The Temple of Jesus' Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John
 1841272620, 9781841272627

Table of contents :
1 Introduction
2 Outside the Johannine Text: Some Jewish Responses to the Fall of the Temple in 70 CE
3 The New Temple: John 2.13-22
4 The New Beginning: The Prologue
5 The Programmatic Vision of John 1.51
6 A New Centre of Worship: John 4.16-24
7 The Temple Festivals
8 The Father’s House: Possible Temple Connections in John 13 and 14
9 Possible High Priestly and Temple Allusions in John 17
10 Summary and Conclusions
Index of References
Index of Authors

Citation preview

library of new testament studies

The Temple of Jesus’ Body The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John

Alan R. Kerr



Executive Editor Stanley E. Porter

Editorial Board Craig Blomberg, Elizabeth A. Castelli, David Catchpole, Kathleen E. Corley, R. Alan Culpepper, James D.G. Dunn, Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Robert Fowler, George H. Guthrie, Robert Jewett, Robert W. Wall

Sheffield Academic Press A Continuum imprint

The Temple of Jesus' Body The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John

Alan R. Kerr

Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 220

Copyright © 2002 Sheffield Academic Press A Continuum imprint Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX 370 Lexington Avenue, New York NY 10017-6550 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press

EISBN 9781841272627

In loving memory of my father and mother, Dick and Barbara


Preface Abbreviations

ix xi





Chapter 3 THE NEW TEMPLE: JOHN 2.13-22















The Temple of Jesus' Body


Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors


377 391 413


This study is an exploration of the Temple theme in the Gospel of John, Numerous scholars have detected Temple allusion in John, but when I embarked on this study there had been no systematic and sustained treatment of the topic. Dr Paul Trebilco encouraged me to pursue this line of enquiry and so over the past eight years I have worked on this study. I am conscious that it is an unfinished task—that there are more Temple references in John to be uncovered and analysed. However, I am confident that what is offered here points in the direction of Jesus being the fulfilment and replacement of the Temple and its associated festivals. Throughout my study I have been supported and encouraged by a number of people and organizations. I am indebted to the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand, who financially contributed towards my travel to the United Kingdom in 1995 through the Bill and Margaret Best Travel Fund; to the trustees of the Helmut Rex Trust for a grant to offset costs incurred with the 1995 study leave; and to the congregation and Session of the then Andersons Bay Presbyterian Church, whose generous provision of study leave made my overseas research possible and whose encouragement and support throughout the project has been much appreciated. I also record my warm thanks to the Revd John Proctor, Director of New Testament Studies, Westminster College, Cambridge, who supervised my three and half months' study leave in the United Kingdom. He read everything I wrote during that period, raised useful points for discussion and offered helpful suggestions. I am very grateful for his interest and kindness. My thanks also to the Warden and staff of Tyndale House, Cambridge, for making their accommodation and library facilities available during my stay in Cambridge. Here in Dunedin I have been accorded long-term lending privileges from both the Hewitson Library of Knox College and the Central Library of the University of Otago. I am thankful for the patience of the staff in both libraries and their diligent persistence in tracking down elusive titles. During the summer holidays of 1997 and 19981 was able to spend time


The Temple of Jesus' Body

studying at Waihola, just south of Dunedin. Thank you to the Council of Christian Youth Camps, who allowed me the use of their accommodation, and also to the Manager, Grant Bullin and his wife Joanne, for their kind hospitality during both periods of study. While Dr Paul Trebilco was away during 1994, Dr Gregory Dawes of the Department of Theology and Religious Studies of the University of Otago, guided me in my research and I thank him for his help. On the academic front my main thanks goes to Dr Paul Trebilco. He has been unfailingly supportive and encouraging throughout my eight years of study. His meticulous attention to detail, his gentle nudging to consider an alternative view, his wide knowledge of the field of New Testament Studies alerting me to possible academic 'land mines', his generosity with his time, his sympathy for the project, and his kindness and patience all leave me profoundly in debt. It has been a privilege to have worked with him. I am also grateful to Dr Derek Tovey, Dr Judith McKinlay and Dr Robert Hayward who read my work in full and made many useful comments for improvement. I am also thankful for many friends and colleagues who have given me incidental encouragement along the way. In particular I mention my friend Dr Steuart Henderson who has followed my study with interest and raised questions to stimulate further thought. I am grateful to Sheffield Academic Press who accepted my manuscript and have carefully prepared it for publication. Although the editorial staff have been meticulously thorough in eliminating errors I accept responsibility for any that remain. My chief thanks goes to my dear wife, Marion, and my children who have had to put up with me spending long hours in the study. Their support and love, throughout this project, means most to me. Alan R. Kerr Dunedin, New Zealand





Anchor Bible Australian Biblical Review Analecta biblica Anglican Theological Review Andrews University Seminary Studies Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907) Friedrich Blass, A. Debrunner and Robert W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961) Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia Biblica Brown Judaic Studies Biblical Theology Bulletin Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Coniectanea biblica, New Testament Etudes bibliques Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses Evangelical Quarterly Expository Times Herder's Theological Commentary on the New Testament Harvard Theological Review International Critical Commentaries Interpretation Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish Passover Haggadah Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies








The Temple of Jesus' Body Life of Adam and Eve Libreria Ateneo Salesiano Loeb Classical Library The Septuagint Massoretic Text New Century Bible New English Bible Neotestamentica New International Commentary on the New Testament New Revised Standard Version Novum Testamentum New Testament Studies Novum Testamentum Supplement James Charlesworth (ed.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Oxyrhyncus Papyri Revue Biblique Recherches de science religieuse Revised Standard Version Society of Biblical Literature Annual Seminar Papers Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers SBL Semeia Studies Studies in Biblical Theology Student Christian Movement Scottish Journal of Theology Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Tyndale Bulletin Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; 10 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-) G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society Theologische Literaturzeitung Trinity Press International Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift fiir neutestamentliche Wissenschaft


