7 Graeco-Roman Belief: Devotion to the Gods

‘In Order that You Might Believe’

Reshaping Devotion to the Gods for John’s Graeco-Roman Readers

Christopher Seglenieks

A thesis submitted to the Australian College of Theology in fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy

Principal Supervisor: Bill Salier Co-supervisor: Mark Kulikovsky Supervising College: Bible College of South Australia Examiners: Dorothy A. Lee, Trinity College Theological School, Melbourne Warren Carter, Phillips Theological Seminary, Tulsa Christopher W. Skinner, Loyola University, Chicago

Candidate I certify that the substance of this thesis of 100,660 words has not previously been submitted for any degree and is not currently being submitted for any other degree. I also certify that any assistance received in conducting the research embodied in the dissertation, any editorial assistance, and all sources used, have been appropriately described and acknowledged in the text or notes.

Signature ______Date: 10/10/2019

Abstract Belief is a recognised focus of John’s Gospel, indicated both by the prevalence of πιστεύω and the stated purpose of the Gospel as written “in order that you might believe” (20:31). Scholarly attention has centred upon Jesus as the object of belief resulting in a primary focus upon propositional belief. This overlooks the complexity of the response to Jesus for which the Gospel calls. The intended response to Jesus involves not merely propositional belief, but related ideas such as knowing, loving, obeying, receiving, and abiding. These inter-related ideas convey the complexity of genuine belief, the belief that leads to life. A thorough analysis of the network of terms, in the context of narratives that convey the ideal response to Jesus, leads to a rich description of genuine belief as composed of cognitive, relational, ethical, ongoing, and public aspects. The complexity and pervasiveness of the presentation of belief demands to be accounted for.

The purpose of the complexity of the Johannine concept of belief is especially understood when the Gospel is read in its Graeco-Roman context. By exploring the religious repertoire of a plausible early audience of the Gospel, a picture can be established of the patterns of devotion that the audience may have brought to the text. In light of these patterns, it becomes evident that the author seeks to reshape such devotion to the gods into a form of believing that aligns with the identity of Jesus, the Messiah and Son of God. Christological motivations shape the Johannine concept of belief and necessitate presenting to the audience not only who to believe but also how to believe in order to have life. Reshaping the pattern of devotion of the audience requires a multi-faceted and pervasive presentation of belief, which informs the way the ideal audience is to respond to Jesus.

Acknowledgements Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisors, Bill Salier and Mark Kulikovsky. They have both been generous with their time and their knowledge, they have been accessible when I have had questions, and they have asked questions about my project that needed asking. They have encouraged me both through the challenging stages, and to take chances and get my work out there. They have also consistently affirmed that this is my project, and their comments and questions should only be a guide, which does of course mean I have to take responsibility for what follows.

I am grateful for the community of scholars at BCSA, the warmth and friendship. Katy Smith, Chris Fresch, David Wright and Tim Patrick have all heard or read parts of the project and offered their advice. Indeed, Mark and Katy are largely to blame for me undertaking a PhD, as it was not originally my plan, and now that I have come through it, I can thank them for prompting me to take on this challenge. The help of our librarian Barbara Cooper in obtaining resources has been invaluable, even tracking down things when there was no copy in the country. My fellow PhD students have made the journey more pleasurable by virtue of having companionship along the way, particularly Philip Lock, who has shared an office, along with joys and frustrations, over the last few years. Thanks are also due to Glenn Clarke for making sure we had a space to work in, even as it migrated around the building. Many others have contributed to the process, through questions, comments, suggestions and encouragement, in person, online, at conferences, and through the confirmation process. This thesis has come to life in both a local community and a wider network.

I was told early on that a PhD is as much a test of endurance as of intelligence, and that endurance has only been possible through the support of my family. My parents, Arnold and Gill, with their emotional and material support. My children, Joshua and Hannah, who may not have made the writing any easier, but whose smiles and complete disinterest in my thesis have kept me anchored to the outside world. Megan, for looking after the kids so often, and helping my wife manage while I was working. Most especially, to my wife Stephanie, for love and support in too many ways to describe, without which this thesis would never have been.

Contents Abstract ...... 3 Acknowledgements ...... 4 List of Abbreviations ...... 9 Chapter 1 ...... 11 1.1 Introduction ...... 11 1.2 Literature Review ...... 13 1.2.1 Response to Jesus as Belief ...... 14 1.2.2 Belief as a Binary Option ...... 16 1.2.3 Belief and Sense Perception ...... 16 1.2.4 Response to Jesus as Belief Plus Other Elements ...... 17 1.2.5 Response to Jesus as Relational...... 18 1.2.6 Response to Jesus as Ethical ...... 19 1.2.7 Response to Jesus as Discipleship ...... 19 1.2.8 Response to Jesus as Worship ...... 20 1.2.9 Integrative Approaches ...... 21 1.2.10 Response to Jesus in the Gospel of John: Graeco-Roman Context ...... 22 1.3 Method ...... 23 1.3.1 Approaching the Gospel of John ...... 25 1.3.2 Graeco-Roman Devotion ...... 34 1.3.3 Comparative Analysis...... 37 2 Genuine Belief: Reading John 1-4 ...... 38 2.1 The Prologue: An Initial Standard of Belief (1:1–18) ...... 38 2.2 The First Disciples Know and Follow Jesus (1:19–51) ...... 42 2.3 The Disciples Develop in Their Faith (2:1–25) ...... 46 2.4 Faith that Falls Short and the Need to Obey (3:1–36) ...... 48 2.5 The Samaritans: A Representation of Developing Faith (4:1–54) ...... 51 2.6 Summary of Believing in John 1–4 ...... 56 3 Genuine Belief: Reading John 5–12 ...... 59 3.1 Belief in the Father, the Son, and the Scriptures (5:1–47) ...... 59 3.2 The Hungry Crowd: Understanding Sustains Discipleship (6:1–71) ...... 61 3.3 Knowing, Believing and Speaking Out (7:1–52) ...... 64 3.4 Believing but Not Yet True Disciples (8:12–59) ...... 66

3.5 Blindness or Belief (9:1–41) ...... 70 3.6 Believing: Knowing and Being Known (10:1–42) ...... 71 3.7 Imperfect but Acceptable Belief (11:1–12:11) ...... 73 3.8 The Attitude of Belief: Unhidden (12:12–50) ...... 77 3.9 Summary of Believing in John 5–12 ...... 79 4 Genuine Belief: Reading John 13–17 ...... 83 4.1 Love and Service (13:1–38) ...... 83 4.2 Know that the Father is in Me, and Keep My Commands (14:1–31) ...... 86 4.3 Believe and Abide (15:1-27) ...... 89 4.4 At Last You Believe (16:1–33) ...... 93 4.5 The Disciples Have Believed—May They Be One (17:1–26) ...... 95 4.6 Summary of Believing in John 13–17 ...... 97 5 Genuine Belief: Reading John 18–21 ...... 100 5.1 The Passion (18–19) ...... 100 5.2 A Resurrection Faith (20:1–29) ...... 102 5.3 So That You Might Believe (20:30–31) ...... 105 5.4 A Call to Discipleship (21:1–24) ...... 108 5.5 Summary of Believing in John 18–21 ...... 109 6 Conclusions about Believing in the Gospel of John ...... 111 6.1 Believing as Cognitive ...... 111 6.2 Believing as Relational ...... 115 6.3 Believing as Ethical ...... 117 6.4 Believing as Ongoing ...... 119 6.5 Believing as Public Witness ...... 121 6.6 Genuine Belief in John ...... 122 7 Graeco-Roman Belief: Devotion to the Gods ...... 123 7.1 Conceptual and Terminological Issues ...... 124 7.1.1 Belief in the Graeco-Roman World ...... 125 7.1.2 Religion in the Graeco-Roman World ...... 128 7.1.3 Politics and Religion ...... 129 7.1.4 Graeco-Roman Religion: A Polytheistic Marketplace? ...... 131 7.1.5 Greek and Roman Religion ...... 132 7.2 The Pattern of Devotion in Graeco-Roman Religion ...... 133

7.2.1 Introduction ...... 133 7.2.2 The Cognitive Aspect of Devotion to the Gods ...... 134 7.2.3 The Relational Aspect of Devotion to the Gods ...... 140 7.2.4 The Ethical Aspect of Devotion to the Gods ...... 145 7.2.5 The Ongoing Aspect of Devotion to the Gods ...... 151 7.2.6 The Public Aspect of Devotion to the Gods ...... 152 7.2.7 The Ritual Aspect of Devotion to the Gods ...... 153 7.2.8 Summary ...... 156 8 Further Expressions of Graeco-Roman Devotion to the Gods ...... 158 8.1 The Pattern of Devotion in the Cult of Asclepius ...... 158 8.1.1 Introduction ...... 158 8.1.2 The Cognitive Aspect of Devotion to Asclepius ...... 159 8.1.3 The Relational Aspect of Devotion to Asclepius ...... 160 8.1.4 The Ethical Aspect of Devotion to Asclepius ...... 162 8.1.5 The Ongoing Aspect of Devotion to Asclepius ...... 163 8.1.6 The Public Aspect of Devotion to Asclepius...... 163 8.1.7 The Ritual Aspect of Devotion to Asclepius ...... 164 8.1.8 Summary ...... 164 8.2 The Pattern of Devotion in the Cult of Isis ...... 164 8.2.1 Introduction ...... 164 8.2.2 The Cognitive Aspect of Devotion to Isis ...... 166 8.2.3 The Relational Aspect of Devotion to Isis...... 168 8.2.4 The Ethical Aspect of Devotion to Isis ...... 171 8.2.5 The Ongoing Aspect of Devotion to Isis ...... 174 8.2.6 The Public Aspect of Devotion to Isis ...... 175 8.2.7 The Ritual Aspect of Devotion to Isis ...... 175 8.2.8 Summary ...... 176 8.3 The Pattern of Devotion in Emperor Worship ...... 176 8.3.1 Introduction ...... 176 8.3.2 The Cognitive Aspect of Devotion to the Emperor ...... 178 8.3.3 The Relational Aspect of Devotion to the Emperor ...... 180 8.3.4 The Ethical Aspect of Devotion to the Emperor ...... 181 8.3.5 The Ongoing Aspect of Devotion to the Emperor ...... 182

8.3.6 The Public Aspect of Devotion to the Emperor ...... 182 8.3.7 The Ritual Aspect of Devotion to the Emperor ...... 183 8.3.8 Summary ...... 183 9 Graeco-Roman Devotion and Johannine Belief ...... 184 9.1 Conclusions Regarding Graeco-Roman Devotion to the Gods ...... 184 9.2 A Comparison of the Patterns of Devotion ...... 186 9.2.1 Comparison of the Cognitive Aspect ...... 186 9.2.2 Comparison of the Relational Aspect ...... 188 9.2.3 Comparison of the Ethical Aspect ...... 189 9.2.4 Comparison of the Ongoing Aspect ...... 191 9.2.5 Comparison of the Public Aspect ...... 192 9.2.6 Comparison of the Ritual Aspect ...... 192 9.2.7 Summary ...... 193 10 Johannine Belief in Light of Graeco-Roman Devotion ...... 195 10.1 The Johannine Motivation for Reshaping Devotion ...... 195 10.1.1 Motivation for Reshaping the Cognitive Aspect ...... 196 10.1.2 Motivation for Reshaping the Relational Aspect ...... 197 10.1.3 Motivation for Reshaping the Ethical Aspect ...... 198 10.1.4 Motivation for Reshaping the Ongoing Aspect ...... 200 10.1.5 Motivation for Reshaping the Public Aspect ...... 200 10.1.6 Motivation for Reshaping the Ritual Aspect ...... 201 10.1.7 Summary ...... 203 10.2 Conclusion ...... 204 10.2.1 The Purpose of John ...... 204 10.2.2 Contributions ...... 205 10.2.3 Further Research ...... 207 10.2.4 Conclusion ...... 208 Bibliography ...... 209

List of Abbreviations In addition to the standard journal abbreviations found in The SBL Handbook of Style (2nd ed., Atlanta: SBL 2014), the following abbreviations will be used:

AvP = Altertümer von Pergamon. VIII. Edited by M. Fränkel and C. Habicht. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1890–1969.

BIWK = Petzl, G. Die Beichtinschriften Westkleinasiens. Bonn: Habelt, 1994.

CIL VIII = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. VII Inscriptiones Africae Latinae. Collegit G. Wilmanns. Edited by T. Mommsen. Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburg Academy, 1881

CIL X = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. X. Inscriptiones Bruttiorum, Lucaniae, Campaniae, Siciliae, Sardiniae Latinae. Edited by T. Mommsen. Berlin: Berlin- Brandenburg Academy, 1883

DT = Audollent, A. Defixionum Tabellae. Paris: Fontemoing, 1904.

IDidyma = Didyma. II. Die Inschriften. Edited by R. Rehm. Berlin: Mann,1958.

IEph = Die Inschriften von Ephesos. Edited by H. Wankel et al. 8 vols. Bonn: Habelt, 1979– 1984.

IG II² = Inscriptiones Graecae II et III: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriors. Edited by J. Kirchner. Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburg Academy, 1913-1940.

IG IV²,1 = Inscriptiones Graecae, IV. Inscriptiones Argolidis. Edited by F. H. von Gaertringen. Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburg Academy, 1929.

IG X,2 1 = Inscriptiones Graecae, X: Inscriptiones Epiri, Macedoniae, Thraciae, Scythiae. Edited by C. Edson. Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburg Academy, 1972.

IG XII,2 = Inscriptiones Graecae, XII. Inscriptiones insularum maris Aegaei praeter Delum, 2. Inscriptiones Lesbi, Nesi, Tenedi. Edited by W. R. Paton. Berlin: Berlin- Brandenburg Academy, 1899.

IG XII,5 = Inscriptiones Graecae XII,5. Inscriptiones Cycladum. Edited by F. H. von Gaertringen. 2 vols. Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburg Academy, 1903-1909.

IG XIV = Inscriptiones Graecae, XIV. Inscriptiones Siciliae et Italiae, additis Galliae, Hispaniae, Britanniae, Germaniae inscriptionibus. Edited by G. Kaibel. Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburg Academy, 1890.

IGRR = Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes. Edited by R. Cagnat. 3 vols. Paris: Leroux, 1906–1927.

IGUR = Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae. Edited L. Moretti. Rome: Istituto Italiano per la Storia Antica, 1968–91.

IKret = Inscriptiones Creticae. Edited by M. Guarducci. 4 vols. Rome: Libreria dello Stato, 1935–1950.

IOropos = Ἐπιγραφικὰ τοῦ Ὠρωποῦ. Edited by B. G. Petrakos. Athens: Archaiologika etaireía, 1980.

Isid. = V. F. Vanderlip, The Four Greek Hymns of Isidorus and the Cult of Isis. Toronto: Hakkert, 1972.

LSAM = Sokolowski, F. Lois sacrées de l'Asie Mineure. Paris: Boccard, 1955.

LSCG = Sokolowski, F. Lois sacrées des cités grecques. Paris: Boccard, 1969.

LSS = Sokolowski, F. Lois sacrées des cités grecques. Supplément. Paris: Boccard, 1962.

NDL = Herrmann, P. and H. Malay. New Documents from Lydia. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007.

P.Oxy. XI = The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part XI. Edited by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. London, Egypt Exploration Fund, 1915.

SEG = Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Edited by A. Chaniotis, T. Corsten, N. Papazarkadas, E. Stavrianopoulou and R.A. Tybout. Leiden: Brill, 1923–.

SIG = Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. Edited by W. Dittenberger. 4 vols. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1915–1924.

TAM = Tituli Asiae Minoris V, Tituli Lydiae. Edited by P. Herrmann and G. Petzl. 3 vols. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1981–2007.

Chapter 1 1.1 Introduction More than merely telling the story of Jesus, the Gospels seek to evoke a response in their audience. Nowhere is this clearer than in the Gospel of John, which explicitly states the purpose of the Gospel “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (20:31). Much ink has been spilt over what it means for Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of God, with the focus centred upon the identity of the one to whom the audience responds. Yet what has been underplayed is the Gospel’s extensive and sustained presentation of how one is to respond to Jesus. The concern for the shape of the response that the Gospel seeks to encourage in its audience has been overshadowed by issues around Jesus’ identity and mission. What is often overlooked is the fact that John goes to great lengths to both depict and call for the proper form of response to Jesus. Indeed, it can be argued that the Gospel of John gives as much attention to how to respond to Jesus as it does to the issue of to whom to respond.1 The first key task of this thesis is to understand the nature of the ideal response to Jesus, not primarily in terms of theological content, but as a comprehensive description that encompasses the complexity of what the Gospel seeks to evoke and encourage in the audience.

To recognise the extent of the Gospel’s concern for how one is to respond to Jesus raises the further question of the reason for such emphasis. Thus, the second key task of this thesis is to account for the complexity and pervasiveness of the Gospel’s presentation of the ideal response to Jesus. The recognition that the Gospel has a purpose entails the recognition of an audience which the text is seeking to encourage towards a certain response.2 The precise original audience remains inaccessible to a modern audience, but it is possible to reconstruct a plausible early audience.3 Certain features of the Gospel betray a Jewish background, such as the knowledge of the physical setting of Palestine and the understanding

1 For an exploration of one technique by which the author encourages the audience to question the nature of genuine belief, see C. Seglenieks, "Untrustworthy Believers: The Rhetorical Strategy of the Johannine Language of Commitment and Belief," NovT 61, no. 1 (2019), 55–69. 2 Motyer cautions against separating the purpose of a text from the historical context. S. Motyer, "Method in Fourth Gospel Studies: A Way Out of the Impasse?," JSNT 66, no. 1 (1997): 39. Cf. F. J. Moloney, "Narrative Criticism of the Gospels," Pacifica 4, no. 2 (1991): 182; A. Y. Collins, "Narrative, History, and Gospel," Semeia 43 (1988): 150. 3 On drawing conclusions about the real audience based upon the implied audience see R. A. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 211–223; M. C. De Boer, "Narrative Criticism, Historical Criticism, and the Gospel of John," JSNT 47, no. 1 (1992), 35–48.

of Jewish customs (e.g. purification in John 2:6). Despite this background, the deliberate explanation of those Jewish customs (2:6; 11:55; 18:28; cf. 4:9), along with the translation of Aramaic terms (1:38, 41, 42), indicates that the Gospel is aimed at an audience that is at least in part non-Jewish.4 When this is combined with the probable location of the Gospel in late first century Ephesus, it is likely that a significant proportion of the early audience was from a Graeco-Roman background.5 Whether they had begun to follow Jesus already or not, their religious concepts would have been significantly shaped by the Graeco-Roman religious world.6 An investigation of this religious context, and therefore the religious thought world of the early audience, has the potential to both sharpen our understanding of the Johannine response to Jesus, as well as to point to reasons for the nature of the Johannine presentation. Any resonance or dissonance between the response to Jesus for which John calls, and the response to the gods practised by the Graeco-Roman audience, will illuminate the ways that John seeks to present a distinctive pattern of religious devotion.

The central argument of this thesis is that the purpose of John’s Gospel is not only to present the object of belief, but also how to believe in order to have life. This is especially

4 A mixed audience including both Greeks and Jews is commonly identified. E. W. Klink, The Sheep of the Fold: The Audience and Origin of the Gospel of John (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 176–77; C. R. Koester, "The Spectrum of Johannine Readers," in What is John? Readers and Readings of the Fourth Gospel (ed. F. F. Segovia; Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1996), 5–19. Hengel argues for a predominantly Gentile audience. M. Hengel, The Johannine Question (trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM, 1989), 119. A mixed audience is compatible with theories of either a specific community as the audience (e.g. Brown) or a wider audience (e.g. Bauckham). R. E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (London: Cassell, 1979), 55; R. J. Bauckham ed, The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). 5 The Gospel of John is being read increasingly against a Graeco-Roman background. Recent examples include R. A. Culpepper, "Temple Violation: Reading John 2:13–22 at the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus," in The Opening of John's Narrative (John 1:19–2:22) (eds. R. A. Culpepper, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017); C. R. Koester, "The Wedding at Cana (John 2:1–11): Reading the Text in the Cultural Context of Ephesus," in The Opening of John's Narrative (John 1:19–2:22) (eds. R. A. Culpepper, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017); M. R. Whitenton, "The Dissembler of John 3: A Cognitive and Rhetorical Approach to the Characterization of Nicodemus," JBL 135, no. 1 (2016); K. B. Larsen, Recognizing the Stranger: Recognition Scenes in the Gospel of John (Leiden: Brill, 2008); J. C. Stube, A Graeco-Roman Rhetorical Reading of the Farewell Discourse (London: T&T Clark, 2006); G. L. Parsenios, Departure and Consolation: The Johannine Farewell Discourses in Light of Graeco-Roman Literature (Leiden: Brill, 2005); J.-A. A. Brant, Dialogue and Drama: Elements of Greek Tragedy in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004); S. van Tilborg, Reading John in Ephesus (Leiden: Brill, 1996). This is not exclusively a recent phenomenon, as Dodd argued for reading John in the contest of Hellenistic Ephesus. C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: University Press, 1968), 9. As Buch-Hansen observes, earlier work primarily considered the connection between the Gospel and philosophical traditions. For the history of such approaches, see G. Buch-Hansen, "The Johannine Literature in a Greek Context," in The Oxford Handbook of Johannine Studies (eds. J. M. Lieu, et al.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018). 6 It is debated whether the purpose of the Gospel is evangelistic or encouraging existing believers (see §5.3 for a discussion of John 20:31). However, the ideal response to Jesus is ongoing (see §6.4), thus it is better to understand the Gospel functioning to both evoke belief and encourage continuing belief. J. C. Tam, Apprehension of Jesus in the Gospel of John (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 202–4.

understood when the Gospel is read in its Graeco-Roman context, where the author reshapes devotion to the gods—cognitive, relational, ethical, ongoing, and public aspects—into a pattern of believing that aligns with the identity of Jesus, the Christ and Son of God. Reshaping the devotion of the audience requires a multi-faceted and pervasive presentation of belief, which informs the way the ideal audience is to respond to Jesus. Understanding the function of the Gospel within its context highlights the purpose of the Gospel, to teach the audience the nature of the ideal response to Jesus.

