This is a somewhat extensive passage, but as in the case of John 5, even though much of this passage is correctly regarded as an attempt to defend certain beliefs, not everything is relevant to our specific concern of how the legitimation in which the Fourth Evangelist engaged is linked to his development of inherited beliefs. The need to treat this section of the Gospel in our study is immediately indicated by its strong polemical thrust, which is noted by most scholars, as is its close relation to the Johannine disputes with the synagogue. Neyrey regards the form of John 8 as ‘an elaborate forensic procedure against Jesus’. As in chapter 5, the Johannine Jesus is being ‘put on trial’ by ‘the Jews’, representing the accusation of the contemporaries of the Johannine community against them. Becker classes 8.13–20 together with 5.31–47 and other passages which are about ‘the legitimation of the one who has been sent’. The focus of the dispute is the ‘I am’ statement by Jesus (which is clearly some sort of christological assertion, the meaning of which we will consider below): it is necessary for ‘the Jews’ to accept that Jesus is ‘I am’, or they will die in their sins (8.24); the ‘lifting up’ of Jesus will in some sense demonstrate that Jesus is in fact ‘I am’ (8.28); and in the end it is precisely as ‘I am’ that Jesus is rejected by ‘the Jews’ (8.59).

We come now to the conclusion of Paul's letter to the Philippians (4:2–23). The material may be divided into three parts: (1) concluding parenesis and consolation (4:2–9); (2) a postscripted “thank-you note” (4:10–20); and (3) final greetings (4:21–23). As usual, our exegesis will be selective. In particular, we are interested in (1) how Paul modifies the general parenesis of 4:2–9 to fit his immediate purpose of consolation, and (2) how in 4:10–20 he formally expresses his appreciation for the Philippians' most recent gift while not compromising his stand that he is – and they should be! – independent of such non-essentials.

Concluding parenesis and consolation (Phil. 4:2–9)

Paul frequently concludes his letters with a few words of general exhortation. He follows the same procedure in his letter to the Philippians, but with the exception that in Philippians his exhortations are more obviously linked to the specific circumstances of the letter. He first addresses a dispute between two prominent women in the church, Euodia and Syntyche (4:2–3), after which he offers several consolatory precepts (4:4–9).

We come now to the first heading of the letter (1:12–2:30), which falls naturally into two parts: consolation (1:12–30) and exhortation (2:1–30). We are concerned primarily with the first (consolatory) part, which may be further divided into four smaller sections: 1:12–18a; 1:18b–21; 1:22–6; and 1:27–30. Here Paul applies his thesis that the Philippians must learn to discern “the things that matter” (1:10a) to the problem of his imprisonment. He invites the Philippians, “who have heard that he is in prison and are distressed,” to rejoice with him in the progress (πρoκoπή) of the gospel (1:12–18a) and his own anticipated salvation (σωτρíα; 1:18b–21). These are the things that matter, and they have been furthered by his imprisonment. Again, our exegesis of this material will be selective, focusing on the various consolatory aspects of Paul's argument.

Consolation: rejoicing in the progress of the gospel (Phil. 1:12–30)

Paul introduces the consolation that begins in 1:12 with a common epistolary “disclosure formula”: γινώσκειν δὲ ὑμãς βούλομαι. Similar formulas occur elsewhere in Paul, but none with the infinitive γινώσκειν. Paul's choice of γιννσκειν here recalls the ἐπíγἐωσις of 1:9. The implication is that he will now impart the “knowledge and perception” that, on his view, the Philippians need in order to distinguish the things that matter from the things that do not.

Having studied John's Gospel over several years, I was glad when a recent visit to the US included an invitation to teach a freshman class on the subject. I had had surprisingly little opportunity to do so since completing the research presented in this book. My usual theme – that of John's apologetic portrait of Jesus – was, however, met by a perplexed look from one student. Raising her hand, she asked, ‘What makes you think John is being apologetic?’

It took me a few moments to realize that the ‘technical’ meaning of the term ‘apologetic’ is unfamiliar to many in our day and age. I should perhaps therefore explain that the title of this book, John's Apologetic Christology, does not use the term in its modern sense, as if John were ‘apologizing’ for his beliefs concerning Jesus. Rather, the argument of the present work is that John's defence (the other meaning of ‘apologetic’) of certain christological beliefs led to their development and the unique configuration of christological motifs known as Johannine Christology. It would be a pity indeed if a merely verbal confusion were to obscure this book's main theme from the outset!

The book is a revised version of my 1998 University of Durham Ph.D. dissertation. While a Ph.D. thesis is by definition the work of a single individual, I doubt whether any student has ever successfully completed such a course of study without the support of many people, the endless list of ‘without whoms’.