1.1 The Aim of the Study R.E. Brown, in the introduction to his commentary on the Gospel of John, mentions 'the importance given to the theme of Jesus' replacement of Jewish institutions like ritual purification, the Temple, and worship in Jerusalem (chs. ii-iv) and Jewish feasts like the Sabbath, Passover, Tabernacles and Dedication (chs. v-x)'. 1 Other scholars have similarly pointed out this theme.2 Most have been content to mention the theme without allowing it to impact significantly on their exegesis. For example, Carson, in commenting on the Feast of Dedication (10.22) remarks: ' with other feasts, this one, too is understood to be fulfilled in Jesus the Son of God.'3 But the feast is only relevant in his comments on 10.36 where he speaks of Jesus' sanctification echoing the Feast of Dedication, which commemorates the sanctification of the Temple after it was desecrated. It has even less relevance for Barrett, who, in commenting on 10.22-42, says that 'it does not seem possible to detect any symbolical correspondence 1. R.E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (AB, 29-29a; 2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966, 1970), I, p. lxx. 2. D. A. Carson (The Gospel According to John [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991 ], p. 182) in commenting on 2.21 says:'.. .the human body of Jesus... [is] the living abode of God on earth, the fulfilment of all the temple meant, and the centre of all true worship (over against all other claims of "holy space", 4.20-24)' (my italics). C.K. Barrett {The Gospel According to StJohn [London: SPCK, 2nd edn, 1978], p. 201), remarks on 2.21: 'the human body of Jesus was the place where a unique manifestation of God took place and consequently became the only true Temple, the only centre of true worship...' Further he maintains that John was in 'opposition to the Jerusalem Temple.' B. Lindars {The Gospel of John [NCB; London: Oliphants, 1972], p. 144) is more sceptical about allowing 2.21 to have any relevance beyond the pericope of 2.13-22. He offers no suggestion that Jesus might be the fulfilment and/or replacement of the Temple. 3. Carson, John, p. 391.


The Temple of Jesus' Body

between the conduct of the feast and the ensuing discussion' .4 On the other hand, Moloney allows the replacement theme, with regard to the Dedication Festival, to pervade his exegesis more extensively. Not only is it pertinent for his discussion of Jesus' sanctification in 10.36,5 but it is also relevant in his comments on the hostility of the Jews towards Jesus: Israel had lost its Temple because leading Jews betrayed YHWH and his people. Will 'the Jews' stand by their resolve never again to betray their God? 'The Jews' take up stones against Jesus (v. 31), repeating the profanations of Antiochus IV and his representatives. They are attempting to rid Israel of the visible presence of God in their midst... The Jews' continue to pay no heed to Jesus' claims, as they celebrate the feast of the Dedication, remembering the reconsecration of a temple built in stone by human beings. They betray their God as they attempt to eliminate the one who now dwells among them in the flesh of his only begotten Son (see 1.14; 8.30).6

The Feast of Dedication, which Moloney sees as relevant to Jesus' encounter with the Jews in Jn 10.22-39, is part of what I term the complex of Temple life—the Temple itself as the place of the presence of God and its associated festivals, priestly rituals and sacrifices. The object of this study is to explore the theme of this complex of Temple life in the Gospel of John and demonstrate that it is a significant strand of thought in the Gospel. It is my contention that the Johannine Jesus replaces and fulfils the Jerusalem Temple and its cultic activity. 1.2 Contemporary Scholarship 1.2.1 'Broad Brush' Studies Some intimation of possible Johannine Temple allusions was made in a section of R.J. McKelvey's book, The New Temple, published in 1969.7 4. Barrett, St John, p. 379. 5. F J . Moloney, Signs and Shadows: Reading John 5-12 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1996), pp. 149-50. 6. Moloney, Signs and Shadows, pp. 148-49. 7. J. McKelvey, The New Temple: The Church in the New Testament (Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), pp. 75-84. McKelvey's book focuses on the image of the church as God's new Temple throughout the New Testament. He describes this as a 'neglected image' (p. vii) and states, 'Apart from Pere Congar's book [Y. Congar, The Mystery of the Temple: The Manner of God's Presence to His Creatures from Genesis to the Apocalypse (trans. R. Trevett;

1. Introduction


There he refers to 1.14; 2.13-22; 1.51;4.20-26; 10.16;l 1.52 and 12.20-23. as having Temple connections.8 He also drew into his discussion the festivals of Passover9 and Tabernacles,10 thereby indicating that they are relevant for the Temple theme in John. Understandably in so few pages, McKelvey' s treatment is cursory, but even so it provides some useful hints in terms of texts and associated concepts for my exploration of the Temple complex theme in John. Peter Walker's publication on Jesus and the Holy City presents a clear appraisal of the theological significance of the Temple in the New Testament.11 He devotes a chapter to the Temple in the Fourth Gospel and concludes that the Tabernacle and Temple imagery (1.14; 2.21) point to a deeper truth concerning Jesus being the new 'place' where God dwells.12 He explores the scene at Jacob's well and the festivals of Tabernacles and Dedication to show the way Jesus appropriates the symbolism of these Temple festivals. But he goes further, and in commenting on 'Jesus' explosive revelation that "before Abraham was, I am" (8.58)' he concludes: If this divine Name ('I am') was recited as part of the Tabernacles' liturgy, then Jesus was again using the Temple's ritual as a pointer to his identity. In this case however, what Jesus was appropriating to himself was not just some particular ritual within the Temple, but the whole essence of the Temple as being the dwelling place of the divine Name. 13

Walker also sees the reference to 'my Father's house' (14.2) as an allusion to the Temple. For Walker this Temple is the heavenly Temple, where the disciples will dwell in the future. However, in the interim, the disciples themselves are to be the Temple, the place where God dwells through the agency of the Spirit.14 London: Burns & Oates, 1962)], which is a more general study, I know of no treatment of the subject' (p. vii; book title interpolated). Certainly that was almost 30 years ago, but even so, it points to the comparative neglect of the Temple theme in relation to the New Testament generally. 8. The last three texts deal with the gathering of people as the new Temple. 9. McKelvey, The New Temple, pp. 76-77. 10. McKelvey, The New Temple, pp. 75-76, 80,81. McKelvey associates mention of water in John with Tabernacles and in turn connects the water pouring ceremony with the outpouring of the Spirit (p. 81). 11. P. Walker, Jesus and the Holy City: New Testament Perspectives on Jerusalem (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996). 12. Walker, Jesus and the Holy City, p. 164. 13. Walker, Jesus and the Holy City, p. 168. 14. Walker, Jesus and the Holy City, p. 171.