In order to understand both (a) the nature of the ideal response to Jesus which the Gospel of John presents, as well as (b) the reasons for the complexity and pervasiveness of the Johannine presentation of this ideal response, the thesis will proceed in four main sections. The first will establish the contribution of previous research on the Johannine response to Jesus, before outlining the method which the thesis will follow (§1.2–1.3). The second section will investigate of the text of the Gospel of John to identify the aspects which comprise the ideal response to Jesus (§2–6). The third section will explore the Graeco-Roman religious world to outline the patterns of devotion that an early audience of the Gospel may have brought to the text as part of their cultural experience (§7–8). The fourth and final section will bring the biblical text and the context together, identifying any significant points of overlap or divergence between the patterns of devotion directed towards Jesus as opposed to the Graeco-Roman gods. This will enable an exploration of the reasons behind any divergence, along with indicating how our understanding of the Gospel of John might be advanced through reading the Gospel in its Graeco-Roman religious context (§9–10).

1.2 Literature Review When considering previous scholarship, it is surprising to note the rarity of works that focus on the overall picture of the ideal response to Jesus in the Gospel of John.7 Various aspects of the response to Jesus have been studied, primarily in terms of πιστεύω, but attempts to combine the disparate facets into a coherent description are rare. In addition, there is no clear narrative of how scholarly views have developed with regard to the response to Jesus in the Gospel of John.8 Instead, each aspect is dealt with largely in isolation, and

7 The ideal response to Jesus is the response that the text of the Gospel presents as necessary in order to receive eternal life, as summarised by 20:31. 8 The only notable development is the rediscovery of the ethical dimension of John (see below §1.2.6). Even sharp critiques of methods have resulted in little progress. For example, despite Barr’s critique of focussing on a single lexeme in place of a concept, shortcomings remain in seminal works such as Brown’s commentary, as

attempts to combine multiple elements remain limited in scope (see §1.2.9). Therefore, the notable contributions to understanding the ideal response to Jesus will be grouped according to their primary focus. Those studies primarily focusing on belief will be considered first (§1.2.1–3), followed by those which consider belief alongside one or more other elements of response (§1.2.4). Next will be those studies which have investigated the response to Jesus aside from the topic of belief, including those which focus on loving, following, or abiding (§1.2.5–8). The overview of previous studies will show that there remains a need for a comprehensive account of the ideal response to Jesus according to John’s Gospel (§1.2.9). This will be followed by a similar consideration of works that have sought to read John in a Graeco-Roman context (§1.2.10), which will demonstrate that there have been few attempts to understand John against a Graeco-Roman religious context, particularly in terms of a personal response of devotion.

1.2.1 Response to Jesus as Belief

Investigations into the ideal response for which the Gospel calls have centred on belief, based on the identification of the purpose in 20:31 and the frequency of the term πιστεύω.9 These approaches predominantly consider belief in propositional terms, focused on accepting certain truths about Jesus and his identity.10 While these studies highlight the central place that the identity of Jesus has within the Gospel, and the concern that the audience accept that identity, they are limited by their focus on the lexeme πιστεύω, occasionally considering the language of ‘knowing’ as essentially synonymous. The narrow

highlighted by Botha. J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), 206–62; R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966-70), 1:512– 15; J. E. Botha, "The Meanings of Pisteúō in the Greek New Testament: A Semantic-Lexicographical Study," Neot 21, no. 2 (1987): 227–29. 9 N. Ueberschaer, "Das Johannesevangelium als Medium der Glaubensvermittlung," in Glaube (eds. J. Frey, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 451; S. Brown, "Believing in the Gospel of John: The Ethical Imperative to Becoming Children of God," in Johannine Ethics: The Moral World of the Gospel and Epistles of John (eds. S. Brown, et al.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017), 3. 10 Ueberschaer, "Johannesevangelium."; T. L. Stegall, "That You May Believe: The Evangelistic Purpose and Message of John’s Gospel in Relation to Free Grace Theology" (ThD thesis, Grace Biblical Seminary, 2017); Tam, Apprehension, 1; J. Zumstein, L'apprentisage de la foi (2 ed.; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2015), 59–61; D. A. Croteau, "An Analysis of the Concept of Believing in the Narrative Contexts of John's Gospel," (MTh thesis, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002); A. Barus, "The Faith Motif in John's Gospel: A Narrative Approach," (PhD thesis, University of Aberdeen, 2000); A. D. Hopkins, "A Narratological Approach to the Development of Faith in the Gospel of John" (PhD thesis, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1992); Culpepper, Anatomy; F. J. Moloney, "From Cana to Cana (Jn 2.1–4.54) and the Fourth Evangelist’s Concept of Correct (and Incorrect) Faith," in Studia Biblica 1978 International Congress on Biblical Studies (ed. E. A. Livingstone; Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1978); J. T. Forestell, The Word of the Cross (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1974), 103–13; J. Gaffney, "Believing and Knowing in the Fourth Gospel," TS 26 (1965); G. F. Hawthorne, "The Concept of Faith in the Fourth Gospel," BSac 116, no. 462 (1959).

focus on a single lexeme can lead to an over-reliance on analysis of grammatical forms which confuses rather than clarifies the nature of belief.11 Alongside this are approaches which see confession of faith as the primary expression of the response for which the Gospel seeks. This can lead to either a focus on the content of such confessions to identify what they convey of the identity of Jesus, or attempts at assessing the faith of characters on the basis of their confessions.12 A second approach to πιστεύω understands belief in terms of trust or allegiance, a more relational than propositional concept.13 However, the two are not exclusive, and C. H. Dodd combines both the relational and propositional ideas in his discussion of πιστεύω.14 While Dodd’s analysis of the background to πιστεύω may be problematic, his recognition of multiple dimensions to the concept of belief is valuable and has been followed by several significant voices.15 The differing understandings of πιστεύω highlight the need for clarity on its meaning (see §1.3.1.2). Even those who take a broader understanding of πιστεύω still centre the discussion on a single lexeme. This thesis argues

11 Most notable in Hawthorne, "Concept". See also C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (2nd ed.; London: SPCK, 1978), 164; Dodd, Interpretation, 183; J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena (3rd ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908), 67–68. 12 C. W. Skinner, "Misunderstanding, Christology, and Johannine Characterization: Reading John’s Characters through the Lens of the Prologue," in Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John (ed. C. W. Skinner; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013); J. C. S. Redman, "Eyewitness Testimony and the Characters in the Fourth Gospel " in Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John (ed. C. W. Skinner; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013); S. E. Hylen, Imperfect Believers: Ambiguous Characters in the Gospel of John (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009); W. Bonney, Caused to Believe: The Doubting Thomas Story at the Climax of John’s Christological Narrative (Leiden: Brill, 2002); K. Quast, Peter and the Beloved Disciple: Figures for a Community in Crisis (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989); E. Liebert, "That You May Believe: The Fourth Gospel and Structural Developmental Theory," BTB 14, no. 2 (1984). 13 J.-W. Yoo, "The Rhetoric of Truth in the Gospel of John: 'Truth' as Counter-Imperial Reality in the Face of Conflict and Stress" (PhD thesis, Lutheran School of Theology, 2013), 185; C. R. Koester, The Word of Life: A Theology of John's Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008); A. S. Jensen, John's Gospel as Witness: The Development of the Early Christian Language of Faith (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 115; M. M. Thompson, "Signs and Faith in the Fourth Gospel," BBR 1 (1991); E. A. Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary: A Comparison of the Words of the Fourth Gospel with Those of the Three (London: Black, 1905), 32. O’Brien’s emphasis on commitment as essential to belief is similar to allegiance. K. S. O’Brien, "Written that You May Believe: John 20 and Narrative Rhetoric," CBQ 67, no. 2 (2005): 291. 14 Dodd, Interpretation, 179–185. 15 The shortcomings of Dodd’s analysis of the Graeco-Roman use of πιστεύω are evident in light of the work of T. Morgan, Roman Faith and Christian Faith: Pistis and Fides in the Early Roman Empire and Early Churches (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). Thiselton argues that as neither Greek nor Hebrew distinguishes lexically between trust and belief, it is inappropriate for interpreters to do so. A. Thiselton, Doubt, Faith and Certainty (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 61–62. Those identifying both relational and propositional aspects to belief in John include D. Tovey, Jesus: Story of God: John's Story of Jesus (Adelaide: ATF, 2007), 107; L. L. Morris, The Gospel According to John (Rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995); S. M. Schneiders, "Reflections on Commitment in the Gospel According to John," BTB 8, no. 1 (1978); R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John (3 vols.; New York: Herder & Herder, 1968-1982); A. Decourtray, "La conception johannique de la foi," NRTh 81, no. 6 (1959). Bennema similarly states that saving faith involves adequate propositional belief and allegiance. C. Bennema, Encountering Jesus: Character Studies in the Gospel of John (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009). While Ueberschaer primarily refers to propositional belief, she also includes personal attachment (personale Bindung). Ueberschaer, "Johannesevangelium," 467.

that focus on a single lexeme does not do justice to the more extensive picture of the response for which the Gospel calls. Therefore, the focus must extend beyond πιστεύω, even if it remains a central term.

1.2.2 Belief as a Binary Option

Another approach to belief in John has been to categorise the variety of responses that characters have towards Jesus. While John can depict belief as binary, with the only possibilities either belief or unbelief (3:18), most scholars accept that there is a range of responses seen in John.16 However, there are several scholars who reject this idea, and insist that there is simply belief or unbelief.17 In their view, if any character is said to believe, that must be an acceptable response to Jesus. The effect of such a limitation is to overlook the complexity of the presentation of belief. However, this does raise the question as to how faith responses might be best categorised, if indeed there is more than merely belief and unbelief. Raymond Brown, R. Alan Culpepper, and Francis Moloney each give different categorisations, and as the nature of the ideal response is investigated, consideration will also need to be given as to how to understand responses that are less than ideal.

1.2.3 Belief and Sense Perception

The question of how one comes to believe has featured prominently in previous scholarship. Craig Koester approaches the issue broadly, looking at the role of seeing and/or hearing in coming to believe.18 Some unhelpfully equate seeing with believing.19 However, while seeing can lead to believing (2:11) it is not necessary for belief (20:29) and at times seeing does not lead to belief (6:36), for believing requires a volitional response.20 Similarly,

16 Culpepper, Anatomy, 146–48; Moloney, "From Cana," 193–95; Brown, John, 1:512–15. 17 D. R. Anderson, "The Nature of Faith," Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 5, no. 4 (1999); B. W. Henault, "John 4:43–54 and the Ambivalent Narrator. A response to Culpepper’s Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel," Studies in Religion/Sciences Religiuses 19, no. 3 (1990); Z. C. Hodges, "Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 2: Untrustworthy Believers—John 2:23–25," BSac 135, no. 538 (1978). 18 C. R. Koester, "Hearing, Seeing, and Believing in the Gospel of John," Bib 70, no. 3 (1989). Cf. H. Schlier, "Glauben, Erkennen, Lieben nach dem Johannesevangelium," in Besinnung auf das neue Testament (Freiberg: Herder, 1964), 280–81. 19 M. Müller, "‘Have You Faith in the Son of Man?’ (John 9.35)," NTS 37 (1991): 293. Although not equating the two, Phillips argues seeing and believing form a continuum, with different Greek words for seeing as steps towards belief. G. L. Phillips, "Faith and Vision in the Fourth Gospel," in Studies in the Fourth Gospel (ed. F. L. Cross; London: Mowbray, 1957), 84–85. However, the words for seeing are used effectively synonymously in John. J. Painter, "Eschatological Faith in the Gospel of John," in Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology (ed. R. Banks; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 41; O. Cullmann, "Eiden kai episteusen: La vie de Jésus, objet de la ‘vue’ et de la ‘foi’ d’après le quatrième évangile," in Aux sources de la tradition chrétienne: Mélanges offerts à M. Maurice Goguel (Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1950), 55. 20 C. H. Williams, "Faith, Eternal Life, and the Spirit in the Gospel of John," in The Oxford Handbook of

hearing can lead to belief (4:41), but it does not always do so (8:45).21 Several recent works have addressed the role of perception in John, including connections to coming to believe.22 A narrower debate revolves specifically around the place of seeing signs in coming to faith, with a common view understanding signs-based faith as necessarily inadequate.23 While some faith based upon the miraculous is flawed (6:26), John does not present a consistent picture of signs-based faith being inadequate, and belief in the signs is encouraged (10:38; 14:11). The issue is not the sign itself, but what is perceived, and how one goes on to respond to Jesus.24 Seeing and hearing can each be means to believing, yet neither comprise a response.25 Thus, sense perception is not part of the ideal response to Jesus and therefore will not be discussed in this study.

1.2.4 Response to Jesus as Belief Plus Other Elements

There have been attempts to broaden the discussion around belief by including another aspect of responding to Jesus alongside belief. One option is to place ‘love’ alongside ‘belief’, although this results in a similar picture to those who take πιστεύω alone as conveying a relational and a propositional element.26 A second option emphasises the need for endurance, observing the Gospel’s language of abiding notably in 15:1–10.27 A third

Johannine Studies (eds. J. M. Lieu, et al.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 351–52; Cullmann, "Eiden kai episteusen," 56. 21 Hearing can lead to inadequate responses, just as seeing can. Hopkins, "Narratological", 99. 22 S. K.-H. Wang, Sense Perception and Testimony in the Gospel According to John (Tübingen; Mohr Siebeck, 2017); Tam, Apprehension. 23 This attitude derives in large part from R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), 131, 209. Similar views can be found in W. R. G. Loader, Jesus in John's Gospel: Structure and Issues in Johannine Christology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 291–93; C. S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (2 vols.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 1:531; Painter, "Eschatological," 48; J. Becker, "Wunder und Christologie: Zum literarkritischen und christologischen Problem der Wunder im Johannesevangelium," NTS 16 (1969-70); L. Schottroff, Der glaubende und die feindliche Welt: Beobachtungen zum gnostischen Dualismus und seiner Bedeutung für Paulus und das Johannesevangelium (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neuchirchner, 1970), 251– 58. Other scholars see a more positive role for signs in generating faith or strengthening existing faith, including Thompson, "Signs": 107; Koester, "Hearing": 347–48; E. Käsemann, The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17 (London: SCM, 1968), 21. 24 W. H. Salier, The Rhetorical Impact of the Semeia in the Gospel of John (Tübingen: Mohr, 2004), 59. In 2:23-25, the inadequate faith is not directly linked to the signs, and to do so obscures the function of the passage. Seglenieks, "Untrustworthy": 58–59. 25 Similarly, the role of divine election in coming to believe will not be considered. Cf. R. Kysar, "The Dismantling of Decisional Faith: A Reading of John 6:25-71," in Critical Readings of John 6 (ed. R. A. Culpepper; Leiden: Brill, 1997). 26 P. A. Rainbow, Johannine Theology: The Gospel, the Epistles and the Apocalypse (Downers Grove, IL: IVP; Nottingham: Apollos, 2014); Schlier, "Glauben." Unfortunately Rainbow’s discussion unhelpfully places belief under the idea of union with Christ, which is presented in a far more Pauline than Johannine fashion (on the Johannine idea of being in Jesus, see §4.3). While Walter places belief alongside love, it is loving fellow believers rather than loving Jesus. L. Walter, L’incroyance des croyants selon saint Jean (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1976), 18. 27 F. D. Bruner, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 1195; D. Rensberger, "Spirituality and

approach is that the need for public confession of faith accompanies belief in the necessary response.28 A few authors combine three aspects together, such as D. Moody Smith who places love and obedience alongside belief as necessary responses.29 These approaches are an improvement over a singular focus on πιστεύω but they still do not address the full range of responses to Jesus presented by John. The fact that various scholars can put different facets alongside belief shows that the desired response to Jesus in John’s Gospel is more complex than many have supposed, so a comprehensive analysis of the elements that comprise the ideal response is warranted.

1.2.5 Response to Jesus as Relational

Aside from belief, the next most significant focus for investigating the ideal response to Jesus has been the relational dimension. In this area, studies have focussed upon the language of love and friendship in the Gospel, with some extending their study to the language of oneness and abiding, arguing that loving is an essential component of the ideal response to Jesus.30 There can be a recognition that, following the example of Jesus, the call to love and friendship is not merely relational but has ethical implications as well.31

Christology in Johannine Sectarianism," in Word, Theology, and Community in John (eds. J. Painter, et al.; St. Louis, MO: Chalice, 2002); S. Motyer, Your Father the Devil? A New Approach to John and 'the Jews' (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997), 60–61. 28 J. Beutler, "Faith and Confession: The Purpose of John," in Word, Theology, and Community in John (eds. J. Painter, et al.; St. Louis, MO: Chalice, 2002); D. R. Beck, The Discipleship Paradigm: Readers and Anonymous Characters in the Fourth Gospel (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 139. 29 D. M. Smith, "Ethics and the Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel," in Word, Theology and Community in John (eds. J. Painter, et al.; St Louis, MO: Chalice, 2002), 113. There are similarities to the recent work of Bates on πίστις in Paul, where he argues for a response that comprises an intellectual dimension along with personal fealty and obedience. M. W. Bates, Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 92. 30 Focussing on love and friendship are F. J. Moloney, Love in the Gospel of John: An Exegetical, Theological, and Literary Study (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013); D. A. Lee, "Friendship, Love and Abiding in the Gospel of John," in Transcending Boundaries: Contemporary Readings of the New Testament : Essays in Honor of Francis J. Moloney (eds. R. M. Chennattu, et al.; Rome: LAS, 2005); G. R. O'Day, "Jesus as Friend in the Gospel of John," in Transcending Boundaries: Contemporary Readings of the New Testament: Essays in Honor of Francis J. Moloney (eds. M. L. Coloe, et al.; Rome: LAS, 2005). Considering oneness and/or abiding include J. W. Pryor, "Covenant and Community in John's Gospel," RTR 47, no. 2 (1988); E. Malatesta, Interiority and Covenant (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978); M. L. Appold, The Oneness Motif in the Fourth Gospel: Motif Analysis and Exegetical Probe into the Theology of John (Tübingen: Mohr, 1976). Jerumanis investigates believing and abiding, alongside other terms, but primarily as the means to a relationship of communion with God. P.-M. Jerumanis, Réaliser la communion avec Dieu: Croire, vivre, et demeurer dans l’évangle selon S. Jean (Paris: Gabalda, 1996). 31 C. W. Skinner, "Love One Another: The Johannine Love Command in the Farewell Discourse," in Johannine Ethics: The Moral World of the Gospel and Epistles of John (eds. S. Brown, et al.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017), 25–42.

1.2.6 Response to Jesus as Ethical

While historically underplayed, there has been a recent shift to recognise that ethics is a key concern of the Gospel.32 Aside from the explicit command to mutual love, a range of implicit ethics has been uncovered, which comprise an important part of the response that the Gospel seeks to evoke.33 As with the previous aspects that have been considered, the aspect of ethical response has predominantly been considered in isolation from other dimensions. The recent work by Sherri Brown and Christopher Skinner offers hope for a more integrated approach, as it begins its investigation of Johannine ethics with a chapter on belief.34 However, the different facets are not brought together, and not all contributors even accept that John demands an ethical response.35 Thus the possibility of a more integrated account of the response to Jesus does not eventuate.

1.2.7 Response to Jesus as Discipleship

External expressions of response are a primary consideration of approaches focusing on discipleship and following. As with belief, discipleship is used to indicate the ideal response to Jesus (8:31–32), and thus could convey the breadth of response to Jesus.36 Yet most scholars have considered it in relatively limited terms, often taking discipleship as the outward acts done in response to an inward attitude or belief.37 A broader picture of

32 S. Shin, Ethics in the Gospel of John: Discipleship as Moral Progress (Leiden: Brill, 2018); L. M. Trozzo, Exploring Johannine Ethics (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017); S. Brown and C. W. Skinner eds, Johannine Ethics: The Moral World of the Gospel and Epistles of John (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017); R. Zimmerman, "Abundant and Abandoning Life: Towards an 'Ethic of Life' in the Gospel of John," ABR 64 (2016); J. G. van der Watt and R. Zimmermann eds, Rethinking the Ethics of John (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012); J. G. van der Watt, "Ethics through the Power of Language: Some Explorations in the Gospel according to John," in Moral Language in the New Testament: The Interrelatedness of Language and Ethics in Early Christian Writings (eds. R. Zimmerman, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010); R. Burridge, Imitating Jesus : An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 285–346; J. J. Kanagaraj, "The Implied Ethics of the Fourth Gospel: A Reinterpretation of the Decalogue," TynBul 52, no. 1 (2001). Earlier works that rejected the ethical value of John include D. Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Chicago: IVP, 1981), 907; J. T. Sanders, Ethics in the New Testament: Change and Development (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 100. One of the few to continue to reject the ethical value of John is A. Reinhartz, "A Rebellious Son? Jesus and His Mother in John 2:4," in The Opening of John's Narrative (John 1:19–2:22) (eds. R. A. Culpepper, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017). 33 As a basic definition, ethics is concerned with right behaviour. Thus, the Gospel and Graeco-Roman religious expressions reflect an ethical aspect in so far as they seek to establish how adherents should behave. Trozzo, Johannine Ethics, 2. 34 Brown argues that belief is both christological and ethical. Brown, "Believing," 4. 35 A. Reinhartz, "The Lyin’ King? Deception and Christology in the Gospel of John," in Johannine Ethics: The Moral World of the Gospel and Epistles of John (eds. S. Brown, et al.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017). 36 O’Brien sees believing as a component of discipleship, but without showing why believing is a subordinate idea. O’Brien, "Written": 297. 37 Bennema, Encountering; Motyer, Your Father. Collins pairs following with imitation of Jesus, focusing on external action. R. F. Collins, "'Follow Me': A Life-Giving Ethical Imperative," in Johannine Ethics: The Moral World of the Gospel and Epistles of John (eds. S. Brown, et al.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017).

discipleship is seen in Melvyn Hillmer, who includes both relationship and action, although still understood as resulting from propositional belief.38 Rekha Chennatu focuses on the relational aspect, both in divine terms and a community of disciples, with a missional outworking.39 A contrasting conception of discipleship is to describe it in terms of understanding and accepting Jesus’ claims, downplaying the actions inherent in discipleship (13:35; 15:8).40 These divergent accounts of discipleship point to the complexity of the response that John calls for, a complexity that awaits both a comprehensive description and an explanation of its function.