If we accept the above reconstruction of the rhetorical situation of Philippians, and in particular the conclusion that the “controlling exigence” of the letter was the distress the Philippians felt over Paul's imprisonment, then Paul's primary objective in writing to the Philippians will have been to console them or, as Chrysostom puts it, to “rouse them from their despondency over his bonds.” We will therefore conclude our discussion of preliminary matters with a brief survey of ancient consolation. We will begin with a few general comments on the scope and character of ancient consolation. After this we will summarize five theories of consolation current in Paul's day. We will conclude by examining in more detail two consolatory themes that figure prominently in Paul's consolation of the Philippians.

Ancient consolation: some general observations

The sources

Consolation, the combating of grief through rational argument, was widely practiced in the ancient world and is well attested in both Greek and Latin sources. Its origins predate our earliest evidence, since already in Homer we find the skillful use of consolatory topoi. However, judging from extant materials it was not until the late fifth and early fourth centuries that the problem of grief began to be addressed systematically.

Doxographical tradition credits a number of important figures from this period with compositions that were either directly or indirectly consolatory.

The conflict setting

In recent scholarship it has become widely accepted that behind the Fourth Gospel lies a debate between a group of Christian Jews and the leaders of their local synagogue, the main focus of which was Christology. Some scholars have detected other conflicts, for instance with Docetists, Gnostics or followers of John the Baptist. However, this work will focus on the conflict between the Johannine Christians and their parent Jewish community, as the latter appears to be the main dialogue partner in view in the Fourth Gospel. It will be useful, before discussing our topic further, to survey some of the evidence for such a conflict.

We may take as our starting point the clearest evidence, namely the hostility and objections expressed by characters in the Fourth Gospel who function as opponents of Jesus. In John 5.16, reference is made to ‘the Jews’ persecuting Jesus, and in 5.18 we are told that they tried to kill him. The reason that is given for this antagonism is christological: he was ‘making himself equal with God’. In John 6 we also find the group described as ‘the Jews’ ‘grumbling’ (verse 41) in response to Jesus' claim to have ‘come down from heaven’, and ‘arguing among themselves’ (verse 52) in response to Jesus' words about eating his flesh. Even his disciples found this teaching difficult, and many subsequently no longer followed him (6.60–1, 66).

The coherence of John's portrait

The question that we shall be addressing in this chapter is whether John, as he adapted various traditions in response to a number of different issues, integrated the developments he made into a coherent portrait of Christ. One important point needs to be made from the outset: it must be recognized that what seems incoherent to a reader today may not have seemed so to an ancient reader. In other words, our task will by definition contain a measure of anachronism. Nonetheless, it still seems worthwhile to note, wherever possible, indications that may help us to understand the underlying thought-world that harmonized elements that appear to us today to be in tension, or to recognize where, even in John's time, certain ideas would have been perceived as incompatible.

It may be useful to distinguish between two ‘types’ of tension that may exist in the Fourth Gospel. Anderson has recently emphasized that the tensions which modern readers perceive in Johannine thought may be either internal or external to the Evangelist. In other words, the tensions in the Evangelist's literary work may represent either tensions in his own thought, or tensions between unharmonized elements of different literary strata. This distinction is an important one. However, in terms of our reading of John it is entirely possible to reach the conclusion that, in a sense, both are true.

There is a large amount of agreement that, on one level at least, the dialogue with Nicodemus in John 3.1–21 reflects the discussions and debates which took place between one or more Christian and Jewish communities. Although the language used in this section is in some ways less openly hostile than that used in some other parts of the Gospel, there is still a strong polemical dualism present, distinguishing between ‘us’ and ‘you’ (3.7, 11), belief and unbelief (3.12, 15, 18), light and darkness (3.19–21). These themes suggest that John is engaging here in debate or dialogue with ‘the Jews’, and that we may thus expect him also to provide legitimation for points that were at issue in this controversy.

The point at issue in the conflict

Since Odeberg's work on this passage, it has become more and more widely accepted that John 3.13 reflects a polemic against claims made for other figures to have ascended into heaven, whether figures like Moses and Elijah, or Merkabah mystics. As we have already seen, the question of the relative value of the revelations brought by Jesus and Moses was an important one in the community's debates with the synagogue, and it is therefore likely to be Moses in particular who is in view here. In many streams of Jewish tradition, Moses was believed to have ascended to heaven to receive the Torah.

John 9 has particular relevance for our study, as it was taken by Martyn as the starting point for his interpretation of the Gospel on two levels, one reflecting Jesus and his ministry, the other reflecting the needs and experiences of Christians in conflict with the synagogue. There seems to be a large amount of agreement that the conflict and debate portrayed in John 9 reflect those which were taking place between certain Christians and opponents in their local Jewish community or communities. It is thus a logical place to look for evidence of the Evangelist's legitimating activity.