The Temple of Jesus' Body

While Walker's chapter breaks some new ground and makes useful suggestions, as a 'broad-brush' New Testament survey, it understandably lacks detailed exegetical support. 1.2.2 Detailed Exegetical Studies There have, however, been three detailed exegetical studies of Johannine texts where a Temple motif has been discerned. The first of these is Destroy This Temple by Lucius Nereparampil, published in 1978. The author describes this work as 'an exegetico-theological study on the meaning of Jesus' temple-logion in Jn 2.19'. After a thorough investigation of the text, Nereparampil draws two conclusions that are helpful for our study. He makes a distinction between the Temple-cleansing (2.14-16) and the Temple-Logion (2.19) and then says, 'Jesus' Temple-cleansing symbolically expresses the cessation of the old Temple and old economy of salvation, while his Temple-Logion symbolically proclaims the beginning of the new Temple and the new economy of salvation in his own person.'15 This points to a shift from the old to the new that I believe undergirds Johannine thought on the Temple complex. The second conclusion I wish to highlight is that 'the Temple-Logion is a pointer to the Sitz im Leben of the Fourth Gospel' ,16 This sentence provides some justification for looking outside the text to ascertain strands of Jewish thinking about the Temple following its destruction. I will argue that the urgent question of the time was, What is to replace the Temple? And I will endeavour to demonstrate that the Johannine answer is Jesus. The second study is James McCaffrey's The House with Many Rooms: The Temple Theme ofJn 14,2-3, published in 1988. This thesis broke new ground by suggesting that there are Temple implications in Jn 14.2-3, part of one of the farewell discourses. Prior to this, Temple allusions had been detected almost exclusively in John 1-12. McCaffrey argued that Jn 14.23 had links with 2.13-22, which is obviously concerned with the Temple and where the new Temple is stated to be Jesus' resurrection body (2.21).17 McCaffrey emphasized the word TOTTOS, which occurs twice in Jn 14.2-3 and interpreted it to mean 'temple' or 'sanctuary'.18 He also made a con15. L. Nereparampil, Destroy This Temple: An Exegetico-Theological Study on the Meaning of Jesus' Temple-Logion in Jn 2.19 (Bangalore: Dharmaram College, 1978), p. 90. 16. Nereparampil, Temple-Logion, p. 91. 17. J. McCaffrey, The House with Many Rooms: The Temple Theme of Jn 14, 2-3 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1988), pp. 185-91. 18. McCaffrey, The House with Many Rooms, p. 21.

1. Introduction


nection between Jn 14.2-3 and 8.35 (a verse concerned with membership of the family) by means of the common phrase ev xfj O'IKIOC, thus suggesting that the new Temple is the family of God.19 In his seventh chapter McCaffrey made a brief study of what he called 'complementary texts' where he discerned the Johannine Temple theme, albeit through the lens of his interpretation of Jn 14.2-3.20 These texts are useful suggestions for my research, some of which I will take up in the course of the study. In her recent article21 Judith Lieu highlights the importance of the Temple for John. She says that 'for John, the Temple is the supreme centre of "the Jews". If Paul thinks of "the Law", John thinks of "the Temple".'22 She takes Jn 18.20 as a 'key to the pattern of [Jesus'] ministry'23 and points out that all his teaching is 'in synagogue and in the temple'.24 The Temple (and the synagogue) is the place of divine manifestation. Lieu argues that the Johannine Jesus does not place the Temple under judgment and that Jesus does not replace and fulfil the Temple and its institutions.25 On the other hand she emphasizes that while the Temple is the place of revelation, it is also the place where Jesus is rejected.26 Jesus' glory, which is closely connected with the glory of the Father (1.14; 17.22), is never experienced in the Temple. It is only ever manifested27 to

19. McCaffrey, The House with Many Rooms, pp. 179-83. 20. McCaffrey, The House with Many Rooms, pp. 222-44. The texts are as follows: The New Temple of Truth (Jn 1.14); The New Temple as the Meeting-Place between God and Man (Jn 1.51); The New Temple of Worship (Jn 4.20-24); The New Temple as the Source of the Spirit (Jn 7.37-39); The Sanctification of the New Temple (Jn 10.36); The Goal of the New Temple (Jn 11.47-53); The Glory of the New Temple (Jn 12.41); The 'Sign' of the New Temple (Jn 20.19-29). 21. Judith Lieu, 'Temple and Synagogue in John', NTS 45 (1999), pp. 51-69. 22. Lieu, 'Temple and Synagogue', p. 69. 23. Lieu, 'Temple and Synagogue', p. 51. 24. Lieu, 'Temple and Synagogue', pp. 64-65. 25. Lieu, 'Temple and Synagogue', pp. 66,67. It is true, as Lieu says, that Jesus speaks no words of judgment against the Temple, but his actions in the Temple and the narrative structure of John, imply judgment. 26. Lieu, 'Temple and Synagogue', p. 69. She takes the 'his own' of Jn 1.11 to refer to the Temple. He was rejected by his own people in his own place. 27. It seems that Lieu (p. 68) is making a subtle distinction between manifesting and experiencing the glory. In the Temple the glory is manifested, but not experienced because the Jews are blind. For the disciples the glory is manifested and experienced. Whether 6avspcoaEV Trjv 5o£av auxou of 2.11 will bear that sort of meaning is a question Lieu does not explore in her article.