1.2.8 Response to Jesus as Worship

One final aspect of response to Jesus that is largely overlooked in the studies mentioned thus far is that of worship. While worship is mentioned infrequently in John, C. K. Barrett’s suggestion that evoking true worship is as much the purpose of the Gospel as evoking belief, warrants further investigation of the role of worship in the ideal response to Jesus.41 The crucial passage on true worship (4:20–24) has been extensively investigated, both on its own terms and as part of investigating the Temple replacement theme.42 These

38 M. R. Hillmer, "They Believed in Him: Discipleship in the Johannine Tradition," in Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament (ed. R. N. Longenecker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996). 39 R. M. Chennattu, Johannine Discipleship as Covenant Relationship (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006), 176–79. 40 S. M. Schneiders, Written That You May Believe: Encountering Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 2003); F. F. Segovia, "'Peace I leave with You; My Peace I Give to You': Discipleship in the Fourth Gospel," in Discipleship in the New Testament (ed. F. F. Segovia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985). Thomas Elson similarly focuses on a cognitive picture of discipleship, summarising discipleship as faith, understanding, confession and learning from Jesus, all of which centre upon Jesus’ identity. There is an active element as understanding leads to obedience, but this appears to be secondary. T. O. Elson, "Disciples and Christology in the Gospel of John: The Contrasting Function of Disciples in Greco-Roman Biography and the Fourth Gospel" (PhD thesis, Fuller Theological Seminary, 2002), 253–254. 41 Barrett, John, 238. Heil focuses primarily on worship, but includes propositional belief as well. J. P. Heil, The Gospel of John: Worship for Divine Life Eternal (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015), 8–9. 42 Focusing on John 4 are K. Troost-Cramer, Jesus as Means and Locus of Worship in the Fourth Gospel: Sacrifice and Worship Space in John (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2017); B. Jojko, Worshiping the Father in Spirit and Truth: An Exegetico-Theological Study of Jn 4:20–26 in the Light of the Relationships Among the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Tesi Gregoriana, Serie Teologia, 193; Rome: Pontificia università gregoriana, 2012); B. Thettayil, In Spirit and Truth: An Exegetical Study of John 4:19–26 and a Theological Investigation of the Replacement Theme in the Fourth Gospel (Leuven: Peeters, 2007). Those investigating the Temple theme include S. Kasula, "A Shadow Replaced by Realities: The Theme of Temple in Relation to Christology, Pneumatology and Ecclesiology in John's Gospel" (University of Glasgow, 2016); C. Millowick, "Life in His Name: A Biblical Theological Exploration of Temple Allusions in the Farewell Discourse in John's Gospel," (MTh Thesis, Australian Lutheran College, 2009); P. M. Hoskins, Jesus as the Fulfillment of the Temple in the Gospel of John (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006); W. H. Salier, "The Temple in the Gospel According to John," in Heaven on Earth: The Temple in Biblical Theology (eds. T. D. Alexander, et al.; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004); A. R. Kerr, The Temple of Jesus' Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John (London: Sheffield Academic, 2002); M. L. Coloe, God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2001).

approaches primarily identify a shift in the locus of worship from the Temple in Jerusalem to the person of Jesus by means of the Spirit, with the implications of an end to geographic and ethnic limitations on the true worship of God, yet there is less consideration of the implications for the practice of such worship.43 Jerome Neyrey investigates the Farewell Discourse from the perspective of worship, but his approach is undermined by appropriating a definition of prayer as a definition of worship.44 This results in an imposed definition of worship as solely communicative, rather than identifying the Gospel’s own picture of what worship entails. Thus, there is a need to investigate both whether worship is integral to the ideal response to Jesus, as well as what such worship may entail in practice. Recognition that response to Jesus involves multiple aspects which cannot be considered in isolation serves to point to the need for a fully integrated consideration of that response, a need this thesis fulfils.

1.2.9 Integrative Approaches

A few scholars have adopted a more integrative approach when discussing the response to Jesus in John’s Gospel. One of these is Rudolf Schnackenburg, whose excursus on belief links πιστεύω to a range of other aspects of responding to Jesus.45 While helpful in acknowledging something of the range of the response for which John calls, the analysis of responses in John’s Gospel undertaken in this thesis shows that he does not include all the elements which John portrays as part of the response to Jesus. In addition, he fails to fully integrate these terms into a multi-faceted concept that encompasses all that response to Jesus entails, merely identifying other concepts which are in some sense linked to belief. John Painter also identifies a range of symbolic parallels to believing which are part of a complex response to Jesus.46 However, he merely states where these ideas are present, without demonstrating how they form part of the response to Jesus, nor how they are connected to the broader category of believing. The brief statement of these parallels also precludes any discussion of their relative significance, or whether they are necessary or merely desirable as part of the ideal response. Furthermore, the practical implications of these symbolic

43 Burge gives a tantalising glimpse of the possible practical implications of Jesus’ teaching on worship and the Temple, linking it to Stephen’s acceptance of the obsolescence of the Temple in Acts 7. However, he does not pursue the idea. G. M. Burge, The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 196. Troost-Cramer attempts to read the passage as an endorsement of Jewish worship practices, but that negates the idea of change that is prominent in 4:19-24. Troost-Cramer, Jesus, 146. 44 J. H. Neyrey, "Worship in the Fourth Gospel: A Cultural Interpretation of John 14–17," BTB 36, no. 3 (2006); J. H. Neyrey, "Worship in the Fourth Gospel: A Cultural Interpretation of John 14–17-Part 2," BTB 36, no. 4 (2006). 45 Schnackenburg, John, 1:563–67. 46 Painter, "Eschatological," 40–41.

expressions are not discussed.47 These limitations are also evident in the work of scholars who indicate that the response to Jesus involves numerous dimensions, but without indicating on what basis any of those elements are included.48 Therefore, while various aspects of the response to Jesus have been explored, the opportunity remains to map out the breadth of the ideal response, identifying which elements are required and how they connect together, and thus to determine the overall shape of the response to Jesus that the Gospel requires.

1.2.10 Response to Jesus in the Gospel of John: Graeco-Roman Context

In addition to this assessment of previous research on the response to Jesus in John’s Gospel, the intent to investigate the effect of the Gospel’s presentation on a Graeco-Roman audience requires consideration of the ways in which John has been read against a Graeco- Roman context. Reading John against a Graeco-Roman context has been done in the context of a range of evidence from a specific location, as with Sjef van Tilborg’s Reading John in Ephesus.49 Most studies have focused upon connections with particular themes or genres, such as comparisons with Graeco-Roman drama and rhetoric.50 Other studies draw on Graeco-Roman social relations such as friendship.51 These works demonstrate that the Gospel was not only intelligible to those of a Graeco-Roman background, but that the Gospel was influenced by the cultural context, and thus may use cultural features in order to achieve its ends. While the cultural context has been extensively investigated, the religious context has been less often connected to the Gospel, despite the significance of the religious dimension for how an early audience might encounter the Gospel.52

47 Gaffney similarly identifies figurative parallels, without exploring their implications or precise relationship to the concept of believing. Gaffney, "Believing": 219–23. Cf. B. Schliesser, "Faith in Early Christianity: An Encyclopedic and Bibliographic Outline," in Glaube (eds. J. Frey, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 32– 33. 48 Thus Loader speaks of understanding along with allegiance, abiding, obedience, and loving, although seeing all of these primarily in terms of relationship. Loader, Jesus, 293. Similar is the statement by Culpepper that “Receiving the light, which is characterized by seeing, hearing, loving, knowing, and believing, distinguishes those who respond to the revelation of the truth from those who do not.” R. A. Culpepper, "Inclusivism and Exclusivism in the Fourth Gospel," in Word, Theology, and Community in John (eds. J. Painter, et al.; St Louis, MO: Chalice, 2002), 87. 49 van Tilborg, Reading. While Ephesus is the most commonly attributed setting for John, reading against a Graeco-Roman background does not depend on a specific geographic location. 50 Brant, Dialogue; Parsenios, Departure. Cf. A. T. Lincoln, Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000). 51 Z.A. Crook, ‘Fictive-friendship and the Fourth Gospel’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 67, no. 3 (2011), Art. #997; Lee, "Friendship." 52 While some previous studies have explored the connections between Christian groups and philosophical schools, such approaches focus on only one element of the early Christian groups, namely teaching. Cf. C. S. Smith, Pauline Communities as 'Scholastic Communities': A Study of the Vocabulary of 'Teaching' in 1 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012). Yet early Christian groups were not primarily teaching communities but worshipping communities, centred upon devotion to Jesus. Contemporaries

One significant area in which the Gospel of John has related to the Graeco-Roman religious world involves the Imperial Cult.53 Connections have been drawn especially through the titles ascribed to Jesus, noting that similar titles are used of the emperors. The use of titles is often interpreted primarily in political terms, the claim that Jesus is Lord and not Caesar, with the focus primarily on the object of belief. There is some recognition of a religious purpose, with the Gospel instructing and encouraging those who may be influenced or even tempted to participate in worship of the emperor. Aside from the matter of participating in the worship of the emperor, these studies have not attempted to draw any connection between the specific practices entailed in such emperor worship and practices that the Gospel calls for.54 The limited degree to which the Gospel has been read against the religious background of the Graeco-Roman world suggests that there remains the opportunity for valuable insights to be gained by doing so.

This survey of the relevant literature has demonstrated the need for a study that provides a comprehensive assessment of the ideal response to Jesus according to John’s Gospel. The need to understand this response considering the religious world in which it was written is a greater need, which has not yet received the attention it deserves. The following section will present a method for analysing the Johannine response to Jesus and for comparing it with the Graeco-Roman religious context.

1.3 Method In order to answer the questions that have been posed, this study must analyse the

perceived them as religious groups, labelling them as superstitio (Pliny, Ep. 10.96.8; Tacitus, Ann. 15.44.3; Suetonius, Nero 16.3), a term for religious excess (see §7.1.3). Lucian similarly uses religious terminology labelling Christianity as a τελετή (Pereg. 11). Thus, comparison with other religious expressions is fitting. Evidence from philosophers will be included, but alongside the broader evidence for Graeco-Roman devotion (§7.2) for while they could have distinctive ideas about the gods, they usually participated in civic religion, and do not present a sufficiently distinctive pattern of devotion to the gods to be considered separately. While Betz notes connections between Plutarch’s religious writings and early Christian literature, including John, it is a catalogue of lexical parallels with no analysis of implications. H. D. Betz ed, Plutarch's Theological Writings and Early Christian Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1975). 53 W. Carter, John and Empire: Initial Explorations (London: T&T Clark, 2008); L. B. Richey, Roman Imperial Ideology and the Gospel of John (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2007); W. H. Salier, "Jesus, the Emperor, and the Gospel According to John," in Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John (ed. J. Lierman; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); R. J. Cassidy, John's Gospel in New Perspective: Christology and the Realities of Roman Power (New York: Orbis, 1992). Carter and Cassidy focus on the interaction between John and Roman imperial power, but include the religious aspects of the cult as an expression of that power. 54 One other argument is that the Johannine writings correspond to a Greek mystery initiation. However this is highly speculative and has not gained acceptance. E. Russell, "Possible Influence of the Mysteries on the Form and Interrelation of the Johannine Writings," JBL 51, no. 4 (1932).

ideal response to Jesus presented in John’s Gospel, and the forms which devotion to the gods appear to have taken in the Graeco-Roman world. The relationship between the two can then be investigated to move towards an understanding of the effect of the Johannine presentation upon an early Graeco-Roman audience, along with the possible motivations for such a presentation. The study draws on the method of audience reception studies as seen in the work of Bill Salier and Peter Bolt.55 This method has two principal parts. The first is a movement from the text to the implied audience, considering how the text conveys to the implied audience the desired response to Jesus. The second is a movement from a set of plausible real audience to the text, investigating the general context and background that a first-century Graeco-Roman audience may have brought to the text.

However, the method needs adapting to address the question with which this thesis seeks to deal. While it is more typical when conducting a contextual investigation to begin by investigating the context, and use the information gathered to illuminate the biblical text, this project requires a different arrangement. Unlike Salier, who focusses on a single word, the present study is addressing a concept which is represented by a range of words. Thus the focus is not upon how an early audience would have encountered any individual passage or claim within the Gospel, but rather the impact of the concept as a whole, in light of existing concepts of relating to the divine. In addition, beginning with the biblical text enables the formulation of an initial set of categories, a necessary heuristic process to facilitate tackling the broad range of sources that must be considered for the Graeco-Roman context. This is facilitated by the biblical text which has a single coherent presentation of response to a divine figure.56 The categories established from the biblical text provide a starting point for organising and analysing the Graeco-Roman material, but these categories do not exclude the Graeco-Roman material containing elements beyond what is found in the biblical material.57

55 Salier, Semeia; P. Bolt, Jesus' Defeat of Death: Persuading Mark's Early Readers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). 56 While Jesus is a human figure within the Gospel, the Gospel also presents Jesus as θεός (1:1; 20:28). The precise christological significance of the claim may be debated, but the Graeco-Roman world had more flexible concepts of divinity that included not merely the ontologically divine gods, but also humans that may be elevated to a divine status, as well as heroes and rulers who were worshipped like the gods even if their ontological status remains unclear (see more §8.3). The category is broad enough that a Graeco-Roman audience could place Jesus within it. 57 See for example the addition of the category of ritual in §7.2.7. Many contemporary discussions of Graeco- Roman religion are dependent on Christian ideas or categories, even if some recent approaches seek to avoid doing so (see §7.1)

1.3.1 Approaching the Gospel of John

The first part of the thesis is an analysis of the ideal response of devotion to Jesus in John’s Gospel. The principal concern in this thesis is to understand the impact of the text upon an early audience, and what that may indicate with respect to the purpose of the Gospel. Therefore, the text will be treated as a whole, setting aside questions of authorship, composition and redaction.58

As identified in the literature review, the response to Jesus which John presents has most often been discussed in terms of belief. The focus upon belief is understandable given the frequency of the term, and its prominence in the statement of purpose. In analysing the Gospel, πιστεύω will form the backbone of the analysis, with ‘genuine belief’ used as a summary term for the ideal response to Jesus. However, the preoccupation with πιστεύω in previous works has resulted in overly narrow ideas of genuine belief that overlook the breadth of response that is called for. In seeking to analyse the response to Jesus for which the Gospel of John calls, all the aspects which are called for or depicted as part of the ideal response will be included in the analysis.59 In addition to πιστεύω, this includes: ἀκολουθέω (1:43); ἔρχομαι (5:40; 6:35; 7:37); μένω (15:6); λαμβάνω (1:11–12); οἶδα and γινώσκω (6:69; 16:30); προσκυνέω (4:20–24), ἀγαπάω and φιλέω (14:15, 21; 21:15–17); and τηρέω (14:15).60 This investigation will include issues such as the contextual meaning of the terms, their function within the narrative, and their prominence within the broader concept of the response to Jesus. In addition to positive responses to Jesus, negative responses of unbelief will be considered, with responses that fall short of the ideal being analysed to determine why they fall short.61 However, there are several issues around the key terms which must be

58 Culpepper argues for attending to the text as a whole and how it works as a narrative. Culpepper, Anatomy, 5. 7:53–8:11 is excluded on text-critical grounds. B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 187–89. For current views on this passage, see D. A. Black and J. Cerone eds, The Pericope of the Adulteress in Contemporary Research (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016). An implication of this approach is the assumption that there will be a single coherent presentation of response to Jesus, in contrast to von Wahlde who sees multiple traditions with different views on the nature and content of belief. U. C. Von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John (3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 1:431–42. Cf. J. Zumstein, "Croire et comprendre," in Miettes exégétiques (ed. J. Zumstein; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1991), 83. 59 Schliesser advocates an approach to investigating the concept of faith in NT contexts that begins with πιστεύω and then extends it to cover related expression as well as narrative depictions. Schliesser, "Faith," 3. 60 This is not an exhaustive list but covers those terms that have been raised in scholarly discussions about responding to Jesus, with the exception (noted in §1.2.3) of terms related to sense perception and coming to believe. 61 As Walter states, “La théologie johannique de la foi est une théologie de la foi et de l’incrédulité.” Walter, L’incroyance, 17.

clarified before the analysis can be undertaken. This includes issues around the meaning of the English term ‘believe’, the definition and syntax of πιστεύω, and the relationship between the pairs of similar words noted above.

1.3.1.1 Belief: Terminological Questions

One of the deficiencies of some previous work on belief in John has been a lack of clarity around terminology. A first issue is the scope of the term ‘believe’. In some work it appears to be used in the limited sense of ‘propositional belief’ but without defining it as such. Others use it more broadly, without always clarifying what elements might be involved. In this thesis, ‘belief’ will be used to indicate the intended response to Jesus in a way that encapsulates all the elements of the ideal response according to the Gospel, based upon its prominence as a term for responding to Jesus and its use to summarise the required response in 20:31. To discuss the cognitive aspect of belief, the more precise term ‘propositional belief’ will be used.

A second area where clarity is needed is with regard to the descriptors attached to ‘believing’, as a range of qualifiers are used to label belief as genuine, full, authentic, incomplete, inadequate, partial, or insufficient. For the purpose of this thesis, ‘genuine belief’ will be used to indicate the ideal response that the Gospel seeks to evoke while ‘acceptable belief’ indicates the response during the ministry of Jesus which Jesus is presented as accepting (see §1.3.1.4 on distinguishing the two).62 Responses that do not fall into either of these categories will be labelled ‘unacceptable belief’. Chapter three will use ‘devotion’ as the summary term for responding to the gods, as the matter of ‘belief’ appears to play a different role in the Graeco-Roman sphere, as well as being a far more debated concept in scholarly literature (see §7.1).

1.3.1.2 The Semantics and Syntax of πιστεύω

As belief is central to the Johannine response to Jesus, the vocabulary of belief must be defined. The term translated as ‘believe’ is πιστεύω, and the verbal form is used almost exclusively in John.63 Considering first the Jewish context, the πιστεύω word group is used to

62 Genuine belief functions as a summary of the ideal response in the same way that being a true disciple or a true worshipper does. 63 The noun never appears, and the adjective only in 20:28. Thus the following discussion will be conducted in terms of πιστεύω while the contextual use may include verb, noun, or adjective.