The point at issue in the conflict

John 9 contains one of the clearest and most straightforward examples of the sort of objections which were being raised by the Johannine Christians' Jewish opponents: ‘We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from’ (John 9.29). This objection is coupled with an expression of the view that Jesus is a sinner and therefore cannot be from God. The point is that, whereas Moses' credentials are indisputable, the Jewish authorities regard Jesus as a lawbreaker, and take this as definitive evidence against his claim to reveal God and speak authoritatively on God's behalf. As Martyn observes, the theme of ‘Jesus versus Moses’ is one that occurs repeatedly in the Fourth Gospel, and represents a key point of conflict between church and synagogue with which John himself wrestled.

In the previous two parts of this book we have considered what are very likely to be the two issues in the conflict between church and synagogue which had the greatest influence on the development of Johannine Christology. They were not the only ones, however, and in this chapter we will attempt to survey some of the other issues which may have been important to the Evangelist and led to the development by him of various earlier christological motifs.

The rejection of Jesus

The fact that the majority of Jews did not accept Jesus to be the Messiah promised in the Jewish Scriptures was a major problem, which called into question the validity of, and undermined the plausibility structure of, the beliefs of the early Christians. John is convinced that there are in fact many believers among the Jewish people and even among the leaders, who are afraid to admit this because they are afraid of the authorities (cf. 7.12–13; 9.22; 12.42–3). Yet he also places the objection on the lips of the Pharisees, ‘Has any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law, there is a curse on them’ (John 7.48). It appears likely that some opponents felt that only those who were ignorant of the Jewish Scriptures would be persuaded to believe in Jesus.

This part of our study would not be complete without a consideration of the prologue, since, as we have already stressed, the Evangelist intended the whole of his work to be read in light of it. We have left it until last not due to any literary considerations, but because the evidence of controversy over Christology is much less explicit here than in the other passages we have considered.

Nonetheless, a number of recent studies have emphasized that the conflicts and issues which are present in the rest of the Gospel are also reflected in the prologue. For example, as Kysar notes, light/darkness dualism is found in the prologue, symbolizing the acceptance and rejection of the Logos, which also runs throughout the Gospel and which is found in several of the conflict passages we have singled out for consideration in this book. Closely connected with this is the prologue's polemical tone, emphasizing the Logos as the true (άληθινόν) light, and Jesus as the unique (μονογενής) Son of God. This, Kysar suggests, reflects ‘a community under attack’. This polemic Kysar connects with the issue of the revelations brought by Jesus and Moses. Carter, however, also seeks to relate the prologue to the conflict we have been considering in this chapter, that of the relationship between Jesus and God. This is a conclusion which we have already hinted at, and which we shall seek to demonstrate in the present chapter.

John chapter 5 provides a natural starting point for an examination of Johannine Christology in relation to legitimation, as in this chapter one finds numerous indications both of some of the points at issue in the christological controversy, and of the ways the Fourth Evangelist sought to respond to them. Under the guise of ‘the Jews’, the contemporary opponents of the Johannine Christians are allowed to raise their objections. As Loader points out, the accusations brought in this chapter ‘are doubtless … real accusations hurled at the Johannine community by Jewish critics’. The Johannine Jesus then provides a response to these Jewish objections, a defence or legitimation of Christology. These features have led a number of scholars to see an apologetic thrust here: the beliefs of the community are being ‘put on trial’ by Jewish objectors, and what is being mounted here is a defence of their understanding of Jesus, which is coupled with a denunciation of their opponents' unbelief (5.37–47). There is much to support the conclusion that the whole passage (John 5.19–47) represents one of the clearest examples in John of the Evangelist engaging in legitimation, in the defence of his community's beliefs about Jesus.

The subject of the conflict

In order to ascertain exactly what is at issue in the conflict with ‘the Jews’ in John 5, we must consider the relationship between earlier tradition and the miracle story which John recounts in this chapter.

We shall now turn our attention to John 10. In this part of the Fourth Gospel we have a clear example of an apologetic appeal to Scripture in support of the christological claims made by the Johannine Jesus. Neyrey rightly classes verses 34–6 and verses 37–8 as apologies, and Becker expresses a similar view in relation to the whole of 10.22–5, 30–9.3 There can be little doubt that the Fourth Evangelist is here responding to the objections brought by ‘the Jews’, and seeking thereby to defend or legitimate the beliefs that have come under fire.

The subject of the conflict and its relationship to earlier christological beliefs

The issue which is raised explicitly in this chapter is that Jesus, a ‘mere human,’ is ‘making himself God,’ and thus committing ‘blasphemy.’ As Talbert has noted, many aspects of this passage closely resemble the main elements of the dialogue with the Jews in John 5:

1. Jesus claims a functional unity with the Father. The Son does what the Father does (5.17, 19–21; 10.25–30, 37–8).

2. ‘The Jews’ misunderstand this in terms of Jesus making himself, as Son, equal to or identical with the Father (5.18; 10.33).

3. As a direct consequence, ‘the Jews’ seek to kill Jesus (5.18; 10.31).

4. An apologetic response is given, which appeals to Scripture as a support for the claims and actions of Jesus (5.39–40, 46–7; 10.34–5).