The Temple of Jesus' Body

his disciples, first in 2.11 and not again until ch. 17.28 And those who respond to Jesus in faith do so outside of the Temple.29 The Temple is never the place of faith in Jesus and never the place of the experience of his (and/or his Father's) glory. It seems to me then that Lieu's conclusions, at least by implication, point towards the Temple being under judgment and that Jesus replaces the Temple as the locus of Father's glory. The significance of this recent article is that it interacts with some contemporary scholarship on the Temple in John, and, while it superficially does not favour my argument, yet it highlights the importance of the Temple in John and I believe its conclusions tend to confirm, rather than nullify, the direction of this study. 1.2.3 Mary Coloe's Dissertation As the research for this study was coming to an end I obtained an unpublished Doctor of Theology thesis by Mary Coloe, submitted at the Melbourne College of Divinity in 1998, entitled The Dwelling of God among Us: The Symbolic Function of the Temple in the Fourth Gospel'. This dissertation is similar to the present work, with many of the Gospel passages discussed being the same (Jn 1.1-18; 2.13-22; 4.1-45; 7.1-8.59; 10.22-42; 14.1-31). Coloe's conclusion is similar: '...the human flesh of Jesus fulfils and replaces Israel's Temple traditions... In Jesus God dwells and achieves a communion of life with us which Israel had sought through cultic rituals.'30 As with my study Coloe's emphasis is theological and thematic with some exegetical underpinning. Coloe tends to treat the text as a whole, and there is, for example, little or no discussion of theories of 28. Lieu (p. 68) comments on the manifestation of glory: '"[Isaiah] saw his glory" (12.41); the reference is to Isaiah's vision of God in the Temple (Isa. 6), now interpreted as a vision of Jesus. In 1.14 this was already proclaimed as the theme of the Gospel and of Jesus' coming: "We beheld his glory." Where else, not just from Isaiah but within the whole biblical tradition, should his glory be manifested but in the Temple?' But the point is surely that although the glory was manifested in the Temple it was only seen outside the Temple by the disciples. Indeed 1.14 contains hints that the glory of God dwells in the Word made flesh and so the Word functions as a Temple (cf. 2.21). I will develop this in Chapter 4 on the Prologue. 29. Lieu, 'Temple and Synagogue', pp. 68, 69. 30. M. Coloe, 'The Dwelling of God among Us: The Symbolic Function of the Temple in the Fourth Gospel' (unpublished Dr Theol. thesis, Melbourne College of Divinity, Australia, 1998), p. 308. See also M. Kinzer, 'Temple Christology in the Gospel of John' (SBLSP, 37.1; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), pp. 447-64.

1. Introduction


composition or redaction criticism. As with my study there is some interaction with extra-biblical texts. Nevertheless there are differences: whereas Coloe tends to focus on literary analysis of the text with little or no attention to historical issues, such as the authorship of John,31 possible audience of John and limited discussion of first-century Jewish responses to the fall of the Jerusalem Temple, the present study has a greater mixture of diachronic and synchronic approaches. There is a further difference on the ordering of the chapters. Coloe has ordered her chapters according to the flow of the Johannine narrative, but I have chosen to order my argument beginning with the most evident presence of a Temple replacement theme in John (2.13-22) and working towards those passages where it is less clear (e.g. 13.1-14.3)—in effect my argument is cumulative. In the third place Coloe has devoted an entire chapter to 1.14 whereas I have incorporated my discussion of that verse in the treatment of the Prologue. Fourthly, while Coloe has no substantial discussion of 1.51, I have devoted a whole chapter, probing it for possible Temple allusions. Fifthly, although Coloe has some helpful observations on Jn 17, she has no extensive exegetical engagement with it as the present work has in Chapter 9. On the other hand, Coloe has an excellent chapter on the Passion narrative that is not present in this work. Coloe argues that the Temple in John finds fulfilment in the Christian community,32 whereas my study argues that Jesus is the primary fulfilment and replacement of the Temple and only in a secondary and derivatory sense is the Christian community the new Temple. Although Coloe has much to say about the festivals of the Tabernacles (Jn 7 8) and Dedication (10.22-42), her treatment of the Passover lacks any systematic engagement with John 6, and her discussion of the Sabbath has no substantial linkage with Jn 5.1-18, whereas in this work both 5.1-18 and 6.1-71 of John are important in the discussion of Passover and Sabbath respectively. Finally Coloe does not mention John 13 as a possible

31. Throughout this study I will refer to the Gospel of John as 'John' and the author as 'John'. 32. Coloe, T h e Dwelling of God', p. 310. Coloe does not deny that Jesus is the fulfilment and replacement of the Temple, but in my view she places unwarranted emphasis on the Temple as the community of disciples. For example, her punctuation of Jn 7.37, 39 favours the rivers of water flowing out from the believer, whereas my punctuation makes Jesus the source of the waters in keeping with the powerful christological emphasis of the Gospel as a whole.


The Temple of Jesus' Body

purificatory entry to the 'Father's house' (the new Temple) of 14.2, 3,33 whereas this study takes up that theme. Despite these differences Mary Coloe's thesis with its many similar insights is a remarkable independent corroboration of the present work and I am grateful to her. There are other works of tangential significance,34 but Coloe's dissertation stands out as the most relevant for this thesis. I turn now to issues of authorship, date and readership/audience of John. These are relevant for my study because in arguing for a Temple theme in John the case is strengthened if I can find (a) the possibility that the author had Temple and/or priestly connections; (b) the likely date of the final composition of John is post-70 CE; and (c) the audience would have some sympathy with and concern for Jewish Temple worship. 1.3 Authorship This study is not the place to survey the considerable literature on the authorship of the Fourth Gospel and come to any definitive conclusion about the personal identity of the author.35 However, I wish to discuss this issue because it opens the possibility that the author had priestly and therefore Temple connections that strengthens the case for finding a 33. Interestingly Walker {Jesus and the Holy City, p. 172) makes brief mention of this: 'All those who entered the Jerusalem Temple had first to make themselves ritually clean; now Jesus [in Jn 13.1-10] offers that cleansing to his disciples.' 34. Of tangential significance is Craig R. Koester's The Dwelling of God—The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament (CBQMS, 22; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1989). As the title indicates, this is a wide ranging survey and the section on John is confined to 15 pages (pp. 100-115) and focuses almost exclusively on Jn 1.14, the only passage in John where it is reasonably likely that the tabernacle is referred to. So it has minimal relevance for my topic. On the other hand, the discussion of the tabernacle in intertestamental Jewish literature has general value as background to the theme of the Temple complex in John. Also of general relevance is R.E. Clements, God and Temple (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965); J. Danielou, The Presence of God (trans. W. Roberts; London: A.R. Mowbray & Co., 1958); Y. Congar, The Mystery of the Temple; M. Barker, The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in Jerusalem (London: SPCK, 1991). 35. In the third chapter of his recent book {The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John? [Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995], pp. 127-224), James H. Charlesworth has a good summary of scholars' suggestions as to the identity of the Beloved Disciple, a question I believe is related to authorship (but see n. 37 below).