,However, the range of meaning of the two word groups only partially overlaps .אמו translate as the Hebrew word group could also be translated with ἀλήθεια or ἐλπίς.64 Whilst some have sought to contrast Jewish and Christian concepts of faith, the use of πιστεύω does not support had a wide range of meaning.65 Thus it is difficult to assert a אמן this, as both πιστεύω and particular understanding of the sort of faith indicated by πιστεύω based upon Hebrew terms. As the Gospel was written to be intelligible to a non-Jewish audience, the Graeco-Roman use of πιστεύω is relevant. In this context, πιστεύω was used primarily in a relational sense, often conveying the sense of ‘trust’, whether in family, business contexts, or between nations.66 It was also practical, in that it relates to how the relationship was practised, in contrast to the later Augustinian formulation of fides qua and fides quae which placed more focus on interiority.67 While the use of πιστεύω could entail propositional belief, this was rarely the focus, even in Christian usage.68 A relational sense to πιστεύω has also been highlighted by Matthew Bates’ recent suggestion that for Paul πίστις can convey ‘allegiance’, which invokes an active sense rather than merely a state of mind.69 As a result of the contextual evidence, the use of πιστεύω in John should be understood as primarily conveying this idea of active relational trust unless there are clear indications that the intended meaning is different.70

64 Morgan, Roman, 8. Morgan has the most complete treatment of the πιστεύω word group in Graeco-Roman, Jewish, and New Testament usage. On background and contextual usage, see also D. R. Lindsay, Josephus and Faith: Πίστις and Πιστεύειν as Faith Terminology in the Writings of Flavius Josephus and in the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1993); G. Barth, "Pistis in hellenistischer Religiosität," ZNW 73, no. 1 (1982); Barr, Semantics. 65 D. Luhrmann, "Pistis im Judentum," ZNW 64, no. 1 (1973); Barr, Semantics. Contra Dodd, Interpretation. 66 Morgan, Roman, 36–122. Silva similarly notes ideas of trust or confidence, M. Silva, "πιστεύω," NIDNTTE 3:760–61. Bultmann gives ideas of ‘to rely on, to trust’ and occasionally ‘to obey’, while in the Hellenistic period acquiring the sense of ‘to believe’. R. Bultmann, "πιστεύω," TDNT 6:177–80. While the idea of trust could also be expressed with πείθω, it rarely appears with this sense in the NT (Matt 27:43; Luke 11:22). In the Johannine writings πείθω only occurs in 1 John 3:19 with the sense of ‘reassure’. 67 Augustine, Trin. 13.2.5 (NPNF 3:169). The practical dimension can be seen in the example that if soldiers had πίστις in their commander they would follow him (Plutarch, Cat. Min. 56.2; Diodorus Siculus, Hist. 13.112.5). 68 Morgan, Roman, 30. In response to the work of Morgan, Francis Watson and Mark Seifrid have both argued for a greater significance to propositional belief than Morgan allows for. Surprisingly, in response to their challenges Morgan rejects even the idea that certain propositional beliefs are presented in the NT as a necessary but not sufficient condition for salvation. F. Watson, M. A. Seifrid and T. Morgan, "Quaestiones disputatae: Roman Faith and Christian Faith," NTS 64 (2018): 258-59. While following Morgan in reading πιστεύω as primarily relational, it will be argued that Morgan underplays the role of propositional belief in John. 69 The analysis that follows will not argue that the translation ‘give allegiance’ ought to be used for any particular instance of πιστεύω in John. As Timmins has pointed out, there are some lexical issues with such a translation within NT usage. W. N. Timmins, "A Faith Unlike Abraham's: Matthew Bates on Salvation by Allegiance Alone," JETS 61, no. 3 (2018): 602–609. However, the similarities between Bates’ idea of allegiance and the concept of belief described here in John suggests that allegiance may be a helpful term for discussing the nature of belief. Bates, Salvation, 5–6. 70 The one obvious case is where πιστεύω appears with ὅτι as this construction indicates information that is to

One initial observation that can be made regarding the use of belief language is that John displays a preference for the verb πιστεύω to the extent that the noun πίστις is never used, and the adjective πιστός only in one verse (20:28). A similar choice of verbal forms over their cognate nouns is seen in the use of οἶδα and γινώσκω and the absence of γνῶσις. A Johannine connection with incipient Gnosticism is unlikely, with the absence of γνῶσις comparable to a similar absence in the Synoptics.71 An alternative explanation is that it is a deliberate Johannine technique that contributes to the presentation of the response to Jesus as active and ongoing.72 This is further suggested by the predominance of verb forms of πιστεύω that indicate ongoing action.73 The pattern of verb forms is suggestive of an ongoing response, and the following analysis will consider whether that impression is borne out by the text.74

The significance of various grammatical constructions with πιστεύω must be considered, as arguments have been made relating to the quality of faith which particular constructions convey. John favours the expression πιστεύω εἰς, which is unattested prior to the NT and only used sparingly in the rest of the NT, raising the question of the particular significance of the construction.75 One argument is that it was used to convey personal trust, but given that the idea of personal trust is primary in contextual use without the preposition, this is unlikely. An associated argument is that the use of εἰς reflects the use of Hebrew rather than (האמיו ב) prepositions, and thus the Hebrew expressions indicating personal trust

be trusted rather than a person. 71 Γνῶσις appears twice in Luke, and not in Matthew or Mark. Painter suggests NT documents with more connection to Gnosticism that use γνῶσις more, such as 1&2 Corinthians. Painter, "Eschatological," 37–38. Contra Hillmer, "They Believed," 84. 72 Thus the common suggestion that faith is dynamic, or a process. Wang, Sense, 46; Schliesser, "Faith," 32; Brown, "Believing," 4; O’Brien, "Written": 302. Morgan argues that contextually the noun πίστις would not have been understood as inactive, but that does not negate the idea that the verb may convey a more active sense. Morgan, Roman, 395. To replicate in English the Johannine preference for the verb is grammatically awkward, hence the common use of the noun in this thesis. 73 Johannine use can be compared to Luke: where Luke uses the aorist in five out of eight instances, in John two-thirds of uses are forms which convey ongoing action (66 of the 98 instances are either present, imperfect or perfect). This contradicts the argument of Barrosse that John’s use of verb forms reflects less interest in faith as growing or ongoing. T. Barrosse, "The Relationship of Love to Faith in St John," TS 18 (1957): 542. 74 Morgan suggests both that the verb has a narrower range of meaning focused upon trusting and believing, and that Johannine use of the verb may have been influenced by Septuagintal patterns, while acknowledging that this does not provide a complete explanation. Morgan, Roman, 396–97; Williams, "Faith," 349. 75 It is used 36 times in John but only once in the Synoptics in Matthew 18:6. Some manuscripts of Mark 9:42 also read εἰς ἐμε, but this reading is doubtfuĺ.

as background for the use of εἰς.76 However, while the LXX translators (האמיו ל) mere belief

with a Greek preposition, they never used ב often sought to reflect the Hebrew preposition

εἰς.77 As a result, a parallel between the Greek and Hebrew use of prepositions is unlikely. At least part of the Johannine usage can be explained through two trends in Greek: first, the use of prepositions over the simple dative was increasing (seen in the LXX use of prepositions with πιστεύω 10x and the dative 42x; the NT uses prepositions 61x to 40x with the dative); and second, there was a trend to replace ἐν with εἰς.78

Yet trends in the Greek language alone do not explain the distinctive Johannine usage. There are several further arguments for the significance of εἰς in Johannine usage. Gerald Hawthorne argues that πιστεύω εἰς is used to reflect genuine belief, as opposed to lesser forms of belief.79 Yet he admits that not all uses fit well with that scheme. Instead, there is a significant degree of overlap between the use of πιστεύω εἰς and πιστεύω with the dative, and neither appears to exclusively indicate a particular quality of belief.80 However, the dative appears with a broader range of objects, indicating trust in various witnesses (Scripture, Jesus’ words and works), and thus it encompasses ‘credence’ as well as personal trust.81 In contrast, πιστεύω εἰς only appears with a personal object, which in all but one case is Jesus (the exception is God in 14:1). The uniqueness of the εἰς expression suggests some particular significance, and parallels can be drawn with the use of ἐν with both εἰμί and μένω to indicate an intimate relationship (see §4.1.2–3), suggesting that the use of εἰς may indicate movement

76 These arguments are found in Forestell, Word, 105; Dodd, Interpretation, 183; F.-M. Braun, Jean le théologien (3 vols.; Paris: Gabalda, 1959), 3:121; W. Turner, "Believing and Everlasting Life—A Johannine Inquiry," ExpT 64, no. 2 (1952): 51. Harris suggests the link is possible. M. J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 236. 77 The LXX uses πιστεύω 81 times, and of those 10 have prepositions (ἐν 5x, ἐπι 2x and 3 uses of κατα to indicate the object of belief in Job; this preposition is never used with πιστεύω in the New Testament) 78 D. A. Black, Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek: A Survey of Basic Concepts and Applications (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 157–58. Bortone argues that the main reason for the use of εἰς must be contemporary usage, on account of the modern use of πιστεύω σέ, but unfortunately provides no evidence of such use outside the New Testament. P. Bortone, Greek Prepositions from Antiquity to the Present (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 182. John uses πιστεύω with ἐν once (3:15), with no apparent distinction from has εἰς. Εἰς in particular is likely a א εἰς. There is some textual uncertainty as 픓75, B read ἐν, 픓66 ἐπι and harmonisation to Johannine style, and ἐν is better attested than ἐπι. Metzger, Textual, 175. 79 Hawthorne, "Concept". 80 Harris, Prepositions, 236; Painter, "Eschatological," 40; Bultmann, TDNT 6:222. 81 Ueberschaer argues that πιστεύω with the dative particularly presents Jesus as messenger of God, but while it is used to indicate belief in Jesus’ words, it does not do so in contexts where Jesus is depicted as a messenger. Ueberschaer, "Johannesevangelium," 458.

into such an intimate relationship.82 However, it is not a fundamentally different response, as both εἰς and the dative can be used to indicate a sufficient response to Jesus and the idea of personal trust when used with a personal object.83 A divergent view is that of Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh, who argue that πιστεύω εἰς conveys no unique information about the nature of belief. Instead they see it serving a sociological function, identifying εἰς as an element of Johannine antilanguage which contributes to defining a sectarian group.84 Whilst Johannine language may have sociological functions, Malina and Rohrbaugh take it too far in allowing sociological function to rule out any other meaning.85 Arguing against content to belief goes against the use of πιστεύω with ὅτι, which conveys propositional belief.86 Finally, the absolute use of πιστεύω should not be overtheologised as indicating absolute trust, but instead should be assumed to have an implied object, primarily indicating trust in the same sense as in other constructions.87 Thus, the uses of πιστεύω absolutely, with the dative, or with εἰς, are largely overlapping, and the quality of faith denoted can only be determined by the context, with εἰς suggestive of faith as a personal relationship and ὅτι indicating propositional belief.88

1.3.1.3 Word pairs and Johannine style

The list of significant words for analysing the Johannine response to Jesus includes two pairs of words with similar meaning (οἶδα and γινώσκω; ἀγαπάω and φιλέω). It has been observed that John favours stylistic variations, at times using similar words to convey

82 de la Potterie argues for εἰς retaining a sense of motion towards, thus the dynamic act of faith alongside internal adhesion, which may add to the intensification of the image. I. de la Potterie, "L'emploi dynamique de εἰς dans Saint Jean et ses incidences théologiques," Bib 43, no. 3 (1962): 376; Bruner, John, 203; Schneiders, "Reflections": 45. 83 Painter similarly argues the dative is used to express witnesses and εἰς a personal element, but the personal element is not limited to that expression. Painter, "Eschatological," 38–39. 84 B. J. Malina and R. L. Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1998), 14. 85 A more comprehensive argument against this idea of ‘antilanguage’ is found in D. A. Lamb, Text, Context and the Johannine Community: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of the Johannine Writings (New York/London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015). 86 Morgan, Roman, 30; Harris, Prepositions, 237. Dunn presents a confused understanding of this construction, arguing both that it is essentially equivalent to πιστεύω εἰς, but also that faith characterised as πιστεύω ὅτι is insufficient. J. D. G. Dunn, Neither Jew Nor Greek: A Contested Identity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 357– 58. 87 Both Schnackenburg and Schneiders place too much emphasis on the absolute use. Schneiders, Written, 52; Schnackenburg, John, 1:561. Croteau notes the increased use of πιστεύω absolutely later in the Gospel, the object of belief having been established. Croteau, "Analysis," 127. 88 Williams, "Faith," 349; Schliesser, "Faith," 32; Tam, Apprehension, 39–41.

essentially the same idea.89 In the case of οἶδα and γινώσκω, Ignace de la Potterie has made a case that the two have distinct meanings as used in John.90 However, his assessments are at times forced, and not all examples fit easily within his scheme (such as 17:25). Other works on these two words in other New Testament contexts have pointed to some of the complexities around assessing the degree of synonymity that may occur, along with the degree to which classical distinctions in meaning may be preserved.91 There has been similar debates over ἀγαπάω and φιλέω, notably around whether there is a significant difference of meaning in their use in John 21:15–17.92 In that passage, the other words pairs which do not exhibit clearly distinguishable meanings suggests that stylistic variation is most likely. The two can also be used interchangeably in some settings, to refer to the Beloved Disciple (20:2; 21:7), to divine love for the disciples (16:27; 17:23), or to love between the Father and the Son (3:35; 5:20). A lack of agreement regarding synonymity is also evident for other Johannine word pairs such as ἀποστέλλω and πέμπω.93 The difficulty in drawing distinctions between the various Johannine word pairs warns against overemphasising any possible differences in meaning.94 At the same time, it is unlikely that the pairs are truly synonymous, and different nuances of meaning may be evident in some instances. In the absence of any

89 L. Morris, "Variation - A Feature of the Johaninne Style," in Studies in the Fourth Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 293–320; contra Abbott, Johannine, 103–52. 90 I. de la Potterie, "οἶδα et γινώσκω les deux modes de la connaissance dans le quatrième évangile," Bib 40, no. 3 (1959); Braun, Jean, 3:135. 91 These issues include a preference for one verb in certain constructions, or in certain tenses, particularly with the limited tense forms that are found for οἶδα. R. J. Erickson, "Oida and Ginōskō and Verbal Aspect in Pauline Usage," WTJ 44, no. 1 (1982); M. Silva, "The Pauline Style as Lexical Choice: ΓΙΝΩΣΚΕΙΝ and Related Verbs," in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce (eds. D. A. Hagner, et al.; Exeter: Paternoster, 1980); D. W. Burdick, "Οἰδα and Γινώσκω in the Pauline Epistles," in New Dimensions in New Testament Study (eds. R. N. Longenecker, et al.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974). 92 Understanding a distinction in meaning are D. Shepherd, "'Do You Love Me?' A Narrative-Critical Reappraisal of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in John 21:15–17," JBL 129, no. 4 (2010); S. E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament: With Reference to Tense and Mood (New York: Peter Lang, 1993), 285; K. L. McKay, "Style and Significance in the Language of John 21:15–17," NovT 27, no. 4 (1985). Arguing that they are synonymous in this context are J. Frey, "Glauben und Lieben im Johannesevangelium," in Glaube, Liebe, Gespräch: Neue Perspektiven johanneischer Ethik (eds. C. Hoegen-Rohls, et al.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018), 22; J. Frey, "Love Relationships in the Fourth Gospel: Establishing a Semantic Network," in Repetitions and Variations in the Fourth Gospel. Style, Text, Interpretation (eds. G. Van Belle, et al.; Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 176; D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 676–77; J. Barr, "Words for Love in Biblical Greek," in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology in Memory of George Bradford Caird (eds. L. D. Hurst, et al.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). Lee has argued that the difference between the terms is one of formality rather than meaning. J. A. L. Lee, "The Puzzle of John 21:15-17: A Formality Solution," NovT 59, no. 1 (2017): 27–30. 93 A. Köstenberger, "The Two Johannine Verbs for Sending: A Study of John's Use of Words with Reference to General Linguistic Theory," in Linguistics and the New Testament: Critical Junctures (eds. S. E. Porter, et al.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999); C. Mercer, "ἈΠΟΣΤΕΛΛΕΙΝ and ΠΕΜΠΕΙΝ in John," NTS 36 (1990). 94 Thus Francis T. Gignac, "The Use of Verbal Variety in the Fourth Gospel," in Transcending Boundaries: Contemporary Readings of the New Testament: Essays in Honor of Francis J. Moloney (eds. R. M. Chennattu, et al.; Rome: LAS, 2005), 191–200.

clear evidence for a particular nuance in a specific situation, however, the pairs will be treated as effectively synonymous.

1.3.1.4 Narrative Features

In this study, attention will be given to salient narrative features.95 The ideal response to Jesus is unfolded across the narrative, and the investigation will work through the text as a audience would, being aware of the preceding narrative but not what is to come.96 However, as the audience may encounter the Gospel multiple times, interpretation based upon the overall Gospel is also valid.97 The role of rhetorical features such as irony and misunderstanding will be considered in so far as they contribute to conveying the ideal response to Jesus.98 Alongside this, the way characters convey responses will be investigated. This will be informed by the character evaluation methodology of Cornelis Bennema, which emphasises an analysis of the characters’ responses to Jesus, through words, actions and the commentary of the narrator.99 The contribution of the narrator and point of view are also important to broader questions of how John works, especially with regard to how the responses of characters within the narrative relate to the response that the text seeks to evoke in the audience.

95 On narrative approaches see Culpepper, Anatomy; M. W. G. Stibbe, John as Storyteller: Narrative Criticism and the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); J. L. Resseguie, Narrative Criticism of the New Testament: An Introduction (Grand Rapid: Baker Academic, 2005). 96 This idea can be referred to as ‘internal context’. This approach is used by Moloney in his 3 volume narrative commentary. F. J. Moloney, Belief in the Word: Reading John 1–4 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993); F. J. Moloney, Signs and Shadows: Reading John 5–12 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996); F. J. Moloney, Glory not Dishonor: Reading John 13–21 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998). Cf. P. C. J. Riley, The Lord of the Gospel of John (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 5; M. A. Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? A New Approach to the Bible (London: SPCK, 1993), 17. Lieu notes a shortcoming of Morgan’s analysis of πιστεύω in John regarding a lack of concern for literary context. J. M. Lieu, "Faith and the Fourth Gospel: A Conversation with Teresa Morgan," JSNT 40, no. 3 (2018): 293. 97 It is probable that many of John’s audience would have already had some knowledge of the Jesus story, possibly from other sources such as Mark. D. M. Smith, John (Nashville: Abingdon, 1999), 29; R. J. Bauckham, "John for Readers of Mark," in The Gospels for All Christians (ed. R. J. Bauckham; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); F. J. Moloney, The Gospel of John (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998), 17. Moloney suggests that no early reader would have been a ‘virginal’ reader. F.J. Moloney, ‘Excursus: Narrative Approaches to the Fourth Gospel,’ in R.E. Brown, An Introduction to the Gospel of John (New Haven: Yale, 2003), 30–39. 98 The broader functions of these individual elements have been studied, so the question is not about how these features work, but rather what they convey of the ideal response. On these features see G. R. O'Day, Revelation in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Mode and Theological Claim (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986); P. D. Duke, Irony in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985); D. A. Carson, "Understanding Misunderstandings in the Fourth Gospel," TynBul 33 (1982). 99 C. Bennema, "Character Reconstruction in the New Testament (1): The Theory," ExpT 127, no. 8 (2016); C. Bennema, "Character Reconstruction in the New Testament (2): The Practice," ExpT 127, no. 9 (2016); C. Bennema, A Theory of Character in New Testament Narrative (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014); Bennema, Encountering. For a broader context of character studies, see S. A. Hunt, D. F. Tolmie and R. Zimmerman eds, Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 1–33.

In light of the insights of narrative approaches, several terminological clarifications are needed. When this study speaks of the ‘author’, this is to be understood as the ‘implied author’ rather than making any claims about the real author.100 The implied author is the author as represented in the text, who is distinct from the narrator, as the narrator speaks within the text, whereas the implied author does not.101 In terms of the audience, this study is concerned with two different audience constructs.102 The first is the implied audience, who is the audience that can be determined from the text. The implied audience will be in view in §2–6 in the analysis of the Gospel text. The second is the plausible early audience, someone of Graeco-Roman background from Ephesus or the surrounding regions, whose religious repertoire will be reconstructed in §7–8. The impact of the ideal response to Jesus on such a plausible early audience will be investigated in §9–10, in order to determine the effect and purpose of the Johannine presentation.

A distinctive feature of the reading strategy adopted by this thesis is to distinguish between the story and discourse levels of the text, following Seymour Chatman.103 The story level is the action within the story, the world which is represented within the text, while the discourse level refers to communication between the author and the audience, or at least the implied author and implied audience. The narrator distinguishes these two levels, creating a temporal separation between the events happening within the story and the later, post- resurrection perspective of the implied author and their communication with the audience. This distinction has rarely been applied to the Gospel, and where it has its potential for understanding the characters within the narrative has not been exploited. it has not always been applied thoroughly.104 Yet this distinction is evident in the text of John, as the narrator

100 The identity of the real author is beyond the scope of this thesis. 101 On the implied audience in John, see F. J. Moloney, "Who is 'the Reader' in/of the Fourth Gospel?," ABR 40 (1992); Culpepper, Anatomy, 205–27. 102 Some narrative approaches also include the narratee, but in John this is indistinguishable from the implied audience. Culpepper, Anatomy, 206. 103 S. B. Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978). For a sustained argument for such a reading of John, see C. Seglenieks, "Faith and Narrative: A Two-Level Reading of Belief in the Gospel of John," TynBul 70, no. 1 (2019), 23–40. 104 Culpepper observes the retrospective point of view of the Gospel without using the terminology of story and discourse, as the narrator looks back to events that took place at an earlier time; this point of view is not connected to the understanding of the characters within the narrative. Culpepper, Anatomy, 28. Tolmie works with the narrative at two levels, but he distinguishes between story and text, to different ends. D. F. Tolmie, Jesus' Farewell to the Disciples: John 13:1–17:26 in Narratological Perspective (Leiden: Brill, 1995). Bolt refers to the limited use of the story/discourse distinction in NT studies. Bolt, Jesus, 4.

repeatedly distinguishes between limited understanding during the time of Jesus’ ministry, and later more complete understanding (2:22; 12:16; 20:8–9).105 An awareness of such a distinction allows for separating what may have formed an acceptable response during Jesus’ ministry (acceptable belief), when all characters had a limited understanding of Jesus’ identity and mission, and the response that the audience of the Gospel is to emulate (genuine belief). Recognising such a distinction allows the disciples and some other characters to be read as positive models of belief despite their misunderstandings, while at the same time recognising that a more complete understanding may be required from those responding to Jesus after the cross.

These elements of exegesis, narrative and characterisation will be combined to present a comprehensive account of the intended response to Jesus in John’s Gospel, moving from the text to the implied audience.

1.3.2 Graeco-Roman Devotion

The second part of this thesis will analyse what was entailed in devotion to the gods in the Graeco-Roman world. The term ‘devotion’ is used rather than ‘belief’, as the term ‘belief’ is potentially problematic in a Graeco-Roman context (see §7.1.1). As already stated, features of the Gospel suggest at least part of the intended audience was non-Jewish. The internal evidence, alongside the broad consensus that the Gospel of John was written in first-century Ephesus leads to a focus on the Graeco-Roman religious world.106 The investigation will not limit itself to first-century Ephesus, but will take a broader scope, focusing on the regions of Greece and Asia Minor, and the 1st century BC–2nd century AD. The aim is not an exhaustive study of all the variations in devotion that may have been present, but to establish the common patterns of devotion. Nor is this study concerned with the ‘theology’ of Graeco-

105 Zumstein, "Mémoire," 308–9. Richard Hays suggests that the scene in 2:13–22 serves to teach the reader how to read what follows. R. B. Hays, "Reading Scripture in Light of the Resurrection," in The Art of Reading Scripture (eds. E. F. Davis, et. al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 221. 106 Those favouring late first (or early second) century Ephesus as the location for the final form of the Gospel include: U. Schnelle, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (5 ed.; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2016), 7–9; E. W. Klink, John (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), 59–60; M. M. Thompson, John (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2015), 20–22; J. Frey, "The Diaspora-Jewish Background of the Fourth Gospel," SEÅ 77 (2012): 190; Brown, Introduction, 199–215; Keener, John, 126, 140; Barrett, John, 128–32; Schnackenburg, John, 1:152, 196; Hengel, Johannine, 119–133. Anderson argues that post-70 AD Ephesus makes sense of the Gentile orientation but Jewish background of the Gospel. P. N. Anderson, "On 'Seamless Robes' and 'Leftover Fragments'—A Theory of Johannine Composition," in The Origins of John's Gospel (eds. S. E. Porter, et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2016), 209.

