.
1977 "Jewish Christianity: Definitions and Tenninology." New
Testament Studies 24:410-415.

Schnelle, Udo
1992 Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John: An
Investigation of the Place of the Fourth Gospel in the
Johannine School. Minneapolis: Fortress.

Schoeps, Hans-Joachim
1949 Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums.
TUbingen: J.C.B.Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
1956 Urgemeinde, Judenchristentums, Gnosis. TUbingen:
J.C.B.Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

Schoonenberg, Piet
1986 "A Sapiential Reading of John's Prologue: Some Reflec­
tions on Views of Reginald Fuller and James Dunn."
Theology Digest 33:403-21.

Schuchard, Bruce G.
1992 Scripture Within Scripture: The Interrelationship of
Form and Function in (he Explicit Old Testament
Citations in the Gospel ofJohn. Society of Biblical
Literature Dissertation Series, Vol. 133. Atlanta: Scholars
Press.

Scroggs, Robin
1988 Chrisfology in Paul and John: (he Reality and Revelation
ofGod. Proclamation Commentaries. Philadelphia: Fortress.
20 KOINONIA

Smiga, George M.
1992 Pain and Polemic: Anti-Judaism in the Gospels.
Mahwah: Paulist.

Smith, D. Moody
1990 "The Contribution of J. Louis Martyn to the Understanding
of the Gospel of John." The Conversation Continues:
Studies in Paul and John in Honor 0/ J Louis Martyn,
pp. 275-294. Ed. Robert T. Fortna and Beverly R. Gaventa.
Nashville: Abingdon.
1995 The Theology o/the Gospel 0/ John. New Testament
Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Strecker, Georg
1981 Das Judenchristentums in den PseudokJementinen. Texte
und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen
Literatur, 70 2 . Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Stuckenbruck, Loren T.
1995 Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early
Judaism and in the Christology o/the Apocalypse 0/ John.
WUNT, 2nd series, Vol. 70. Tilbingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul
Siebeck).

Talbert, Charles H.
1992 Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary
on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles.
London: SPCK.
1993 '''And the Word Became Flesh': When?" The Future 0/
Christology: Essays in Honor 0/ Leander E. Ked, pp.
43-52. Ed. Abraham J. Malherbe and Wayne A. Meeks.
Minneapolis: Fortress.

Watson, Francis
1987 "Is John's Christology Adoptionist?" The Glory o/Christ in
the New Testament: Studies in Christology in Memory 0/
G.BCaird, pp. 113-124. Ed. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright.
Oxford: Clarendon.

Whitacre, Rodney A.
1982 Johannine Polemic: The Role 0/ Tradition and Theol­
ogy. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, Vol.
67. Chico: Scholars Press.