1. Introduction


Temple theme in the Gospel. The purpose of this section, then, will be to argue for priestly/Temple connections for the author of the Fourth Gospel. 1.3.1 Internal Evidence The clearest internal statement on the authorship of John is 21.24: OUTOS 36 EOTIv b MOC0TTTT|S o Mcxpxupcov TTEpi TOUTcov KCU o ypdipas TauTcc. It is possible that y p a ^ a s could imply 'had it written by a secretary' and the secretary could have been given some freedom by the author. But an author employing a secretary is still an author.37 Internal Evidence: the Pronouns. The question is, Who is ouxos b M(X0TiTr)s? Tracing the reference back through the chapter we come to v. 20 where the disciple in question is clearly identified as the disciple beloved of Jesus. ' ETTioxpa^eW b TTExpos (3AETTEI TOV |ja0r)Tr|v bv fiyaTra b'lriaous CCKOAOUSOUVTCX, bs KCU CXVETTEGEV EV TCO SEITTVCO km TO axfjSos avxou KOU EITTEV, Kupis, xis EOTIV b TrapaSiSous as;38 This disciple, then, who is beloved by Jesus and close to Jesus, is the stated author of John.39 As indicated in 21.24 this author is a witness and 36. Dodd proposes that TOUTCC refers to vv. 20-23, but allows for the possibility that it refers to the whole of ch. 21 (C.H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963], p. 12). But if ch. 21 belongs to the Gospel as an integral part of it (cf. n. 46 below), then why not permit xauxa to refer to the whole Gospel? Brown (John, II, p. 1124) says, 'A.. .widely held view is that vs. 24 is a type of colophon indicating the writer's outlook upon the authorship (in the broad sense) of the entire Gospel.' 37. Cf. Rom. 16.22; 2 Thess. 3.17; Gal. 6.11. There is no justification for inferring from 21.24, 25 that there were a number of redactors. The natural way of reading the verses is to see them as the work of a single editor who speaks for himself in the first person singular of v. 25 and possibly on behalf of the Johannine author(s) in the first person plural of v. 24. However v. 23 is doubtless to be included as the work of a redactor. It is most unlikely that the author would have concluded the Gospel with v. 23; on the other hand v. 22 would have been an effective ending: 'Edv auTov SeAco MBveiv EGOS Epxopai, TI Trpos OE; au \xo\ CCKOAOUSEL 38. The reference is to Jn 13.23-25. This is the first reference in John to the Beloved Disciple. Richard Bauckham (The Beloved Disciple as Ideal Disciple', JSNT 49 [1993], pp. 21-44 [28]) suggests 21.20 forms a deliberate inclusio with 13.23-25, indicating that the double story of Peter and the Beloved Disciple that began there ends with 21.20-23. 39. Here the author is identified with the Beloved Disciple. This is by no means universally accepted. One recent writer who distinguishes the evangelist from the Beloved Disciple is Sandra M. Schneiders ('"Because of the Woman's Testimony...":


The Temple of Jesus' Body

his witness is true (aAr|0r|s auxou ri papTUpia eaxi v). This is emphasized in 19.35 where the author testifies concerning theflowof blood and water from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus: KCU becopccKcos psMCxpTVpTiKev, KOU aAr|0ivr] auxou EOTIV f| napxupia, KOU EKEIVOS O15EV OTI aXr|8fj Aeye i, \ va KCU h\if\s TTiOTE\j[a]r|TE. There is a double forward reference in 19.35. On the one hand KOU EKEIVOS,40 OISEV OTI aXr)0f] Aeyei, is taken up in 21.24 where the same idea is expressed in the first person plural: KCU o'(5a|JEV OTI aXr|0ris CXUTOU f| papTupia EOTIV. This suggests that the witness in both cases is the same, namely, the Beloved Disciple. We know that the Beloved Disciple was present at the cross (19.26) and therefore in a position to be an eyewitness of the outflow of blood and water and that the soldiers did not break Jesus' legs. Whereas in 19.35 the witness himself vouches for the truthfulness of his testimony, in 21.24 a plurality of witnesses41 (via an editor) endorses the veracity of his witness. The second of course is much stronger. On the other hand, the phrase (va KCU \j\sf\s TTiGTEu[G]r)T£ in 19.35 anticipates 20.31 even down to the textual variant.42 TauTa SEysypaTTTaiiva TnaTEu[a]r|TE. Jn 20.30-31 speaks of the written narrative of chs. 2-20, a narrative of signs that Jesus did. The seventh sign, the climatic and pre-eminently important one, is the death and resurrection of Jesus. I believe this is the sign that Jesus speaks of to Reexamining the Issue of Authorship in the Fourth Gospel', NTS 44.4 [1998], pp. 51335). She suggests that the Beloved Disciple is 'a textual paradigm derived from and realized in the leading figures in the Johannine School in the text through such characters as Nathanael, the Samaritan Woman, the Royal Official, the Man Born Blind, Martha and Mary and Lazarus of Bethany, Mary Magdalene, and Thomas the Twin' (p. 534). The evangelist on the other hand is the single individual who actually wrote the text. Schneiders also suggests that the 'textual alter ego of the evangelist, whatever her or his actual identity and gender might have been, is the figure of the Samaritan Woman' (p. 535, author's emphasis). I think this is overly subtle and therefore unlikely. 40. I take the demonstrative pronoun to refer to the eyewitness himself. Cf. Josephus, War 3.202 as an example of how an author can oscillate between first person singular and third person singular in referring to himself. Cf. also the discussion in Carson (John, pp. 625-26). The emphatic use of this pronoun underlines the importance and veracity of the eyewitness's testimony. 41. Bauckham ('Beloved Disciple', pp. 28-29) suggests the 'we' refers to the Johannine community. But in the light of his persuasive arguments in 'For Whom Were the Gospels Written?', in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking Gospel Audiences (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), it is perhaps unwise to assume that the 'we' does, in fact, refer to 'the Johannine community'. 42. The presence of the same variant in both 19.35 and 20.31 (TTiaT6u[o]r]T6) suggests that some interpreters saw these two verses as being tied closely together.