Roman religion, if such a term can even be used.107 The variations by region or by deity will only be noted where there is evidence for a significant divergence of practice.108 This will enable a consideration of how the concept presented in John might interact with the repertoire of a typical Graeco-Roman audience.

The absence of authoritative religious texts, or rather the multiplicity of religious texts, none with any special place in determining the nature of devotion, will require the consideration of a range of source materials.109 This includes literary texts, such as treatises on religious matters (such as Plutarch, Is. Os., Superst.; Cicero, Nat. d.; Valerius Maximus, Fact. dict. mem.) along with descriptions of practices, which may come in historical or descriptive works (the works of Pausanias, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, breCassius, Suetonius, and Tacitus) or fictional ones (Apuleius, Metam.).110 Inscriptions also bear witness to religious matters, whether declaring the identity of the deity (such as the Isis stelae, see §8.2.2) or describing the experiences of those participating in devotion to the gods (such as IG IV2 1.121–124). These sources are primarily descriptive rather than prescriptive, aside from the so-called sacred laws, which may prescribe certain acts and proscribe others. The sources will be analysed for descriptions of how people related to the divine, looking for both outward expressions (e.g. rituals and responses), and inner experiences (e.g. dreams and visions). The sources will also be examined for direct expressions of relating to the divine in forms including praise and prayers directed to the gods. From these sources a composite picture of what was involved in devotion to the gods will be compiled.

The religious world of the first century was not monolithic, and thus several different expressions of religious devotion that were significant within the eastern Mediterranean

107 On the use of ‘theology’ with reference to Graeco-Roman religion, see J. Kindt, "The Story of Theology and the Theology of the Story," in Theologies of Ancient Greek Religion (eds. J. Kindt, et al.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016). The degree to which propositional belief played a role will be relevant, but the precise nature of any such beliefs is less important. For a discussion of belief and theology as related to Graeco-Roman religion, see §7.1.1. 108 Such as noted in §7.2.4 on Lydia and Phrygia. In addition, several cults which appear distinct from the worship of the traditional Olympian pantheon will be considered separately, see below. 109 The issue is that there were many sacred texts, yet none were preeminent or comprehensive. A. Bendlin, "Religion at Rome," in Themes in Roman Society and Culture (eds. M. Gibbs, et al.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 194. 110 The individual sources each provide one perspective regarding devotion to the divine, shaped by the author’s purposes and experiences. It is by putting together a range of sources that broader patterns of devotion might be discerned. See Momigliano on the usefulness of biographical works for the study of ancient religion, including those of Apuleius and Lucian. A. Momigliano, On Pagans, Jews, and Christians (Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press, 1987), 167–69.

world will be considered. The first is the mainstream devotion to the Olympian gods, and their Roman equivalents (§7.2). The second is the cult of Asclepius, which was popular in both Greece and Asia Minor. It has been argued that the cult of Asclepius was the greatest competitor for early Christianity, and that along with features such as the origin of the cult and the healing focus suggest that it may involve a different pattern of devotion (§8.1).111 A third focus is the cult of Isis. Isis was the most popular of the eastern cults, which have been linked in various ways to early Christianity (§8.2).112 The influence of traditions beyond those of Greece and Rome suggest that another potentially distinct pattern of devotion may be involved. A final focus will be upon the worship of the emperors, which spread rapidly throughout the eastern empire during the first century (§8.3). The ostensibly human object of this worship, and the links to political motivations, again suggest that yet another pattern of devotion may be evident. The patterns of devotion within each of these religious expressions will be investigated separately as they may show differing patterns of devotion, while recognising that they were not mutually exclusive spheres and early audiences of the Gospel may have participated in multiple religious forms.

Within these sources, a consideration of the language of πιστεύω will be necessary, given the prominence of the term within the Gospel of John. Alongside this, language of ‘knowing’, ‘loving’ and other terms uncovered by the investigation of the Gospel will be assessed where they are used in the context of human-divine relations. The outward dimensions of religious activity and what that symbolises will also be considered. A key consideration will be to assess whether the various aspects that comprise Johannine belief are present in the Graeco-Roman context, along with the possibility that there may be additional elements not present in the Gospel. The result of this analysis will be a presentation of the shape of devotion to the divine in each of these spheres of Graeco-Roman religion. It is acknowledged that the categories are not explicitly drawn from Graeco-Roman self- description of religious activities, and in some cases are informed by categories that are seen to be important within Christian traditions.113 However, these categories are kept deliberately

111 E. J. L. Edelstein and L. Edelstein, Asclepius: Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), xxiii. 112 Such connections have been drawn since at least the work of Cumont, however see the discussion in §7.1.2. F. Cumont, Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism (Chicago: Open Court, 1911). Archaeological remains attest to the popularity of Isis throughout Greece, Asia Minor and the Aegean. R. A. Wild, "The Known Isis-Sarapis Sanctuaries in the Roman Period," ANRW 17.4:1739–1851. 113 It is worth noting that Christianity as expressed in the text of John’s Gospel was another religious expression within the first century Graeco-Roman world, and thus using categories derived from that text is not importing

broad in order to allow the Graeco-Roman material to speak in its own voice, rather than shaping it to fit a Christian model. The Johannine categories which emerge through the analysis of the Gospel (cognitive, relational, ethical, ongoing, and public witness) must be augmented with the Graeco-Roman material by the addition of the category of ritual activity. As the focus is on understanding the effect of the Johannine presentation on an early audience, we can begin with the Johannine categories and investigate whether they are evident within the Graeco-Roman world.

1.3.3 Comparative Analysis

Placing the evidence from the Graeco-Roman world into similar categories to the Johannine material will enable a comparison of the respective shapes of devotion (§9.2). It is expected that this will include similarities and differences regarding the form and role of each aspect of devotion to the divine. As a result, the features of the Johannine presentation that may have been familiar, contrasting or challenging will be identified. This in turn will allow insights into why the Gospel presents the ideal response to Jesus in the way that it does. Points of commonality may reinforce existing patterns of devotion. On the other hand, the points of contrast may show ways in which the text interacts with the audience’s existing knowledge and experiences in order to shape and encourage the desired response to Jesus. In particular, this will mean considering the ways in which John’s Gospel may have the effect of reshaping the audience’s concept of devotion to the divine. If the Gospel has a purpose of reshaping devotion in this way, it would provide an explanation for the prominence and complexity of the theme of belief in John. In light of any such reshaping, the final step will be to consider whether Johannine Christology provides a rationale for changing the shape of devotion when it is directed towards Jesus (§10.1).

After establishing what can be learnt about the function and purpose of the complex Johannine presentation of the ideal response to Jesus, the last section of this thesis will draw together the insights and contributions of the thesis, as well as pointing towards further avenues for research (§10.2).

something entirely foreign into the analysis.

2 Genuine Belief: Reading John 1-4 The intent of chapters two through five is to analyse the ideal response to Jesus for which John’s Gospel calls. This will be done by working through the narrative sequentially, analysing both the nature of the responses which are called for, as well as the actual responses demonstrated by the characters. This will enable the identification of those characteristics that comprise an essential part of the response to Jesus. The following analysis will demonstrate that as the ideal response to Jesus, genuine belief comprises five key aspects: a cognitive aspect; a relational aspect, an ethical aspect, a persevering aspect, and a public aspect. The text of the Gospel will be divided into four sections: this chapter will cover John 1–4, which presents both initial responses to Jesus, along with the first calls to respond to him. The following chapters will cover 5–12 where there is a significant increase in the opposition to calls to respond to Jesus, 13–17 where the response to Jesus is further explained to Jesus’ closest followers, and then 18–21 which gives a final picture of response to Jesus in light of the cross.114

2.1 The Prologue: An Initial Standard of Belief (1:1–18)

The prologue of John’s Gospel presents believing as a key theme, and Jesus as the principal object of that belief (1:7, 12). As the prologue provides an interpretative framework for the audience, the place of believing within the prologue establishes its significance for the following narrative.115 The very existence of the prologue shows that there is an overt narrator, whose omniscient point of view allows the differentiation of the story and discourse levels of the text.116 While the story level comprises the events within the narrative, the

114 On these structural divisions, see Tam, Apprehension, 29–30; Zumstein, "L'évangile johannique: une stratégie du croire," in Miettes exégétiques (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1991) 239. 115 Recent arguments suggest that only 1:1–5 is the prologue and the narrative begins in 1:6. M. C. De Boer, "The Original Prologue to the Gospel of John," NTS 61 (2015); P. J. Williams, "Not the Prologue of John," JSNT 33, no. 4 (2011); J. R. Michaels, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 45. However, 1:6– 18 displays a generalised and stylised form in contrast to the narrative proper that begins in 1:19 which is concrete and detailed. Most scholars identify 1:1–18 as the prologue, with a role in introducing key themes. See Schnelle, Johannes, 12; L. Devillers, "Le prologue du quatrième évangile, clé de voûte de la littérature johannique," NTS 58 (2012); Carson, John, 103–05; M. D. Hooker, "The Johannine Prologue and the Messianic Secret," NTS 21, no. 1 (1974): 40; Brown, John, 1:18–23. A resolution is offered by Zumstein, who takes 1:1– 18 as the prologue, but sees 1–5 as “Der Prolog im Prolog.” J. Zumstein, Das Johannesevangelium (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016), 73. Cf. M. Theobald, Die Fleischwerdung des Logos: Studien zum Verhältnis des Johannesprologs zum Corpus des Evangeliums und zu 1 Joh (Münster: Aschendorf, 1988), 211. 116 On the narrator in John see J. L. Resseguie, "A Narrative-Critical Approach to the Fourth Gospel," in Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John (ed. C. W. Skinner; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 1–17; M. W. G. Stibbe, John (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 22–23; Culpepper, Anatomy, 19–28. Moloney also sees the prologue as indicative of construction for an audience. Moloney, "Who is 'the Reader'": 23.

discourse level is where the implied author communicates with the audience. It is genuine belief as portrayed at the discourse level, with a post-resurrection perspective, which is the concept of belief that is conveyed to the audience, and therefore this concept of belief will be compared with the Graeco-Roman material.117 John the Baptist is introduced in a way that places the focus not upon him but on the one to whom he bears witness (1:7).118 His witness is ἵνα πάντες πιστεύσωσιν, a function that aligns with the overall purpose of the witness of the Gospel (20:31), further signifying the important role of belief within the narrative to follow. Throughout the prologue, Jesus is the primary object of belief, culminating in the reference to τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ (1:12, cf. 1:7). This is reinforced by the structure of the prologue, which places 1:12–13 at the centre of a chiastic pattern, highlighting right response to Jesus, including belief in him, as a central concern.119 In the prologue the narrator addresses the audience, so what is conveyed of belief relates to the discourse-level genuine belief. From the beginning, genuine belief according to the Gospel of John is belief in Jesus.

The response of belief in Jesus is linked in the prologue with the ideas of knowing and receiving Jesus. Λαμβάνω is placed in parallel with πιστεύω (1:12), indicating that receiving Jesus is part of the broader concept of belief.120 The image of Jesus coming to his own place and people and not being received (1:11) suggests the idea of welcoming as with a guest; later parallels between receiving Jesus and receiving those whom he sends (13:20) convey a similar idea.121 Therefore, the concept of belief includes welcoming and accepting Jesus. The post-resurrection perspective from which the Gospel was written indicates that the audience is to understand this as a spiritual rather than physical welcoming, as Jesus is no longer physically present. In addition, through the parallel use of γινώσκω and παραλαμβάνω (1:10–

117 The post-resurrection perspective of the text has been observed by Frey, "Glauben," 5; Ueberschaer, "Johannesevangelium," 453; Stibbe, John, 134; Carson, "Understanding": 80–82; J. L. Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 18–21. 118 R. F. Collins, "From John to the Beloved Disciple: An Essay on Johannine Characters," Int 49, no. 4 (1995): 361–62. 119 R. A. Culpepper, "The Pivot of John's Prologue," NTS 27, no. 1 (1980); Brown, "Believing," 10–11; C. H. Talbert, Reading John (Rev. ed.; Macon, GA: Smith & Helwys, 2005), 75; J. W. Pryor, "Jesus and Israel in the Fourth Gospel: John 1:11," NovT 32, no. 3 (1990): 201–2. Not all accept this chiastic structure, see J. G. van der Watt, "The Composition of the Prologue of John’s Gospel: The Historical Jesus Introducing Divine Grace," WTJ 57, no. 2 (1995). 120 Thus, “Croire c'est recevoir.” Decourtray, "Conception": 562. 121 On this understanding of τὰ ἴδια and οἱ ἴδιοι see Pryor, "Jesus and Israel": 218. Keener suggests receiving means welcoming Jesus as God’s agent. Keener, John, 1:399. Delling indicates that both in the NT and wider Greek usage, παραλαμβάνω with a personal object often conveyed taking into fellowship. G. Delling, “παραλαμβάνω,” TDNT 4:11–14.

11), albeit negatively in context, knowing is presented alongside receiving as part of the concept of belief. The connection of these two ideas to the concept of belief indicates from the beginning of the Gospel that the Johannine understanding of belief is to have both a cognitive and an ethical aspect, encompassing more than merely propositional belief.

Through a series of statements using these linked terms of πιστεύω, γινώσκω and λαμβάνω (1:10–12), a sharp contrast is formed between those who respond correctly to Jesus and those who do not. Despite the world being made through Jesus, ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω (1:10). Knowing here has the sense of recognise, as το φῶς was present in the world but not correctly perceived (1:9–10).122 The failure to recognise Jesus is inexcusable in view of the role of the light in creation (1:3–4), and thus there is implied condemnation as the failure of Jesus’ own people to receive him is a dramatic failure of hospitality. The description of the reward for correctly responding to Jesus (1:12–13), prefigures later statements that define the clear alternatives of the reward of belief and the consequence of unbelief (3:16–21, 5:28–29). There is a sharp division between those who accept and those who reject the word.123 Belief is initially depicted in a binary fashion, contrasted with unbelief.

Parallel to receiving Jesus is believing εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ (1:12). While this expression has several possible uses, here Jesus’ name functions as representative of Jesus himself (cf. 12:28).124 Thus the expression is substantially equivalent to ‘believing in Jesus’. The absence of an explicit or implied fact to be believed, along with the centrality of trust within the wider Graeco-Roman use of πιστεύω, points to this being a call primarily to put one's trust in Jesus.125

122 The element of perception is reinforced by the chiastic pairing of verse ten with verse fourteen ‘we have seen’. The seeing in 1:14 is seeing Jesus’ glory, which is later connected with believing (2:11). 123 J.-A. A. Brant, John (Grand Rapids: Michigan, 2011), 39–40; F. F. Segovia, "John 1:1–18 as Entree into Johannine Reality: Representation and Ramifications," in Word, Theology, and Community in John (eds. J. Painter, et al.; St. Louis, MO: Chalice, 2002), 46; Zumstein, "Stratégie," 240; Henault, "Ambivalent": 297. The prologue signals the ongoing roles of belief and unbelief throughout the narrative. N. Farelly, The Disciples in the Fourth Gospel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 19. 124 Εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ can indicate agency (10:25; 14:26) but does not fit the context here. Keener points to Jewish usage where the “Name” was a circumlocution for God. However, his contention that therefore believing in Jesus’ name is trusting in him as deity is problematic in light of 2:23–24, where the same expression indicates inadequate faith. Keener, John, 1:399–400. Cf. Heil, John, 10. 125 Contra Ueberschaer, who argues for belief in the pre-existence of Jesus and his relationship with God as conveyed in 1:1–5. Ueberschaer, "Johannesevangelium," 459. On contextual use, see Morgan, Roman, 36–175.

The expression of belief in 1:12 is presented as genuine belief as it is connected to the concept of becoming a child of God, and therefore the prologue presents an initial characterisation of genuine belief. Whilst adoption by God and rebirth are not the way John typically describes the result of genuine faith, which is ἐχω ζωὴν αἰώνιον (3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:47, 54), they nevertheless indicate divine acceptance of this belief, as rebirth is required for entering God’s kingdom (3:3), while divine parentage aligns with a right response to Jesus (8:42–44). As a result, πιστεύειν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ in this instance unequivocally refers to genuine believing.126 Therefore an initial characterisation can be made, that genuine belief involves knowing (a cognitive aspect) along with trusting and welcoming Jesus (a relational aspect).

The critical issue at this point is the role of the prologue with regard to understanding the presentation of belief in the subsequent narrative. As the prologue functions to set up the audience’s understanding of what follows, several scholars have used the prologue as a standard of belief with which to measure the characters of the Gospel.127 This approach leads to negative assessments of the faith of many characters, despite positive indicators in the text, including Jesus’ acceptance of their responses to him.128 This is problematic for an assessment of Johannine belief, as the characters play a significant role in conveying belief, and to wrongly categorise their responses to Jesus may distort any conclusions as to the nature of Johannine belief. Such approaches fail to distinguish between the story and discourse levels of the text.129 While the prologue establishes an initial paradigm of belief, it does so from the post-resurrection perspective of the narrator and the audience, so at the discourse level it contributes to the audience’s understanding of genuine belief. However, the narrator is careful to distinguish this level from the story level at which the characters operate, through indications that some characters will later come to a greater understanding

126 It does not follow that πιστεύειν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ necessarily indicates genuine belief, contra Schnackenburg who argues that ‘believing in his name’ implies “acceptance of Jesus to the full extent of his revelation”. Schnackenburg, John, 1:263. G. R. Beasley-Murray, John (2nd ed.; Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 13; Lincoln, Truth, 47. The use of the same expression in 2:23 casts doubt on such an identification. However, neither is it sustainable to argue that it necessarily reflects a lesser form of belief, as does Abbott, Johannine, 34–37. 127 Redman similarly uses 20:31 as the standard. Redman, "Eyewitness," 66; C. W. Skinner, John and Thomas—Gospels in Conflict? Johannine Characterization and the Thomas Question (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2009), 39; Bonney, Caused, 87–93. 128 For example, rejecting the idea that the disciples’ confessions in chapter one reflect adequate belief (see §2.2). 129 On these two levels, see §1.3.1.4.

(2:22; 12:16; 16:13). Therefore, the characters within the narrative should not be judged by the standard of the prologue, which is only applicable after the resurrection. Instead, we ought to prioritise the context and assess the belief of characters within the story level, while recognising that the narrator sets that story within a framework where at least some characters may arrive at the fullness of post-resurrection faith in due course. Distinguishing the story and discourse levels leads to the awareness that at the story level there may be acceptable belief, denoted especially by Jesus’ apparent acceptance, which does not meet the standard of genuine belief as presented at the discourse level. Characters displaying acceptable belief may reflect some aspects of genuine belief, which the audience is to emulate, whilst not (yet) displaying all that genuine belief entails. The final analysis of genuine belief will incorporate these aspects, while recognising that the discourse-level presentation is the sort of belief that the narrator seeks to evoke in the audience.

2.2 The First Disciples Know and Follow Jesus (1:19–51)

The narrative of the Gospel begins with John the Baptist, through whom the importance of knowing the identity of Jesus is demonstrated. The role of knowing was signalled in the prologue (1:10–12), and the remainder of chapter one begins to flesh out what must be known. In an apparent condemnation, John the Baptist tells his audience they do not know the coming one (οὐκ οἴδατε 1:26). Yet the matter is complicated by John the Baptist’s admission of his own lack of knowledge (οὐκ ᾔδειν 1:31, 33). The change in tense implies that John’s lack of knowledge lies in the past. He has overcome his lack of knowledge, as indicated by his acclamation of Jesus as ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου (1:29)130 and ὁ ἐκλεκτός (1:34), pointing towards his messianic identity.131 Not only does

130 The precise import of the title is not critical, for the disciples understand it as essentially messianic, as they respond by acclaiming Jesus in messianic terms. Collins, "Follow," 44. Staley similarly links the title ‘Lamb of God’ and the disciples’ confessions but sees the confessions as rash because they are based on such minimal evidence. J. L. Staley, The Print's First Kiss: A Rhetorical Investigation of the Implied Reader in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988), 80. For discussion of the referent of the title, see R. Zimmerman, "Jesus - the Lamb of God (John 1:29 and 1:36): Metaphorical Christology in the Fourth Gospel," in The Opening of John's Narrative (John 1:19–2:22) (eds. R. A. Culpepper, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017); J. T. Nielsen, "The Lamb of God: The Cognitive Structure of a Johannine Metaphor," in Imagery in the Gospel of John (eds. J. Frey, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). some early ,*א ,some have ὁ ἐκλεκτός (픓106vid ,(2א Whilst most manuscripts read ὁ υἱὸς (픓66, 75, 120, B and 131 Latin and Syriac MSS). As ὁ υἱὸς is standard Johannine terminology for Jesus, this reading likely arose as a harmonisation with Johannine style. Reading ὁ ἐκλεκτός is consistent with the other messianic titles ascribed to Jesus in this chapter, as well as reflecting Isaianic language as in the preceding confession. Flink has argued that 픓75* preserves the original reading ὁ ὑιὸς ὁ ἐκλεκτός. However, he admits that the external evidence is inconclusive, and so arguments have to be based upon internal factors. T. Flink, "Son and Chosen. A Text- critical Study of John 1,34," Filologia Neotestamentaria 18 (2005); C. W. Skinner, "'Son of God' or 'God’s

John know who Jesus is, but he bears witness to Jesus, functioning as the paradigmatic witness.132 While these confessions convey an awareness of Jesus’ identity, Williams notes the surprising fact that John appears to know Jesus better than any other character, yet he is never said to believe.133 However, the absence of any critique of John the Baptist, along with the connection already made in the prologue between knowing and believing, means the audience is to understand that John does believe. Where John formerly did not know, and thus did not believe, he now knows and believes. The example of John the Baptist demonstrates the importance of knowing, thus the cognitive aspect of belief, with this knowing centred on an awareness of Jesus’ identity, as well as suggesting that bearing witness to the identity of Jesus may also be connected to belief, thereby foreshadowing the public aspect of belief.

