British New Testament Society

This paper examines the the portrayal of Mary as the new Eve in the Fourth Gospel. Traditions associated with Eve may be seen in a range of New Testament texts including 1 Cor 11:1-16 and 1 Tim 2:8-15 in which they are employed to support arguments restricting the leadership role of women in the early church. Other passages such as Rev 12 depict the woman clothed with the sun as a new Eve who gives birth to the Messiah. In the Fourth Gospel the portrayal of Mary as Eve is related to John's focus on the new creation that comes about through the death and resurrection of Jesus. Mary prompts Jesus to transform water into wine foreshadowing the Messianic Feast, and at the crucifixion Mary and the beloved disciple form the basis of a new community. The presence of Mary at the beginning and the end of Jesus' mission reflects a positive reading of traditions associated with Eve, and points to the prominence of women in the Johannine community.

The shared hostility to Jesus of the different Jewish opposition groups in the fourth gospel might suggest that it is impossible to distinguish one such group from another. However, I propose that a 'fluid' distinction between the Pharisees and other Jewish opponents may be inferred from those characteristics, concerns and patterns of behaviour with which each is primarily - albeit not exclusively - associated. The paper will argue this case with particular reference to the indirect nature of the Pharisees' interaction with Jesus and their interest in the response of other people to Jesus. I consider the evidence to allow (at least) the possibility that John's attribution of particular traits to particular Jewish opponents was deliberate. I will also briefly highlight the implications of this proposal for attempts to reconstruct John's own situation. John's portrayal of Jewish opposition to Jesus, although dominated by the 'Ioudaioi', is not homogeneous. Some variation, albeit minor and inconsistent, may be found in John's depiction and we should admit the possibility that this reflects variety in his own experience or perception of opposition.

An understanding of the Fourth Gospel, as a distinctive Johannine presentation of Jesus, is well documented in major commentaries and thematic treatments over the past fifty years. Attention has been paid to its community orientation, character development, a Christological approach formed in an early post-resurrection phase of the church, a simple but reflective literary style evident in the speeches and discourse material, and particularly to the distance in time and milieu that separates event and record. Its texts on the theme of friendship - 3:29; 11:11; 19:12 and 15:13-15, encapsulated in the words of Jesus' Declaration: 'I have called you friends' (15:15), fall within the same frame of reference. The limited scope and a lack of development of such texts in the Gospel, or elsewhere in the New Testament, also suggest an unwillingness for the theme to be taken further by the church at that time.

This approach does a disservice to the theme of friendship in John in two ways: (a) it places it within a Johannine constructional development rather than at the beginning of the story, and (b) it underestimates the historical value of John's own presentation of the figure of Jesus, a matter that would be of concern to all Christian believers. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to raise the issue of this particular text, and to investigate another way in which the question that lies behind much of the sayings material in this Gospel - 'Jesus or John?' might be answered.

Different approaches to the theme could be attempted, taking note of current trends in Johannine research, to do with St John's representation of community, the Jewish heritage of Jesus, the issue of genre, or a narrative-centred view of the material. In this paper, however, I support continuing attempts to argue for early traditional material behind the Gospel, written or oral. I explore the means by which it might have been remembered and communicated by those close to the events described, even eyewitnesses to words spoken and actions described. Issues related to the historicity of the Fourth Gospel and the nature of the 'perfect tense' represented by John 15:15, therefore, offer a plausible approach to early teaching on the subject of friendship, and a possible answer to my original question.

This reading of The Gospel According to St John offers a more balanced view of his work in this regard, and indicates an even clearer view of his desire to transmit a particular story of Jesus, rooted in the events in Galilee and Jerusalem.

The new millennium has seen the continual growth of literary approaches to the Fourth Gospel, alongside the development of social scientific studies and theological approaches. However, new challenges to key consensus issues such as the role of sociolinguistics and literary theory in John (Phillips), the identity of a Johannine community, if indeed such a community actually existed at all (Koester/Conway/Reinhartz/Schneiders), the role and identity of the 'Jews' in the Fourth Gospel (Hakola/Kierspel), the interrelationship between Johannine social memory and the search for this historical Jesus (Bauckham/Thatcher/Lincoln). What are the implications for these studies on Johannine Studies in the late noughties?

Jn 4:44 seems to imply either that Jesus' home was not in Galilee, or that his recent mission to Jerusalem and Judea had been a failure. Good scholars have argued for both of these, but neither is consistent with the rest of the Fourth Gospel. From the historical clues supplied by Eusebius, we deduce that St John (definitely the Apostle, since 'John the Elder' is a fiction invented by Eusebius) is correcting the false impression given by Mark that Jesus began his ministry with his triumphant bursting into Galilee at Mk 1:14 (the same event as Jn 4:43-5). In reality Jesus knew that to attempt this would have resulted in failure. St John shows that, instead, Jesus began his career with a triumphant mission to Jerusalem and Judea, only tackling Galilee when he had first made a popular success in the south. Jn 4:44 documents St John's understanding of Jesus' strategy. Discussion of the episode illustrates the difference of approach between the source critic, mainly interested in the genesis of the text, and the historian, primarily concerned with the people behind the text.

This topic explores the issues relating to the continuing debate regarding John's utilisation of the Synoptic Gospel traditions or traditions independent of them in the composition of his Gospel. Within the contemporary context, what are the consequences of this debate for the exegesis and interpretation of the Fourth Gospel? Given the assumption that the Gospel reached its final form in the mid 90s AD, the question arises as to the author's understanding and appreciation of the Gospel traditions before him. To what extent did he wish to accept, modify or re-interpret these traditions? Alternatively, was it his desire to offer a revised interpretation of Christian origins? What content should be given to the concept of 'independence' in this regard? The implications of these questions concern; first, John's self understanding as a historical and theological writer and secondly, the nature and circumstances of the 'community' which he was addressing. How are the differences and similarities between John and earlier material to be evaluated in terms of what ideas can be perceived about the sitz-im-leben of the Fourth Gospel?

In this context I shall review the appropriate methods to be used in the investigation of these issues. I shall illustrate the complexity of researching the material at both the overall level of the totality of the narrative and with regard to its individual sections. In this latter category I shall use John 4: 46b - 54 compared with Matt. 8: 5 - 13 and Luke 7: 1 - 10 as an example. I shall also argue that John's use and interpretation of the Jewish scriptures must be taken into account, as for John Jewish and Christian traditions and texts run in parallel. Arising from this research I shall argue that the important issues emerging from the debate are not merely literary but also historical, theological, Christological and ecclesial.