1. Introduction


the Jews in Jn 2.18-21. He speaks of his body as a Temple that shall be destroyed and then he will raise it up. It is this sign that is witnessed in 19.35. It will be argued later that the outflow of the blood signifies death and the stream of water speaks of life and Spirit (4.14; 7.37-39).43 On the one hand 19.35 refers to the climatic sign, whereas 20.30-31 refers to all seven signs. We are told that Jesus did many other non-recorded signs 'in the presence of his disciples' (EVCOTTIOV TGOV pa0r|Tcov). This implies that those that are recorded were also done in the presence of his disciples, including the climatic seventh sign. We know that only the Beloved Disciple and women disciples were at the cross (19.25-26). Thus in the light of the connection of 19.35 with 20.30-31, as well as in the light of the editor's comment in 21.24,1 believe that the witness of 19.35 is indeed the Beloved Disciple. Internal Evidence: the Beloved Disciple. It is popular to see the Beloved Disciple as the ideal of discipleship.44 It is true that in some respects the Beloved Disciple functions as a model for others. He is portrayed in 19.26-27 as the only one of Jesus' male disciples who is faithful enough to be with him at the cross. And in this respect he contrasts with Peter who denies Jesus three times (Jn 18.16-18; 25-27). The Beloved Disciple may also be a disciple representative of the new relationships established by Jesus' death and resurrection (19.26-27; 20.17).45 But he is not consistently presented as a model and representative disciple. This is especially the case at the conclusion of the Gospel when Peter and the hearers are emphatically and deliberately told that what Jesus has in store

43. See below 44. See, for example, Raymond F. Collins, 'From John to the Beloved Disciple: An Essay in Johannine Characters', Int 49.4 (1995), pp. 359-69 (367): 'In his anonymity and stylization, the Beloved is the epitome of discipleship; he is the disciple par excellence. ..the Beloved is the consummate disciple and authentic witness...' See also K. Quast {Peter and the Beloved Disciple: Figures for a Community in Crisis [JSNTSup, 32; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989]), who combines this idea with the notion that the Beloved Disciple represents the Johannine community. 45. For example, it is sometimes suggested that the mother of Jesus is in some sense the mother of all believers (of whom the Beloved Disciple is representative). R.E. Brown {John, II, p. 926) offers the possibility that Jesus' mother is the New Eve. Earlier he says that she 'is symbolically evocative of Lady Zion who after the birth pangs, brings forth a new people in joy (Jn xvi 21; Isa. xlix 20 -22, liv 1, lxvi 7-11)' {John, II, p. 925). The reference to the new family in 20.17 is a realization of 1.12.


The Temple of Jesus' Body

for the Beloved Disciple is none of their business (21.20-22),46 They are commanded to follow Jesus, not the Beloved Disciple. Further, while it is true that Peter sometimes is adversely contrasted with the Beloved Disciple, it is not always the case. Bauckham47 makes the point that Peter and the Beloved Disciple represent two different kinds of discipleship: active service and perceptive witness. Peter is presented as the disciple who is eager to follow and to serve Jesus (13.6-9, 36-37; 18.10-11, 15). While it is true that Peter could act as a perceptive spokesman for the disciples (6.68-69), on the other hand he is more often portrayed as lacking understanding and perception. He does not see that he cannot be a disciple unless Jesus washes his feet (13.6-9); he does not understand that Jesus the good shepherd must lay down his life for him (cf. 13.37 with 10.11,15); he does not grasp that Jesus' arrest and death is the Father's will for him (18.10, 11); he fails to comprehend and believe the significance of the empty tomb and the arrangement of the grave clothes (20.6-9);48 and he does not recognize that the man on the beach after the catch of fish is Jesus (21.7). But on the other hand, Peter is the disciple who loves Jesus (21.15-17) and who is active in service (21.11) and is commissioned as Jesus' chief under-shepherd (21.15-17). Despite his threefold denial (18.15-18; 25-27), Peter will follow Jesus faithfully even to death (13.36; 21.18-19), and, like Jesus' death, his death will also glorify God (cf. 12.32,33). The Beloved Disciple, however, is portrayed as the perceptive witness, with spiritual insight into the meaning of the events in the narrative. This disciple is represented as having an intimate relationship with Jesus. At the supper he is the disciple who was reclining ev TCO KOXTTCO TOU lr]GoG (13.23) and conveyed Peter's message to Jesus.49 This echoes 1.18 where 46. This argument presupposes that Jn 21 is an integral part of the Gospel. Paul S. Minear has argued this with some cogency in 'The Original Functions of John 2 1 ' , (JBL 102.1 [1983], pp. 85-98). Cf. also S.S. Smalley, T h e Sign in John XXI', NTS 20 (1974), pp. 275-88. 47. Bauckham, 'Beloved Disciple', p. 35. 48. Specific mention of the Beloved Disciple's faith (20.8) suggests that Peter's response was possibly not a comparable faith response. At the beginning when Peter and the Beloved Disciple set out for the tomb, they are together, but thereafter they seem to undertake slightly different journeys. I believe this is a deliberate contrast. Moreover, Jn 20.9 emphasizes that the Beloved Disciple's faith is not grounded on the fulfilment of Scripture, but on what he saw. It was only later that the disciples understood from Scripture that Jesus must rise from the dead. 49. Jn 21.20, which acts as an inclusio, has etri TO OTTISOS