The characters of the disciples presented in the first chapter reinforce the importance of knowing Jesus’ identity, through their confessions which follow the messianic pattern of the confessions of John the Baptist. These confessions begin with Andrew declaring Εὑρήκαμεν τὸν Μεσσίαν (1:41), Philip says Ὃν ἔγραψεν Μωϋσῆς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ καὶ οἱ προφῆται εὑρήκαμεν (1:45), while Nathanael confesses Ῥαββί, σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ (1:49). Each of these confessions expresses an understanding and acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah, although in light of the prologue the audience may see a deeper meaning to the title ‘Son of God’.134 Jesus responds to Nathanael’s confession, saying Ὅτι εἶπόν σοι ὅτι

Chosen One' (John 1:34)? A Narrative-Critical Solution to a Text-Critical Problem," BBR 25, no. 3 (2015). On the Isaianic implications of ὁ ἐκλεκτός, see Lincoln, Truth, 63. 132 C. Bennema, "The Character of John in the Fourth Gospel," JETS 52, no. 2 (2009): 282; R. F. Collins, These Things Have Been Written: Studies on the Fourth Gospel (Louvain: Peeters, 1990), 11. The links between John 1 and Isaiah 40 suggest, for the audience at least, that the κύριος whom John announces is the God of Israel. Riley, Lord, 50–51. 133 C. H. Williams, "John (the Baptist): The Witness on the Threshold," in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel (eds. S. A. Hunt, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 59; C. Karakolis, "Recurring Characters in John 1:19–2:11: Narrative-Critial and Reader-Oriented Approach," in The Opening of John's Narrative (John 1:19– 2:22) (eds. R. A. Culpepper, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 21. While the precise significance of these titles is debated, they convey Jesus in terms of a unique agent of God, which can be contrasted with examples where there is a failure to understand Jesus (e.g. 3:1–13). 134 Karakolis, "Recurring Characters," 26. John is the only New Testament text to use the transliterated Messiah (rather than Christ); given the early church’s tendency to use ‘Christ’ as a name, John may use Messiah to emphasise it as a title conveying Jesus’ identity. Dunn, Neither, 337–38. Philip reflects an understanding of the Messiah as the one who fulfils Scripture (1:45). John indicates this through reference to several other Old Testament passages: the promises of Zechariah 12:10 (19:37), Psalm 22:18 (19:24), Psalm 69:21 (19:28), and Exodus 12:46 (19:36). In addition, Deuteronomy 18:15 is behind the idea of ‘the Prophet’ in John 6:14 (so too 1:21). The combination of ‘son’ and ‘king’ in John 1:49 reflects a background in Psalm 2:6–7, and indicates Jesus is the promised king who would restore Israel. This confession expresses Nathanael’s understanding that Jesus’ demonstration of knowledge (1:48) confirms Philip’s claim in 1:45. M. M. Leung, The Kingship-Cross Interplay in the Gospel of John: Jesus' Death as Corroboration of His Royal Messiahship (Eugene, OR: Wipf &

εἶδόν σε ὑποκάτω τῆς συκῆς, πιστεύεις; (1:50). By indicating surprise at the means by which Nathanael arrives at belief, Jesus implies that the preceding confession in 1:49 is an expression of believing. If such a confession is evidence of believing, it follows that believing is particularly concerned with one’s understanding of who Jesus is, for the confession states Nathanael’s view of Jesus’ identity. Whilst these confessions may not represent a complete understanding of Jesus’ identity, the nature of the presentation does not draw attention to any shortcoming (unlike 2:24). In addition, the prologue has primed the audience to expect belief to result from the witness of John the Baptist (1:7), who prompts the initial response of the disciples (1:35–37). Jesus’ subsequent statement in 1:51 is a promise of greater revelation, not a critique.135 A recognition of the story and discourse levels of the text allows us to understand the disciples’ confessions as reflecting acceptable belief at the story level, while the statement of 1:51 points towards the discourse-level understanding that is to come. Like Jesus’ response to Thomas in 20:29, the statement is both positive and future oriented, and thus it obscures the contribution of this section to focus on any deficiencies in understanding that the confessions may represent.136 As these confessions all focus upon the identity of Jesus, grasping Jesus’ identity must be an important goal to which the text seeks to bring the audience. Each confession is uniquely expressed, conveying the complex identity of Jesus. In their diversity, though, each conveys Jesus as Messiah, leading to the conclusion that genuine belief must understand and accept this messianic identity.137

Stock, 2011), 52–64. While Booth seeks to problematise the reading of kingship in a Graeco-Roman context, he fails to demonstrate that elite Roman hostility to kings can be extrapolated to broader society, especially in the Greek East which has a radically different political history. A. Booth, "Long Live the King: The Fourth Gospel's Responses to Greco-Roman Suspicions Concerning Monarchy," JGRChJ 13 (2017). To call Jesus ‘Rabbi’ alongside this should not be interpreted negatively, as Jesus never rejects this title. The disciples call Jesus Rabbi in 1:38; 4:31; 9:2; 11:8, and even after the resurrection Mary calls Jesus by the equivalent Ραββουνἱ (20:16). R. J. Bauckham, Gospel of Glory: Major Themes in Johannine Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015), 159–62. Jesus as teacher is compatible with a high Christology. A. Köstenberger, "Jesus as Rabbi in the Fourth Gospel," BBR 8 (1998): 103. 135 While Loader correctly identifies the image as implying a vision of the exalted Jesus, it points not merely to an awareness of his exaltation. As van der Watt argues, the focus is on who the Son of Man is, and his exaltation reflects his divine nature. W. Loader, "John 1:51 and Johannine Christology," in The Opening of John's Narrative (John 1:19–2:22) (eds. R. A. Culpepper, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 132; J. G. van der Watt, "Angels in John 1:51," in The Opening of John's Narrative (John 1:19–2:22) (eds. R. A. Culpepper, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 163. 136 Those who see 1:50–51 as indicating the disciples’ shortcomings include Brown, "Believing," 14; Rainbow, Johannine, 297; U. C. von Wahlde, "The Witnesses to Jesus in John 5:31–40 and Belief in the Fourth Gospel," CBQ 43, no. 3 (1981): 400; Painter, "Eschatological," 39; G. C. Nicholson, Death as Departure: The Johannine Descent-Ascent Schema (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983), 67. Seeing a positive presentation of the disciples and assurance rather than correction from Jesus are Wang, Sense, 197; O’Brien, "Written"; R. L. Adkisson, "An Examination of the Concept of Believing as a Dominant Motif in the Gospel of John," (PhD thesis: New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1990), 110. 137 The characterisations of faith in the narrative need to be analysed at the story level rather than the discourse level. Thus it is incorrect to emphasise these confessions as falling short on the basis of a comparison with the

In addition to the aspect of knowing as part of the concept of belief, this chapter develops the relational aspect of belief through the call to follow. The first imperative of the Gospel is Jesus’ instruction to several followers of John the Baptist Ἔρχεσθε καὶ ὄψεσθε (1:39).138 Jesus’ use of ἔρχομαι provides the pivot for these disciples of John the Baptist to become disciples of Jesus. The importance of the command is compounded when the disciples call each other to come and see (1:46; cf. 4:29). Shortly after, Jesus gives another similar command, telling Philip Ἀκολούθει μοι (1:43). While the call to follow is a call to physically go with Jesus, it entails a disciple-like following as Philip immediately begins to imitate Jesus, calling others (1:45–46).139 In the context of the opening chapter and the prominence of the theme of witness as embodied by John the Baptist, Philip’s role as a witness is also significant. Whilst the other disciples are not called to follow, nevertheless they do follow, as their ‘abiding’ with Jesus in 1:39 indicates.140 While 1:39 could be a call to follow Jesus to where he is staying, the response of the disciples in remaining with Jesus, identifying him as the Messiah, and calling others to come suggests this ‘coming’ is not simply coming to where he is staying, and the ‘seeing’ involves acquiring knowledge of more than just where Jesus was staying.141 In addition, the implication of both these commands is more than simple physical presence because these commands lead to a transferal of discipleship from John to Jesus. Thus the calls to come and to follow encompass following Jesus in the manner of a student following a Rabbi (cf. 1:49), including a relationship of learning as well as physical presence, a call to discipleship.142 This following would have been equally identifiable for a Graeco-Roman audience, as the students of Hellenistic

prologue, as do Skinner, "Son of God": 354–357; Moloney, John, 54–56. Their messianic confessions reflect an understanding of Jesus that is an element of genuine belief as presented at the discourse level (20:31). While Hopkins critiques a harsh view of the disciples here, his resolution is to prioritise the volitional over the cognitive in Johannine faith, which underplays the unique setting within the narrative. Hopkins, "Narratological", 124, 126, 140. 138 The significance of this command may be heightened if the unnamed disciple is identified as the Beloved Disciple. U. Schnelle, "Der ungenannte Jünger in Johannes 1:40," in The Opening of John's Narrative (John 1:19–2:22) (eds. R. A. Culpepper, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 103. 139 Collins, "Follow," 46; Klink, John, 144–45, 148. 140 At this point it is not clear that μένω indicates more than physical presence with Jesus, however in the context of incipient discipleship it alludes to what will be developed later, especially in chapter fifteen. L. Newbigin, The Light Has Come: An Exposition of the Fourth Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 19–20. Bauckham identifies the multiple levels at which both μένω and ἀκολουθέω operate in this scene, indicating primarily a simple physical reality at the story level, but conveying to the audience the implication of a deeper meaning that will be developed. Bauckham, Glory, 143–49. 141 Chennattu, Johannine, 31–32. 142 Morris, John, 142. Köstenberger argues that John presents Jesus and his disciples acting and being perceived as a religious teacher with disciples in the model of a Rabbi. Köstenberger, "Jesus as Rabbi": 111–12, 120–23.

philosophers would also follow their teacher, as with the peripatetic school of Aristotle.143 These two commands, along with the repetition by the disciples, begin to clarify the nature of the relational aspect of the response this Gospel seeks to evoke as the relationship of a disciple to their teacher. Alongside the relational aspect, the public aspect is seen as the first disciples call others, while the evident imitation of Jesus may have implications for an ethical aspect of belief.

2.3 The Disciples Develop in Their Faith (2:1–25)

The second chapter of John depicts the disciples confirmed in their messianic faith. The disciples witness Jesus’ first sign, with the result that ἐφανέρωσεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτὸν (2:11). The disciples, implicitly believers on account of their knowledge and acceptance of Jesus (1:39–49), are now explicitly described as believing. As this belief is εἰς αὐτὸν rather than believing a proposition, this may indicate that the disciples trust Jesus, or rather, in light of their confessions in chapter one, that their trust is deepened.144 However, the revelation motif conveyed by φανερόω suggests a greater degree of awareness or understanding.145 For the disciples within the story, the messianic symbolism of the sign (Zech. 9:17; cf. 2 Bar 29:5) suggests they gain a deeper appreciation of Jesus as Messiah. The reference to glory, however, reminds the audience of the divine connections of glory in 1:14. The audience is thereby told that this event was a veiled display of divinity.146 The disciples, while they respond positively to the sign, do not evidently grasp Jesus’ divinity until much later (20:28), making this a Johannine interpretation after the fact. Yet in light of what follows (2:22), for the audience it indicates the beginnings of awareness of Jesus’ divine nature, even if the characters do not yet realise it.147 The disciples’ belief in 2:11 thus not only confirms that belief entails belief in Jesus as Messiah, but points towards the need for genuine belief to also grasp Jesus’ divine identity.

143 Collins, "Follow," 59. Cf. R. A. Culpepper, The Johannine School (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1975), 258–59. 144 Morgan, Roman, 406. There is already a realisation of the promise of 1:51. J. Beutler, A Commentary on the Gospel of John (trans. M. Tait; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 78. 145 Schnackenburg argues the ‘epiphany’ includes experience of Jesus’ divine being and the heavenly world, so that the disciples’ faith is “richer in content.” Schnackenburg, John, 1:336–37; Tam, Apprehension, 59. 146 The Old Testament connects glory to the visible manifestation of God, which is reflected in John 1:14–18, where Jesus represents God and thus displays his glory, albeit veiled in flesh. Bauckham, Glory, 43–51; J. T. Nielsen, "The Narrative Structures of Glory and Glorification in the Fourth Gospel," NTS 56 (2010): 357. 147 von Wahlde, "Witnesses": 403. Brant unhelpfully divides trusting and knowing at this point, but the disciples understanding is limited not absent. Brant, John, 58.

The need to comprehend Jesus’ identity beyond what was understood by the disciples is clarified in the following scene in the Temple. Jesus speaks cryptically of his resurrection (2:19), and not only the Jews, but the disciples also fail to understand.148 Only after Jesus has risen do they ἐμνήσθησαν … καὶ ἐπίστευσαν (2:22).149 The intrusion of the narrator distinguishes between the story-level and discourse-level presentations of belief, highlighting the difference between the disciples’ level of understanding at this point in the narrative, and their understanding after the resurrection.150 By distinguishing the two levels, the limitation in understanding is confined to the disciples’ pre-resurrection experience, while the deliberate nature of the distinction implies that this form of significant misunderstanding is no longer acceptable.151 At the story-level, the acceptance of the disciples by Jesus indicates their acceptable belief, in contrast to both the Jews and those in the following scene. At the discourse-level, however, the audience is made aware that their incomplete understanding was only temporary, and they were on the trajectory toward the genuine belief that the Gospel seeks to evoke in the audience.

In contrast to the outright rejection in the Temple, others respond to Jesus’ public ministry, however the nature of their response is less clear. Thus in 2:23 πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. This response is expressed in the terms of the prologue (1:12), initially suggesting that this crowd live up to the ideal belief.152 Yet their faith is deliberately juxtaposed with Jesus’ lack of acceptance, as he οὐκ ἐπίστευεν αὐτὸν αὐτοῖς (2:24), the use of the same verb highlighting the contrast. This lack of acceptance by Jesus indicates that the faith of the crowd does not even amount to the story level acceptable belief. The inadequacy of this faith is also seen as the lack of reciprocity from Jesus is in contrast to the prologue,

148 The use of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι in John raises several issues. These include the identity of the referent of the term (the Jewish people in general or the religious leaders), the translation of the term (‘Jews’ or ‘Judaeans’), and problems around the hostility expressed towards οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι in the Gospel and the ways in which that rhetoric has been appropriated. Analysis of these questions is beyond the scope of the present study, for more see: A. Reinhartz, "The Jews of the Fourth Gospel," in The Oxford Handbook of Johannine Studies (eds. J. M. Lieu, et al.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 121–37; C. Bennema, "The Identity and Composition of ΟΙ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ in the Gospel of John," TynBul 60, no. 2 (2009) 239–63; U. C. von Wahlde, "The Johannine “Jews”: A Critical Survey," NTS 28 (1982) 33–60. 149 Ueberschaer, "Johannesevangelium," 454; Klink, John, 183. 150 Stibbe notes the prominence of the narrator at this point, and the retrospective perspective conveyed. Stibbe, John, 51. It is the post-resurrection perspective that is to influence the audience. Tam, Apprehension, 61–63. 151 While Barus argues that the response of the disciples is not paradigmatic as it here displays incompleteness, the narrator takes care to indicate that it is only the disciples’ understanding which is lacking, and that shortcoming is overcome. Barus, "Faith," 110. 152 This construction is often understood as conveying genuine belief. Beasley-Murray, John, 13; Schnackenburg, John, 1:263.

where in 1:12 the believers ἔλαβον, and Jesus in turn ἔδωκεν.153 The reason why this faith is flawed is not stated, and while numerous scholars write it off as ‘signs-faith’ and inadequate on those grounds, that cannot be established either from this passage or from the preceding narrative which presents a sign functioning positively for faith (2:11).154 We are told only that it is Jesus’ knowledge of the internal attitudes of the crowd that leads to his negative response to them.155 Thus, this passage does not illuminate the nature of ideal belief, save to point to it being more complex than a simple attachment to Jesus.156 The inadequacy of this faith despite its description in terms of the prologue serves to challenge the audience to consider what genuine belief might entail.157

2.4 Faith that Falls Short and the Need to Obey (3:1–36)

Chapter three introduces the character of Nicodemus whose apparently ambiguous response of faith, similar to that in 2:23–25, invites attempts at resolution.158 Nicodemus both acclaims Jesus in positive terms, saying οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐλήλυθας διδάσκαλος (3:2), but also fails to understand Jesus (3:10). The connection between Nicodemus and those who fall short of acceptable belief in 2:23–25 does not provide sufficient grounds to argue that

153 Moloney, John, 85. This is not now reverting to using the prologue as a standard for faith at the story-level, for the focus is not on what is believed but on how Jesus responds to that belief. 154 Those seeing signs faith which is therefore inadequate include J. H. Neyrey, The Gospel of John (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 74; Keener, John, 531; Beasley-Murray, John, 47; Moloney, "From Cana," 192; Beutler, Commentary, 88–89. Bultmann has been influential in the negative view of faith based on signs, as opposed to faith based upon the revelation of Jesus. Bultmann, John, 131, 209. However, as Hopkins has observed, there are both positive and negative responses to signs, and indeed Jesus’ words provoke more hostile responses. Hopkins, "Narratological", 37,68. Jesus himself argues that his works are intended to generate faith (5:36; 10:25, 38; 14:11), the problem is around what is perceived through the sign. Williams, "Faith," 351; D. V. Vistar Jr., "The Supreme Σημεῖον of Jesus’ Death-and-Resurrection in the Fourth Gospel" (PhD thesis, University of Otago, 2017), 103–110; Salier, Semeia, 59. 155 Whilst ἄνθρωπος could refer to ‘humanity’, the contrast with the disciples who are also said to believe, and yet with whom there is no implication of a lack of trust from Jesus, signals that it is a particular problem with the believers in 2:23 that is in view. 156 Thus Tam, “These verses give hints that some professing faith could be unreliable.” J. C. Tam, "When Papyri and Codices Speak: Revisiting John 2,23–25," Bib 95, no. 4 (2014): 587; M. Warner, "The Fourth Gospel’s Art of Rational Persuasion," in The Bible as Rhetoric: Studies in Biblical Persuasion and Credibility (ed. M. Warner; London: Routledge, 1990), 154; Nicholson, Death, 63. 157 While Barus suggests that if the belief in 2:23 is lacking it makes the narrator unreliable, this is to overlook the function as the means by which the narrator can draw attention to the complexity of belief. Barus, "Faith," 119. On the rhetorical effect of 2:23–25 see Seglenieks, "Untrustworthy": 58–59. 158 The ambiguity around Nicodemus is noted by Whitenton, "The Dissembler": 141–2; R. A. Culpepper, "Nicodemus: The Travail of New Birth," in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel (eds. S. A. Hunt, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 249–59; N. Farelly, "An Unexpected Ally: Nicodemus’s Role within the Plot of the Fourth Gospel," TJ 34 (2013): 31–2; R. Hakola, "The Burden of Ambiguity: Nicodemus and the Social Identity of the Johannine Christians," NTS 55, no. 4 (2009): 438; G. Renz, "Nicodemus: an Ambiguous Disciple? A Narrative Sensitive Investigation," in Challenging perspectives on the Gospel of John (ed. J. Lierman; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); J. M. Bassler, "Mixed Signals: Nicodemus in the Fourth Gospel," JBL 108, no. 4 (1989).

Nicodemus should be read as an example of such inadequate faith, nor that he is contrasted with them.159 Nor is it clear whether the description that Nicodemus came νυκτὸς (3:2) should be taken symbolically, and if so whether that symbolism casts a positive or negative light on his response.160 These linguistic features cannot settle the assessment of Nicodemus’ status as a believer, and thus the following dialogue must be analysed.