1. Introduction


Jesus the povoyevris 6eos b eov eis TOV KOATTOV TOU TTaTpos EKEIVOS E^TiyTiaaxo. The intimate relationship between Father and Son makes it possible for the Son to make the Father known. Likewise, the intimate relationship between Jesus and the Beloved Disciple makes it possible for him to be a true witness for Jesus.50 It is 'traditional'51 to identify the unnamed disciple of 1.35-40 as the Beloved Disciple. Bauckham (The Beloved Disciple', p. 36) says it is 'almost certainly the Beloved Disciple'.52 He argues that the specific time references indicate an eyewitness account and that this is the only case in the first chapter of the Gospel where there is anonymity. If Bauckham is right about the anonymous disciple being the Beloved Disciple, then, in the course of the narrative in John 1, he was one of the first disciples— indeed, a disciple of John the Baptist, the forerunner, and heard his significant testimony to Jesus as the sacrificial lamb of God (1.35; cf. v. 29). As a result of that, and of Andrew and him spending time with Jesus (1.39), he was in an ideal position to be a witness. In terms of the Gospel narrative he had been in the company of Jesus from the beginning. John the Baptist's testimony (1.29, 35) is realized in the Beloved Disciple's witness at the cross—a witness specifically highlighted by the author's intrusion into the narrative (19.35). The author, the Beloved Disciple, sees theflowof blood and water and sees that Jesus' legs are not broken—signs that this is the Passover Lamb of God. This disciple is the 50. Bauckham ('Beloved Disciple', p. 38) brings out the point of Jesus' love for the Beloved Disciple in contrast to Peter's love for Jesus: '.. .whereas in Peter's case the Gospel emphasizes his love for Jesus, in the Beloved Disciple's case it emphasizes Jesus' love for him. The former emphasis is appropriate for the active role of discipleship as participation in Jesus' activity of serving and sacrificing: it corresponds to Jesus' love for his disciples. The latter emphasis is appropriate for the more receptive role of discipleship as witness and corresponds to Jesus' enjoyment of his Father's love.' 51. Carson, John, p. 154. 52. This is contrary to Schneiders ('Because of the Woman's Testimony...') who suggests the 'other disciple' 'is the evangelist's creation of an "empty set" into which the reader, who is called to become a Beloved Disciple, is intended to insert him or herself (pp. 519-20). But if the 'other disciple' = 'reader' as Schneiders suggests then what is one to make of the details of Jn 18.15, 17, for example? One can perhaps understand that the reader is admitted to the courtyard of the high priest so as to see and hear what happened, but why should the reader then be instrumental in gaining access for Peter? It is difficult to see how the reader can fully insert him or herself into the 'other disciple' in Jn 18.15, 16.


The Temple of Jesus' Body

only male disciple at the cross and therefore he is the only one who can, as a male disciple, testify to Jesus' hour of exaltation. Not only is the Beloved Disciple a witness, he is a perceptive witness. While it is clear that he does not understand any better than any of the other disciples what is going on at the supper (13.25-30; cf. esp. 13.28), nevertheless his breakthrough to understanding comes sooner than the others. When he came to the tomb and saw, he believed (20.8-9). Further, he recognized that it was the LORD on the beach before any of the others (21.7). These considerations mark out the Beloved Disciple to be the author of the Gospel. He was in a position to witness key events in the ministry of Jesus. He was beloved of Jesus and knew him intimately. He was spiritually perceptive. The Johannine community trusted him as their witness. They said O'I'SCXMEV OTI aAr|0r|s ocuxou fi napTupia EOTIV. Internal Evidence: the 'Other Disciple' of John 18.15. Is the aXkos \iaQv\Tr\s of 18.15 the Beloved Disciple? Schnackenburg advances three 'weighty objections' against a positive answer. First, he says: '[T]he lack of an article forbids our supposing a reference back to 13.23.' However, I am not convinced. In 21.2 we have the words KOU aAAoi EK TCOV Ma0r]Tcov auToG 5uo—and it is almost certain that one of these disciples is the Beloved Disciple yet there is no indication of one of these being special. The Beloved Disciple is on a level with his anonymous other. He is not marked out from the others in any way. I see no reason why the author should not maintain the same lack of precision in 18.15. Secondly, Schnackenburg says: '[T]here is no reason why the anonymous one who was already introduced as "the disciple, whom Jesus loved" should not be described in the same way here.' However, it seems that the designation 'whom Jesus loved' is reserved for instances where the disciple is functioning as an intimate of Jesus and therefore a perceptive and reliable witness. The reason why the disciple is not called the beloved of Jesus in 1.35-40 is because that incident depicts the beginning of the establishment of intimacy. In 18.15-16 the aAAos |ja0r|Tr]S' is not concerned with his relationship with Jesus or with being a perceptive and reliable witness. The important relationship is with the high priest (b |ja0r|Tr)s EKSIvos fjv yvcooxos TCO apxiBpet) and it is that relationship that provides the key for Peter's entry to the high priest's CXUATI. There is therefore no reason why the disciple should be designated as the one whom Jesus loved. Finally, Schnackenburg says: '[H]is [the disciple's] acquaintance with the

1. Introduction


high priest not only rules out, with some certainty, his identification with John, the fisherman's son from the lake of Gennesaret, but would also be astonishing for a close intimate of Jesus.' The first part of this reason applies only if the Beloved Disciple is John the son of Zebedee. I shall argue below that the Beloved Disciple is not the son of Zebedee. The second part of Schnackenburg's reason is answered by himself: 'This last, is, admittedly, no serious argument against the disciple whom Jesus loved, because John's gospel knows of still more "disciples" of Jesus in Judea (7.3), describes Joseph of Arimathaea as a "secret disciple" (19.38), and reports much else about Jesus' connections with Judea-Jerusalem (cf. Nicodemus, Bethany and Ephraim [11.54]).'53 An argument in favour of identifying the aAAos |JCX0r|Trjs of 18.15 as the Beloved Disciple depends on comparing 18.15-16 with 20.3-10. F. Neirynck has addressed this comparison in terms of source analysis and redaction criticism and reached the following conclusion: In the hypothesis that 'the other disciple' in 20,3-10 is the evangelist's insertion in the Peter story of Lk 24,12 (or the pre-Johannine source), there is no reason for dividing over two stages of composition 'the other disciple' and 'whom Jesus loved'. The composite phrase of 20,2 can include the evangelist's own double reference to 18,15-16 and 13,23; 19,26. On the other hand it is a reasonable assumption that the '(an)other disciple' passage of 18,15-16 should be assigned to no other than the evangelist who is held responsible for the insertion of the Beloved Disciple texts. This conclusion can be drawn, it seems to me, from the close similarity with 20,3-10.54

There is then the possibility that the Beloved Disciple, the author of the Gospel, was known to the high priest. If this was true, then it would not be a surprise to find 'priestly' concerns in the Gospel—namely, the complex of Temple life—the Temple itself, as the place of the presence of God, and its associated festivals, priestly rituals and sacrifices.55 However, if the Beloved Disciple was John the son of Zebedee, then, as Schnackenburg argues, it would be unlikely for the Beloved Disciple to 53. R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St John (trans. K. Smyth et al.\ HTCNT; 3 vols.; London: Burns & Oates, 1968-82), III, p. 235. 54. F. Neirynck, 'The "Other Disciple" in Jn 18,15-16',ETL51 (1975), pp. 113-41 (140). 55. Given the widespread importance of the Temple, a non-priestly author may also show these concerns, but it is likely they were more significant for an author with priestly connections.


The Temple of Jesus' Body

have priestly connections. What can be said about this? Bauckham (2426) makes a convincing case from internal considerations that the Beloved Disciple is not John, the son of Zebedee. The only time John the son of Zebedee is referred to in the Gospel is in 21.2 where he is linked to his brother James in the phrase oi TOU ZE(3E5CUOU. We know that the Beloved Disciple is present somewhere in the list in 21.2. Could he be named as one of the two sons of Zebedee? Bauckham thinks not. He argues that: The convention that the Beloved Disciple appears only anonymously in the Gospel is well enough established by this point [21.2] for the reader not to expect it to be breached here, especially without any indication that it is and when there are no less than two genuinely anonymous disciples56 to cover the presence of the Beloved Disciple.57

1.3.2 External Evidence I have looked at the internal evidence and seen some signs that the author of the Gospel may have had priestly connections. Now I turn to external considerations. There is one reference that deserves careful evaluation. This is from Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, in a letter written in the last decade of the second century to Victor of Rome during the paschal controversy. It is as follows: ETI 8e KCU 'Icoavvris, o ETT\ TO axfj0os TOU KupioG aVCCTTEGGOV, OS EyEVT10r| k p E U S T O TTETCCAOV TTE(j)OpEKCOS KCU j j a p T U S KCU

SiSaoKccAos, OUTOS EV 'E(J)EOCO K£Koi|jr|Tai.

The words b ETTI TO GTrjSos TOU KupioG avaTTEGcov are virtually identical with Jn 21.20 os KCU avEU£asv...ETn TO OTTJSOS CXUTOU, suggesting that the John referred to is in fact the Beloved Disciple of the Fourth Gospel. It is this very verse that identifies that the Beloved Disciple is the author of the Gospel. Interestingly Irenaeus uses precisely the same words to indicate that John is the author of the Gospel in Haer. 3.1.1: 'John, the disciple of the LORD, who also had leaned upon his breast.'58 John, in Polycrates, is described as i£pEUs...KCU papTUs KCU 5i5aa. The positioning of the papTUs between ispsus and 56. One could hardly say that oi TOU ZePeSaiou were anonymous. James and John were well known and needed no further identification beyond oi TOU Ze(3eSaiou. 57. Bauckham, 'Beloved Disciple', p. 25. 58. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5.8.4 has the Greek b Ken ETTI TO OTrjSos CCUTOG avaTreocov. Did Polycrates copy Irenaeus? Richard Bauckham emphasizes the independence of Polycrates' testimony in 'Papias and Polycrates on the Origin of the Fourth Gospel', JTS 44.1 (1993), pp. 24-68 (31 but esp. n. 26).

1. Introduction


suggests that the word does not refer to the manner of his death (martyrdom), but rather to his function as a witness and therefore both Jn 19.35 and 21.24 could be in view as Polycrates describes John as M^pTUs, in which case the term could well designate John as the author of the Gospel. Polycrates' final statement about John dying in Ephesus accords well with the tradition that John 'did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia' (Haer. 3.1.1). However, what are we to make of the words os £y6vr|0r| 'ispeus TO TTETCXAOV Tre(j>opsKcos? Bauckham argues convincingly that these words refer to John exercising the high priest's office in the Temple.59 He insists that they are to be taken literally. Bauckham's conclusion is that according to Polycrates the John who was the Beloved Disciple, who wrote the Gospel, also exercised the office of the high priest in the Temple.60 Bauckham suggests that because there is no corroborative evidence that the author of the Fourth Gospel was a high priest, then it is very unlikely that he was actually a high priest. How then did Polycrates decide that the John who leant on Jesus' breast was a high priest? Bauckham suggests: The simplest that Polycrates (or the Ephesian Church tradition which he followed) identified John the Beloved Disciple, who had died in Ephesus, with the John of Acts 4.6, not because he had any historical information to this effect, but as a piece of scriptural exegesis. The tradition that John the Beloved Disciple was a high priest is neither metaphorical nor historical, but exegetical.61

But is this likely? I think not. The John of Acts 4.6 is one of a high priestly party who sit in judgment on the two apostles, Peter and John. Is it likely that the author of the Fourth Gospel, one whom Polycrates describes 59. Bauckham, 'Papias', pp. 34-40. 60. Bauckham, 'Papias', p. 44. 61. Bauckham, Tapias', p. 42. Bauckham supports this mistaken (in his view) identification of the John of Acts 4.6 with the author of the Gospel by highlighting Polycrates' confusion of Philip the apostle with Philip the evangelist (p. 42; cf. p. 30). He gives other examples of how different people of the same name were mistakenly perceived as one and the same person. The significant conclusion Bauckham draws from the hypothesis that Polycrates' 'John' is identified with the John of Acts 4.6 is that it is therefore impossible for identification to be made with John the son of Zebedee, for it is this John who appears in the narrative, along with Peter, as one of the two disciples who are there interrogated before Annas, Caiaphas, John and Alexander. Another possibility explored in detail by M. Hengel (The Johannine Question [trans. John Bowden; London: SCM Press, 1989]) is that the John referred to by Irenaeus is John the Elder.


The Temple of Jesus' Body

as napxus KCU 5i5aoKaAos, a disciple of Jesus, would sit in judgment on fellow disciples, indeed apostles? The incongruity of the situation would surely have struck Polycrates so sharply as to make the possibility of identifying his 'John' with the John of the high priestly opposition very remote indeed. We therefore have to look elsewhere to justify Polycrates' description of John as one os eyevTi0Ti kpeus TO TTETCXAOV TTE