The Nicodemus dialogue revolves around ‘understanding’, both what Nicodemus knows and what he fails to grasp. Nicodemus begins by claiming to know Jesus, saying οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐλήλυθας διδάσκαλος (3:2). Unlike earlier messianic confessions (1:41, 45, 49), the titles ascribed by Nicodemus show no comprehension of Jesus as fulfilling a unique role. While the titles are not rejected, Nicodemus is challenged to progress to a deeper understanding, suggesting his initial display of knowledge was insufficient.161 Jesus implicitly critiques Nicodemus’ failure to understand what God is doing (3:8), a critique made explicit as Jesus despairs at Nicodemus’ lack of understanding (3:10). Jesus then tells Nicodemus he has been speaking of τὰ ἐπίγεια, which ought to be easy to understand compared with τὰ ἐπουράνια (3:12). This implies that Nicodemus has failed at an early stage in his understanding, and this failure is seen to be particularly serious as his lack of understanding is unacceptable even at the story-level.162 In addition to not understanding

159 A contrast has been argued by taking δέ as adversative. Michaels, John, 176; D. Hunn, "The Believers Jesus Doubted: John 2:23–25," TJ 25, no. 1 (2004): 21–22; P. Cotterell and M. Turner, Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation (London: SPCK, 1989), 279; F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 81. However, this is linguistically flawed, as δέ does not convey contrast. Continuative and adversative are features of English conjunctions ‘and’ and ‘but’, whereas Greek connectives indicative of features such as connection and/or development. S. E. Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2010), 23. Buth and Levinsohn both indicate that δέ is unmarked for close connection, but marked for development or significant change, while contrast is only determined from the context. R. Buth, "Οὖν, Δέ, Καί, and Asyndeton in John’s Gospel," in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed. D. A. Black; Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 157; S. H. Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek (2nd ed.; Dallas: SIL International, 2000), 87. The argument for connection is based upon the use of the awkward expression ἄνθρωποςἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων linking back to ἀνθρώπῳ at the end of 2:25, while αὐτὸν in 3:1 finds its antecedent in 2:24. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, 279. 160 A symbolic reading can take ‘night’ as indicative of Nicodemus’ current spiritual condition, or as highlighting his movement out of the darkness and towards the light. For spiritual condition see C. G. Kruse, John (Rev. ed.; Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2017), 106; Collins, "From John": 363; Carson, John, 186.; for movement to the light see Brown, John, 1:130. Cotterell argues the location of ‘night’ in the sentence does not mark it as having metaphorical significance, and therefore it functions simply as an indicator of time. F. P. Cotterell, "The Nicodemus Conversation: A Fresh Appraisal," ExpT 96, no. 8 (1985): 238–39. 161 Zumstein, "Stratégie," 246. 162 Thus Lee can describe Nicodemus as representative of those unable to move beyond struggle for understanding. D. A. Lee, The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel: The Interplay of Form and Meaning (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 57–58; W. A. Meeks, "The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism," JBL 91, no. 1 (1972): 53–54. However, Nicodemus’ later appearances in this Gospel, which are explicitly linked to this scene, indicate that this ought not be the final assessment of Nicodemus. 2:23–25 has already introduced the

these things (3:10), Nicodemus does not believe them (3:12), reinforcing the link between knowing and believing. This foundational lack of understanding is equally a failure to believe, so in order to genuinely believe there must be sufficient understanding. The primary misunderstanding here centres on the need to be born ἄνωθεν (3:3).163 Given that the prologue indicates that to be reborn is essentially to believe in Jesus (1:12–13), Jesus is effectively telling Nicodemus that he needs to believe. Nicodemus’ belief is not acceptable belief, for he has not grasped that Jesus has a unique identity which makes belief in him essential.

A return to the binary picture of belief introduced in the prologue comes in 3:16, where belief is the distinguishing factor between having life or perishing. In 3:18 the contrast is even more explicit: ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ κρίνεται· ὁ δὲ μὴ πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται. The perfect tense of κρίνω indicates a state of condemnation, with a negative sense as it is parallel to ‘perishing’ (3:16). This decisive role of believing is pressed further by the final statement in 3:18, that judgement is ὅτι μὴ πεπίστευκεν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ.164 The greater specification of the object of belief highlights Jesus’ unique identity, but it does not refer to a different sort of believing as the expression is parallel to εἰς αὐτὸν in the first clause.165 Following the ambiguity of faith responses both with the crowd in 2:23–25 and Nicodemus, the return to binary images of belief implies that while people may demonstrate ambiguous faith responses, ultimately they must either believe or disbelieve. It follows then that if Nicodemus is to be understood as failing to believe on account of his lack of understanding, then Nicodemus displays not merely incomplete understanding but inadequate understanding. To merely know Jesus as a teacher from God is not enough even for

possibility of ambiguity, while the way he fades out of the scene leads the audience away from making a final judgement. 163 Nicodemus may intentionally obfuscate rather than merely misunderstanding Jesus. While this would shift the problem from one of comprehension to a failure to accept Jesus’ teaching, either way he fails to have a knowledge which displays genuine belief. Whitenton, "The Dissembler": 150–56. Others who see Nicodemus understanding Jesus include Hylen, Imperfect, 30; Cotterell, "Nicodemus": 240. 164 The combination of believing εἰς τὸ ὄνομα and μονογενής is evocative of the prologue, pointing the audience to the kind of faith that is the goal. The shift between referring to Jesus as Son, Son of God, and Son of Man in 3:15–18 indicates there is significant overlap between the terms (cf. 5:24–29). Thus the terms should be understood as functioning to emphasise particular facets of Jesus’ identity, but without a clear division between them, contra Moloney’s argument that “It is faith in the Son of Man which is true Johannine faith.” F. J. Moloney, The Johannine Son of Man (Rome: LAS, 1976), 53. Painter argues against drawing such distinctions between ‘Son’ and ‘Son of Man’ Christologies. J. Painter, "The Enigmatic Johannine Son of Man," in The Four Gospels: Festschrift Frans Neirynck (eds. F. van Segbroeck, et al.; Leuven: Peeters, 1992), 3:1887. 165 The title ‘Son’ focus attention on Jesus’ unique relationship to God. Ueberschaer, "Johannesevangelium," 461.

acceptable belief at the story level. Thus, the example of Nicodemus begins to answer the question raised by 2:23–25—a response to Jesus can fall short of genuine belief where it does not encompass sufficient understanding.

A shift in imagery coincides with a shift in focus to bring out the ethical aspect of believing. Reference to τὸ φῶς (3:19) evokes the prologue’s identification of Jesus as the light (1:9–10). As in the prologue there is a negative reaction to the light, but now construed as a deliberate decision to avoid the light. This reaction is linked to the nature of a person’s deeds, as people turn from the light ἦν γὰρ αὐτῶν πονηρὰ τὰ ἔργα (3:19). The binary presentation of responses to Jesus continues in the contrast of those who οὐκ ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς (3:20) and those who ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς (3:21). Following immediately from the binary presentation of belief (3:16–18), this second binary pair is to be understood in parallel to the first, so that those who believe are those who come to the light.166 Those who believe are those who do τὰ ἔργα ὅτι ἐν θεῷ ἐστιν εἰργασμένα (3:21), while the one who does not believe is ὁ φαῦλα πράσσων (3:20).167 The correlation between believing and the nature of a person’s deeds suggests that genuine belief includes an ethical aspect.

The inclusion of an ethical aspect with believing is confirmed in 3:35–36. The binary contrast is repeated, yet the positive ὁ πιστεύων is contrasted not with those who do not believe, but with ὁ ἀπειθῶν τῷ υἱῷ. This builds on the correlation of believing and deeds in 3:19–21, for if disobedience is characteristic of those who do not believe, obedience is an equally characteristic aspect of believing.168 There are no indications in these verses that obedience is subsequent to belief, but rather both are characteristics of the ideal response to Jesus.169 The absence of specific moral commands and the general nature of the descriptions in 3:19–21 and 3:35–36 suggests that an ethical pattern of life is what genuine belief entails.170

166 In view of the connection to the prologue, where knowing and receiving the light is equated with belief, the view of Hodges that this passage refers to secret believers, and coming to the light is the exercise of existing faith, is untenable. Z. C. Hodges, "Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 4: Coming to the Light—John 3:20–21," BSac 135, no. 540 (1978): 321–22. 167 3:21 also refers to ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν, which given the parallels between 3:20–21 and 5:29 is similarly an indicator of right ethical action. J. G. van der Watt, "The Gospel of John's Perception of Ethical Behaviour," IDS 45, no. 2&3 (2011): 439. 168 Frey, "Glauben," 6; Michaels, John, 227; Beutler, Commentary, 108. 169 Morris suggests that obedience is secondary as faith issues in action. Morris, John, 220. 170 Brown, John, 1:162.

2.5 The Samaritans: A Representation of Developing Faith (4:1–54)

The story of the Samaritan woman and her village depicts a progression in understanding who Jesus is, highlighting the importance of knowing his identity. Jesus articulates the importance of understanding as his response to the Samaritan woman, Εἰ ᾔδεις τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ λέγων σοι (4:10a), conveys that her confusion comes from ignorance (a failure to perceive Jesus, cf. 1:10). Understanding Jesus and his mission, however, would have led her to respond differently (4:10b). The dialogue centres around who Jesus is, and the progression of the woman’s understanding as she first refers to Jesus as Ἰουδαῖος (4:9), and then προφήτης (4:19), and then pondering μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός; (4:29). Whilst this final question does not reveal if this woman goes on to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the sequence is completed as the rest of the village express their believing in no uncertain terms, saying Jesus is ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου (4:42).171 Moloney characterises the progression into three stages, of no faith, partial faith and full faith.172 While conveying the growing understanding seen here, the label ‘full faith’ may be misleading as it implies completeness, whereas the belief depicted here may still fall short of genuine belief as presented at the discourse level. Through the motif of growing understanding, however, the centrality of knowing the identity of Jesus is reinforced.

While speaking with the Samaritan woman, Jesus indicates the importance of worship as a response to God. Jesus answers the woman’s question about worship, saying Πίστευέ μοι (4:21), which is the first use of πιστεύω in the imperative in the Gospel. Whilst the dative pronoun indicates Jesus is the object, as an introduction to what Jesus is about to say it functions to emphasise the veracity and importance of what follows, similar to the ‘amen’ formula.173 The infrequent use of πιστεύω in the imperative serves to further emphasise the

171 The Samaritan woman functions as a representative of the villagers, and therefore their experience of coming to believe in Jesus can be read together. C. R. Koester, "'The Saviour of the World' (John 4:42)," JBL 109 (1990): 677. Skinner argues that the woman’s evangelistic activity should be seen as evidence of faith. This action is significant in light of the role of witness in this Gospel, but as her witness is in the form of a question, it alone cannot equal genuine belief. Skinner, John and Thomas, 206. Pazdan similarly overstates the case, describing her as displaying ‘mature discipleship’. M. M. Pazdan, "Nicodemus and the Samaritan Woman: Contrasting Models of Discipleship," BTB 17, no. 4 (1987): 148. In contrast, Hylen sees unbelief on account of the lack of a confession, but that fails to account for the positive elements. Hylen, Imperfect, 55. 172 Moloney, "From Cana," 196–99. 173 H. Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium (2nd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 255; Dodd, Interpretation, 182. The use of the dative personal pronoun with πιστεύω occurs six times in John, each time as a call to believe the words of Jesus (4:21; 5:46; 8:45; 10:37, 38; 14:11). The imperative is also used in 10:37–38, and arguably in 14:1.

importance of what follows, while πιστεύω conveys the need for the woman not merely to hear what follows but to accept it. The content that is emphasised begins with a new paradigm for worship that is connected to ‘the hour’ (4:21), and thus with Jesus’ death (12:27; 19:30), but is also a present reality in Jesus’ presence (4:23). That Jesus abrogates both geographical and ethnic limitations on worship has been recognised.174 However, the full implications for religious practice have not been explored, for Jesus’ response indicates that worship is no longer to be performed in the context of sanctuary-based rituals. Jesus’ statement that neither sanctuary is the place of true worship goes beyond removing any claim to exclusivity, indicating they are replaced by a new form of worship. John highlights the move away from cultic ritual by using προσκυνέω (rather than broader terms such as λατρεύω or τιμάω), which primarily refers to a physical act often associated with prostration before an image (cf. Plutarch, Superst. 6 [Mor 167e]).175 Using a cultic term would evoke an image of temple-based religious rites, but the transportation of the physical place to instead be ‘in Spirit and truth’ overturns the image for the audience, as the Spirit is not a place where one can participate in physical rites. Instead the physical aspect of worship is now spiritualised, taking place in and through the Spirit. The change in worship is based on Jesus’ hour, and thus it cannot be merely a call to genuineness, for such genuineness is a frequent call in Old Testament worship contexts (Isa 1:11–12; Hos 8:13; Joel 2:12–13; cf. Deut 10:12–13).176 Thus, Jesus defines the response which God seeks as one where the place of worship is in the Spirit, and the form of true worship is without ritual.177 The phrase ‘true worshippers’ echoes the call for ‘true disciples’, suggesting that this is another phrase used to encapsulate the ideal response to Jesus.178 However, the absence of a response of worship being predicated of any character aside from the blind man in 9:38, along with the lack of prominence of worship within the Gospel makes such a conclusion tentative. Nevertheless, it appears that a move

174 A. T. Lincoln, The Gospel According to Saint John (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 177; Neyrey, "Worship Pt.1": 108; D. A. Lee, "In the Spirit of Truth: Worship and Prayer in the Gospel of John and the Early Fathers," VC 58, no. 3 (2004): 280; H. N. Ridderbos, The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 163; T. D. Swanson, "To Prepare a Place: Johannine Christianity and the Collapse of Ethnic Territory," JAAR 62, no. 2 (1994): 244. Carson notes that it means more, but not less, than this end of restriction. Carson, John, 226. 175 M. Silva, "προσκυνέω," NIDNTTE 4:150–154; H. Greeven, "προσκυνέω," TDNT 6:758–766; Jojko, Worshiping, 119. 176 Arguing for merely a call to genuineness include R. P. Martin, Worship in the Early Church (Rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 22; Morris, John, 239; J. Calvin, The Gospel According to St. John 1–10 (trans. T. H. L. Parker; Edinburgh: St. Andrew, 1959), 1:99–101. Coloe similarly sees a call for ‘internalised’ worship, while Okure puts it in terms of a right attitude towards God. Coloe, God, 100; T. Okure, The Johannine Approach to Mission: A Contextual Study of John 4:1–42 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1988), 116. 177 The significance of this redefining of form will become more evident in §9–10. 178 Barrett suggests that this call is equally the purpose of the Gospel as 20:31. Barrett, John, 238.

from worship that is based upon the temple cult to worship in Spirit and truth is expected as part of responding to Jesus.

The interjection of a scene with the disciples into the progression of understanding depicted in the Samaritans reinforces that the disciples are also yet to reach complete understanding (4:31–38; cf. 2:22). Jesus’ words in 4:32 result in a typical Johannine misunderstanding, using ordinary physical language to refer to a deeper reality where the disciples only perceive the physical aspect.179 Jesus explains the sustaining nature of his relationship with the Father, but the disciples reflect a lack of understanding of the relationship, a shortcoming which remains at least until 14:8. This misunderstanding appears to be acceptable at the story level, as Jesus invites them into the mission (4:35–38), indicating his acceptance of their commitment even if their understanding still needs to grow.180 The discussion of mission, and Jesus’ invitation into it, also points to the significance of witness, hinted at in chapter one but not yet made explicitly a necessary part of responding to Jesus.181

Following Jesus’ discussion with his disciples, the Samaritan villagers come to believe in Jesus, completing the progression of belief begun by the woman. The narrator reports the Samaritans’ belief (4:39), before they confess that they know Jesus is ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου (4:42).182 Moloney sees a significant contrast between the believing expressed in 4:39 and 4:42, the first based on ἡ λαλιά of the woman, but the second on ὁ λόγος of Jesus (4:41– 42).183 The prominence of the theme of witness in the Gospel (1:7–8; 19:35; 20:29–31) means the believing in 4:39 cannot be seen as inferior solely on account of hearing the message from another. Jesus affirms their response by acceding to their request to stay which

179 On the typical features of Johannine misunderstanding see Carson, "Understanding". 180 Farelly, Disciples, 41. While Jesus demonstrates his acceptance of the disciples in including them in the mission, it is not clear that the disciples grasp his teaching at this stage. Thus it is not Jesus’ explanation that makes the disciples insiders, as O’Day suggests, but his inclusion. O'Day, Revelation, 80. 181 Lee argues mission is “the theological heart of the narrative.” Lee, Symbolic, 64. Cf. A. J. Köstenberger, The Missions of Jesus & The Disciples according to the Fourth Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 180–84. 182 The title ‘saviour’ is used of Roman emperors and is also attested for Artemis in Ephesus. van Tilborg, Reading, 47–51. The Roman connections indicate that the title challenges imperial rhetoric, presenting Jesus as an alternative to the emperor. However, an anti-imperial presentation of Jesus remains a minor theme in John, while the connection to Artemis suggests that use of the title may have broader implications in the Graeco- Roman context. C. W. Skinner, "John’s Gospel and the Roman Imperial Context," in Jesus is Lord, Caesar is Not: Evaluating Empire in New Testament Studies (eds. S. McKnight, et al.; Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2013), 127–28. The imperial connections link the title to the kingly identity of Jesus. Koester, "Saviour": 677. Royal images connect to Jesus as Messiah, while messianic connections are also suggested as the title reflects the image of the Servant song in Isaiah 49:1–6. 183 Moloney, John, 148–49.

reflects the image of hospitality in the prologue, while the mutual acceptance contrasts with Jesus’ response to the crowd in 2:23–25, thus their faith must be accounted as acceptable belief.184 The Samaritans provide a positive example, in contrast to the preceding negative or ambiguous responses in 2:13–3:36.185 However, the woman only has a partial understanding of Jesus, and could not have told the villagers more than she had come to know—her primary testimony was that Εἶπέν μοι πάντα ἃ ἐποίησα (4:39).186 When the Samaritans then had the opportunity to hear Jesus’ teaching, they are brought to a deeper understanding of Jesus, emphasised by the use of οἶδα rather than πιστεύω in their confession. Thus, the response of the Samaritans continues to address the question raised by 2:23–25 as to the nature of genuine belief. Where Nicodemus provided an example of why belief may fall short, in his lack of understanding, in contrast the Samaritans demonstrate the understanding necessary for acceptable belief.187

The final scene of chapter four, where an official seeks healing for his child, may indicate the inadequacy of faith that derives from signs.188 Jesus’ response to the official in 4:48, Ἐὰν μὴ σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα ἴδητε, οὐ μὴ πιστεύσητε, is confronting. It has traditionally been read as a condemnation of those who believe only on account of miraculous deeds, and a challenge to move on to genuine faith.189 Yet such a condemnation appears out of place, for the man comes not calling for a wondrous display but expecting that Jesus can heal his son. Jesus accedes to his request, unlike with more general calls for a sign (2:18, 6:30), and belief results. The plural address ἴδητε indicates that the statement is not directed at this man alone,

184 Phillips observes the role the villagers play is analogous to that of a Greek chorus, providing the correct response to the unfolding narrative. P. Phillips, "The Samaritans of Sychar: A Responsive Chorus," in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel (eds. S. A. Hunt, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 298. 185 Apart from the disciples and John the Baptist, all others exhibit obvious shortcomings, whether the rejection by the Jews (2:18), the many who cannot be trusted by Jesus (2:23), the lack of understanding of Nicodemus (3:1–12), or the jealousy of the followers of John the Baptist (3:26). 186 H. Boers, Neither on This Mountain Nor in Jerusalem (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1988), 197. 187 The contrast in characterisation has been observed by Hylen, Imperfect, 43; Koester, "Hearing": 333; Pazdan, "Nicodemus": 145. 188 While this scene takes place in Galilee, it is not evident that labels of ‘Galilean’ and ‘Judean’ are used symbolically for faith responses to Jesus. A more positive reception in Galilee aligns with the Synoptic picture. While ‘the Jews’ are often seen opposing Jesus, the response in Jerusalem primarily division (7:25–31, 40–43; 10:19). Contra J. M. Bassler, "The Galileans: A Neglected Factor in Johannine Community Research," CBQ 43, no. 2 (1981): 253. 189 Koester, Word, 166; J. R. Dongell, John: A Bible Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (Indianapolis: Wesleyan, 1997), 82–83; Brown, John, 1:196. Haenchen and Schnackenberg both see verse 48 as added by the Evangelist to an earlier source, reflecting the Evangelist’s critical view of signs based faith. E. Haenchen, A Commentary on the Gospel of John (trans. R. W. Funk; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 1:234; Schnackenburg, John, 1:469.

casting doubt on a direct critique.190 Salier has pointed out that the phrase σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα reflects a background of the Old Testament action of God, while throughout the Gospel ἐὰν μὴ and οὐ are used to convey solemn statements, without irony. This, and the parallels with the first sign at Cana, together suggest that rather than a condemnation of signs-faith, this is a plain statement that unless people see God act decisively in the world, they will not believe.191 As such, it does not convey a judgement of the quality of belief that results from seeing such signs.

The account of the official further reinforces that genuine belief requires acquiring a sufficient understanding of Jesus. Initially the man ἐπίστευσεν ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῷ λόγῳ ὃν εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς (4:50), where belief in the words of Jesus indicates trust that his son would be healed.192 Once the man returns home, ἐπίστευσεν αὐτὸς καὶ ἡ οἰκία αὐτοῦ ὅλη (4:53). The singular verb with a compound subject serves to highlight the man as the continued focus, despite reference to his household.193 The absolute use of πιστεύω along with the fulfilment of Jesus’ words indicates this is no longer a matter of giving credence to Jesus’ words but of believing in Jesus himself, indicating a deepening understanding and level of commitment to Jesus.194 The examples of this chapter reinforce the picture in chapter two, that faith needs to move towards sufficient understanding of Jesus.

2.6 Summary of Believing in John 1–4

The opening chapters of the Gospel convey a rich concept of belief that is characterised by a cognitive aspect which is focussed upon Jesus’ identity, a relational aspect, and an ethical aspect. It also uses the narrative portrayal of ambiguous responses to prompt the audience to question the nature of genuine belief, while going on to convey through both statement and characterisation some of the key elements of this genuine belief.195 The

190 Henault suggests the statement is directed at the crowd, seeing the crowd as those who were in Jerusalem for the Passover in 2:23, but have now returned to Galilee with inadequate faith. Henault, "Ambivalent": 301. While 4:45 links the two crowds, it is not clear that the deficiency of the faith described in 2:23 is connected to its origin in signs. 191 Salier, Semeia, 57–59. Cf. Heil, John, 42; Schlier, "Glauben," 282. 192 That the man believes Jesus’ promise is more plausible than seeing a post-resurrection perspective in this scene, and thus that faith here is belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus, as Ueberschaer, "Johannesevangelium," 455–56. 193 D. B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 401-402. 194 Morgan, Roman, 407; Tam, Apprehension, 70. 195 As Salier observes, this is an important question that this early part of the Gospel raises. W. H. Salier, "The Obedient Son: The 'Faithfulness' of Christ in the Fourth Gospel," in The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical,

distinction between acceptable belief at the story level and genuine belief at the discourse level is evident, with a notable contrast evident in the greater level of understanding which is required after the resurrection. With regard to other aspects of belief, the lack of distinction indicates that the features of adequate belief, aside from understanding, can equally be predicated of genuine belief.

The prologue presents an initial standard of believing, operating at the discourse-level of the text, which is focussed upon Jesus, linked to knowing and receiving him, and presented as a binary option. The following chapters develop at the story-level the aspect of knowing Jesus. The disciples in chapter one and the Samaritans in chapter four highlight the importance of understanding Jesus’ identity. Meanwhile the contrast between Nicodemus, who falls short of acceptable belief on account of his lack of knowledge, and the Samaritans who come to know who Jesus is, conveys that there is a certain level of understanding that must be acquired in order to genuinely believe. The failing of Nicodemus indicates that even prior to the resurrection a minimum degree of knowledge was required in order for belief to be acceptable, including an awareness of the uniqueness of Jesus. The trajectory of the disciples meanwhile points towards a greater understanding that is needed for post- resurrection genuine belief, however the extent of such knowledge cannot be determined at this point in the Gospel.196

While the cognitive aspect regarding Jesus’ identity is most prominent, it is accompanied by several others. A relational aspect is suggested by the use of ‘receiving’ in the prologue. This aspect is developed through the call to discipleship in the first chapter, analogous to the ongoing relationship of a teacher and the students who follow him. This aspect is not further developed through chapters 2–4, and therefore its significance beyond this initial call remains to be determined. Chapter three introduced an ethical aspect, as those who believe are characterised by right actions, and those who do not believe are those who do

Biblical, and Theological Studies (eds. M. F. Bird, et al.; Milton Keynes: Paternoster; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 234. Cf. Seglenieks, "Untrustworthy". 196 Understanding this connection between faith and understanding, along with the distinction between story and discourse levels, is vital for understanding the Johannine presentation of belief. Belief and understanding are distinguishable but not independent, as understanding is a necessary part of belief, both at the story and discourse level. Yet believing does not require complete knowledge, at least at the story level. Farelly, Disciples, 42. A failure to properly assess the relationship between believing and knowing leads to unhelpful conceptions of what genuine belief entails, such as Hylen’s tendency to equate any misunderstanding with unbelief. Hylen, Imperfect, 59–63.

evil. This is conveyed as an integral part of the response of belief, not as subsequent actions, and as a general character of life rather than specific deeds. This point is in contrast to previous studies on this topic, which have noted the congruence of right action with belief but have often failed to see it as integral to genuine belief itself. Bearing witness appears to be significant, both as an acknowledgement of one’s faith but also for the effect it has upon others, as seen in chapter one and the cycle of witness leading to following Jesus, which in turn leads to further witness. Yet at this stage it is not clear if such witness is an essential part of the ideal response to Jesus. A final aspect that is raised is that of worship, which must shift from temple-based rituals to worship in Spirit and truth. However, the limited attention to the topic in the Gospel precludes an assertion that such worship is a key part of genuine belief.197 Thus, at this point in the narrative, it can be argued that genuine belief at the discourse level comprises: (1) a minimum understanding of Jesus’ identity; (2) beginning a relationship of following; (3) ethical action; along with the suggestion that it may also include (4) public witness. These chapters have focussed on positive responses of belief, while in the chapters that follow the nature of belief will be explored in a new direction as Jesus faces active unbelief and hostility.

197 The implications of the Gospel’s presentation of worship become clear in light of the context, see §9.2.6 & §10.1.6.

3 Genuine Belief: Reading John 5–12 Building on the initial presentation of belief in John 1–4, the next section develops the concept primarily in the context of opposition. The nature of belief is reflected in contrast with those who do not believe, as well as the ways that Jesus calls those who have begun to respond to him to go on to a more complete response that will ultimately amount to genuine belief.

3.1 Belief in the Father, the Son, and the Scriptures (5:1–47)

After a miraculous healing, the ensuing confrontation with the Jews builds on the binary presentation of belief (§2.4). The healed man sides with those who reject Jesus, with the following binary presentation of faith encouraging the audience to conclude that he fails to believe.198 The binary presentation is evident as judgement and death are connected together in opposition to life (5:24), followed by the description of a general resurrection with two sides, a resurrection to life and a resurrection to judgement (5:28–29). Those who experience these outcomes are respectively οἱ τὰ ἀγαθὰ ποιήσαντες and οἱ τὰ φαῦλα πράξαντες (5:29).199 The apparent declaration of final judgement based upon works reinforces that genuine believing must include right action (cf. 3:18–21, 36). Rather than an alternative to believing as the basis for life or judgement, this verse presents an alternative characterisation of those who believe and those who do not, as φαῦλα πράσσω has already been used as the opposite of πιστεύω (3:18–20). Those who believe and do good are those who will live, those who do not believe and do evil will face judgement, and there is no explicit description of any third group. Whilst this does not preclude stages of faith that characters may pass through, it argues against any final category other than those of believing and unbelieving.

While the Jews claim to believe God yet reject Jesus, Jesus argues that genuine belief requires acceptance of both the Father and the Son. Jesus reiterates that life comes through believing, but the object of belief is τῷ πέμψαντί με (5:24). The decisive nature of the image,

198 Michaels, John, 296; Bennema, Encountering, 106; C. R. Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community (2nd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 90; Collins, "From John": 364; R. Metzner, "Der Geheilte von Johannes 5 – Repräsentant des Unglaubens," ZNW 90 (1999): 177. 199 The context of right and wrong actions suggests that the earlier injunction μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε is not merely christological but encompasses right actions. Cf. M. Labahn, "'It’s Only Love' – Is That All? Limits and Potentials of Johannine 'Ethic' – A Critical Evaluation of Research," in Rethinking the Ethics of John (eds. J. G. van der Watt, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 32–33.

as the one who believes εἰς κρίσιν οὐκ ἔρχεται, ἀλλὰ μεταβέβηκεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν (5:24), makes this undoubtedly the genuine believing that the Gospel seeks to evoke, and therefore belief in the Father is essential to genuine belief. The importance of one’s attitude to God is further highlighted in terms of receiving glory (5:41–44).200 Jesus contrasts the way his audience receive glory from one another rather than from God (5:41, 44), and therefore they do not receive Jesus, who comes in the name of the Father (5:43). These Jews do not acknowledge Jesus on account of their social desires, whereas to genuinely believe includes a prioritising of one’s relationship with God over human relationships, unlike these leaders.201 Additionally, their relationship with God and their relationship with Jesus are entwined, such that to believe in the one is necessarily to believe in the other. The unity of response to the Son and the Father is placed alongside their unity of action, as Jesus states that he like his Father can both give life and enact judgement (5:26–27). These roles are both divine prerogatives, reminding the audience of Jesus’ divine identity that was established in the prologue.202 Genuine belief is belief in the Father and the Son, and entails belief in the divine nature of the Son.

The equation of attitude towards both the Father and the Son is extended to encompass one’s attitude to Scripture.203 Jesus criticises his audience, saying τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε ἐν ὑμῖν μένοντα. (5:38). In the context of the reference to the Scriptures in the following verse, τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ refers to God’s message as conveyed through the Scriptures, with the image of internalising the message implying acceptance of the message. Jesus equates belief in him with acceptance of the Scriptures by first explaining that their failure to

200 While ‘glory’ in 2:11 had implications regarding divine identity, here, as in 12:43, the sense is ‘honour’ or ‘praise’ (cf. parallel use of τιμάω and δοξάζω in 8:49–50). Bauckham, Glory, 57. Nielsen puts it in terms of seeking social status. Nielsen, "Glory": 360–61. 201 Beutler, "Faith," 21. Lincoln, Truth, 80. In addition, these leaders are described as τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς (5:42). The significance of having the love of God is unfolded in the Farewell Discourse (§4). 202 God as the sole giver of life is demonstrated in creation as he speaks into being all life (cf. 2 Kings 5:7; 2 Macc 7:22–23). God does allow humans to exercise judgement in a derivative sense (as in Deut. 1:17) but ultimate judgement as referred to here is ascribed to God (Ps. 75:7; 105:7; Ecc. 12:14). J. H. Neyrey, An Ideology of Revolt: John's Christology in Social-Science Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 22–25; R. J. Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 242-3. Von Wahlde adds the parallel to Wisdom of Solomon 15:16–17, arguing that having life in himself sets Jesus apart as divine. U. C. von Wahlde, "He Has Given to the Son To Have Life in Himself (John 5,26)," Bib 85, no. 3 (2004): 411. MacAskill sees the idea of having life linked with the use of ἐγώ εἰμι to connect Jesus to divine aseity. G. MacAskill, "Name Christology, Divine Aseity, and the I Am Sayings in the Fourth Gospel," JTI 12, no. 2 (2018): 237. 203 On John’s attitude to and use of the Jewish Scriptures, see A. D. Myers and B. G. Schuhard eds, Abiding Words: The Use of Scripture in the Gospel of John (Atlanta: SBL, 2015).

take in God’s message results from their failure to believe in him (5:38), but conversely if they do not believe in him then they have also failed to believe what Moses wrote (5:46–47). All four instances of πιστεύω in 5:46–47 occur with the dative, which is used to indicate giving credence to the witness of both Moses and of Jesus.204 Believing in Jesus and believing in the Scriptures are mutually inclusive, as Jesus is the fulfilment of Scripture.205 Therefore genuine belief must include, within the cognitive aspect, acceptance of the witness of Scripture, alongside belief in the Father and the Son.

3.2 The Hungry Crowd: Understanding Sustains Discipleship (6:1–71)

Chapter six begins with a Galilean crowd who make an initial positive response to Jesus. Jesus feeds the crowd and they fit Jesus into their messianic expectation, with the acclamation Οὗτός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ὁ προφήτης ὁ ἐρχόμενος εἰς τὸν κόσμον (6:14; cf. 1:19–21). As with the disciples’ messianic acclamations (1:41–49), this is an incomplete picture of Jesus’ identity. Unlike the disciples, the crowd seek to impose their expectation that the Messiah will take up rule of the earthly kingdom of Israel (6:15).206 As Farelly observes, the narrator’s insight in 6:15 makes the audience aware that a true title attributed to Jesus does not imply proper understanding of Jesus.207 The crowd nevertheless goes to some lengths to find Jesus after he withdraws from them, thereby displaying a commitment to follow Jesus, at least in a physical sense. Yet the lack of understanding amongst the crowd is reinforced by Jesus’ critique in 6:26–27. The apparently positive response of the crowd in 6:14 is seen to be flawed, which sets up their eventual reaction to Jesus.

In what follows, the disciples’ flawed response is contrasted with that of the Twelve.208 The Twelve accept Jesus teaching, identifying Jesus’ message as ‘words of eternal life’ (6:68). Believing is central to their decision to remain with Jesus, as Peter speaks

204 Gaffney, "Believing": 231. Painter also observes this connection of the dative to witness, noting all but one use of πιστεύω with the dative are in chapters 1–12, which also have a concentration of the vocabulary of witness. J. Painter, The Quest for the Messiah: The History, Literature and Theology of the Johannine Community (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 330. This fits with the use of the dative with πιστεύω thus far where the focus has been on the words either of Jesus or of Scripture (2:22; 4:21). 205 Schlier, "Glauben," 279. 206 Klink, John, 306. The disciples may not grasp all that it means for Jesus to be Messiah, but they show openness to what Jesus presents (6:68–69). 207 Farelly, Disciples, 44. 208 While Hylen argues that 6:60, 66 refer to all the disciples, the twelve are clearly distinguished in 6:67. Hylen, Imperfect, 62–63. The problems associated with failing to recognise this contrast are also seen in Gaffney, "Believing": 224.

for them saying ἡμεῖς πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ (6:69). Peter models what a true disciple does in believing and knowing.209 The perfect tense of both verbs indicates that whilst their knowing and believing had a starting point in the past, they also emphasise a current state.210 There is no indication that these are sequential events, but rather both refer to the current state of the Twelve.211 The confession of Jesus as ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ (6:69) continues to demonstrate the Twelve’s awareness of Jesus’ unique identity.212 In response, Jesus affirms that he has chosen the them, and he does not push Peter to move beyond what he has just confessed.213 Alongside the Twelve are the disciples, who have been distinguished from the crowd in a way that suggests a group of committed followers (6:3–5, 16, 22). Yet as the crowd struggles with Jesus’ teaching (6:41, 52), even these μαθηταὶ find Jesus’ words difficult (6:60). Their struggle is such that πολλοὶ [ἐκ] τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ἀπῆλθον εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω καὶ οὐκέτι μετʼ αὐτοῦ περιεπάτουν (6:66). By turning away from Jesus, they prove themselves not to be true disciples, while Jesus accuses them of failing to believe (6:64–65).214 The contrast with the disciples who abandon Jesus reveals that the Twelve demonstrate three key features of the ideal response to Jesus: following that continues, thus a persevering aspect, and both an acceptance of Jesus’ message and a belief in Jesus’ unique identity, which both come within the cognitive aspect. This belief may not encapsulate the fullness of Jesus’ identity, but is sufficient to sustain discipleship and maintain the Twelve in their acceptable belief.215

209 M. Labahn, "Simon Peter: An Ambiguous Character and His Narrative Career," in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel (eds. S. A. Hunt, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 155. Klink describes it as a confession of allegiance and belief. Klink, John, 345. 210 On the interpretation of the perfect, see N. J. Ellis, M. G. Aubrey and M. Dubis, "The Greek Verbal System and Aspect Prominence: Revising our Taxonomy and Nomenclature," JETS 59, no. 1 (2016): 48. The focus on the resultant state is a feature of stative verbs in the perfect. B. M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), 291–3. Some grammarians label this as the ‘intensive’ use of the perfect, although Fanning notes the confusion between grammarians over such labels. Wallace, Greek, 574–7. 211 Michaels suggests ‘believe and consequently know’ but there is no indicator of consequence in the text. Michaels, John, 415. 212 The exact meaning of this uncommon title is unclear, in particular whether it is messianic. Schnackenburg argues a messianic connotation based on the connections to Peter’s synoptic confession (Mk. 8:29), while Bultmann argues that the title has no background which would suggest a messianic use. However, Bultmann sees it indicating Jesus as the sole one standing over against the world, coming from and belonging to God, thus Jesus as a unique agent of God even if not explicitly messianic. Schnackenburg, John, 2:76; Bultmann, John, 449; W. R. Domeris, "The Holy One of God as a Title for Jesus," Neot 19 (1985). 213 Farelly, Disciples, 49. 214 Schnackenburg sees discipleship as “practically the same as ‘to believe in Jesus’ in the full sense of the word”. Schnackenburg, John, 1:566; Thompson, John, 304. As will be seen in 8:31–32, the Gospel has a concept of ‘true discipleship’ in contrast to a partial response. While true discipleship is equivalent to genuine belief, what is seen here is a lesser discipleship, which falls short of acceptable belief. 215 Painter claims this, like all confessions using πιστεύω ὅτι, was “not authentic at the time”, but this is based on a standard of authentic belief that requires a post-resurrection understanding of Jesus. Instead, it reflects the

Within this narrative framework, the nature of belief is illuminated through imagery of eating and drinking. Jesus first calls on the crowd to work for τὴν βρῶσιν τὴν μένουσαν εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον (6:27), not everlasting food but food that leads to eternal life (cf. 4:14). The connection to eternal life links the image of food to believing, as eternal life is the result of genuine belief. Jesus identifies himself as the food, and then makes the link between the image and belief explicit, as ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ will not thirst (6:35).The image of eating and drinking is also entwined with references to ‘coming’ to Jesus, with the combination of ἔρχομαι with the first person personal pronoun only appearing in chapters five through seven.216 Coming to Jesus is the solution to both hunger (6:35) and thirst (7:37), and the continued use of eating and drinking together (6:53–55) indicates that they do not represent different responses. Eating and drinking are used as a metaphorical representation of what it is to believe.217 The image serves to highlight two key aspects of belief. The first is the connection to life, for as eating and drinking sustain physical life, so eating and drinking Jesus leads to eternal life (cf. 3:16).218 The second is that as eating and drinking involve taking something in, the image provides a visual representation of the acceptance and internalisation that genuine belief requires. The importance of the image is further signified as those who eat and drink are those who ἐν ἐμοὶ μένει κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ (6:56). The text indicates no causal link between abiding and belief as conveyed in the image of eating and drinking, so abiding is not the result of believing, but the two are mutually inclusive—to believe is to abide. While the nature of abiding is not elaborated here, it will become central disciples understanding at the time, which while incomplete, should not be categorised as inauthentic or inadequate for their pre-resurrection setting. Painter, "Eschatological," 40. 216 The use of ἔρχομαι with the first-person personal pronoun appears distinct from other uses of ἔρχομαι, which are primarily used to indicate physical movement. Found in 5:40; 6:35, 37, 44, 45, 65; and 7:37, the first use signals its significance in leading to eternal life. ‘Coming’ to Jesus entails more than mere physical presence, as those he calls to come are already physically present with him. 217 Menken states eating and drinking must be metaphorical, as the objects are Jesus himself, and they “stand for belief in him as the one who dies for the life of the world.” M. J. J. Menken, "John 6:51c–58: Eucharist or Christology? ," in Studies in John’s Gospel and Epistles: Collected Essays (ed. M. J. J. Menken; Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 298-99, 305; J. S. Webster, Ingesting Jesus: Eating and Drinking in the Gospel of John (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2003), 3–4; J. Heilmann, Wein und Blut: Das Ende der Eucharistie im Johannesevangelium und dessen Konsequenzen (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2014), 183–230. This is in contrast to Lee (see below) as well as those who see the image as sacramental, such as Brown, John, 1:287; Schnackenburg, John, 2:56; Heil, John, 54. Byrne sees both a metaphor for belief and a eucharistic reference. B. Byrne, Life Abounding: A Reading of John's Gospel (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2014), 123. Warren rejects both Eucharistic and metaphorical readings in favour of a christological reading, but the parallels she draws with other Graeco-Roman literature are unconvincing. M. Warren, My Flesh is Meat Indeed: A Nonsacramental Reading of John 6:51-58 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 189, 232, 234. 218 G. Van Belle and P. Maritz, "The Imagery of Eating and Drinking in John 6:35," in Imagery in the Gospel of John (eds. J. Frey, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 352; Jerumanis, Réaliser, 174–75.

in John 15.219

The connection of believing with life is reiterated, first in response to the crowd’s enquiry as to what they should do (6:28). As von Wahlde argues, the crowd asks not about works of the law, but rather ‘what do we need to do to be doing the will of God?’220 Jesus challenges the presupposition of the crowd that eternal life is dependent upon obedience to God; rather the primary response is not obedience but belief (6:29).221 In response the crowd demands a sign (6:30) which, coming shortly after just such a sign (6:1–15), is discordant and points to a lack of belief.222 The contrast between πιστεύητε εἰς (6:29) and πιστεύσωμέν with the dative (6:30) suggests that the crowd seeks evidence in order to give credence to Jesus’ words, rather than entering into a broader commitment to Jesus himself.223 The crowd’s failure to respond to what they have seen is driven home as Jesus declares ἑωράκατέ [με] καὶ οὐ πιστεύετε (6:36). There is no indication that the crowd’s perception was mistaken, rather they fail to respond to what was seen by believing. Believing is more than seeing, as seeing must be accompanied by believing if it is to lead to life (6:40).224 Similarly, hearing alone is insufficient, but the message must be accepted, as indicated in 6:45, where those who come to Jesus are πᾶς ὁ ἀκούσας παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μαθὼν. Thus, the ideal response requires an attitude of receptiveness to God, as opposed to the rigid attitude displayed by the rulers in chapters five and nine.225 To genuinely believe in Jesus is to accept his teaching, to internalise what is seen and heard, further emphasising the cognitive aspect of belief.226

219 Lee sees eating and drinking as an image of union between believers and Jesus, based on the use of μένω in 6:56, a relationship distinct from believing. However, the metaphor is primarily linked to coming to Jesus and receiving life, and the sole instance of μένω alludes to an idea that will be developed particularly in chapter 15, as abiding is not a focus here. Lee, Symbolic, 151. 220 U. C. von Wahlde, "Faith and Works in Jn vi 28–29: Exegesis or Eisegesis?," NovT 22, no. 4 (1980). 221 van der Watt blurs conventional distinctions by describing belief here as an “essential deed”, as it requires an action of responding to Jesus. van der Watt, "Ethical Behaviour": 433, 436. Bennema describes belief as “the proper moral response.” C. Bennema, "Moral Transformation in the Johannine Writings," IDS 51, no. 3 (2017): 2. 222 von Wahlde argues that parallels with chapters eight and ten reinforce this idea. U. C. von Wahlde, "Literary Structure and Theological Argument in Three Discourses with the Jews in the Fourth Gospel," JBL 103, no. 4 (1984): 578. It is consistent with Johannine style to make the rejection of Jesus jarring, as with Nicodemus, his obviously impossible interpretations of Jesus’ words, and Jesus’ incredulous response (3:1–12). 223 The use of the preposition indicates belief or trust in a person, while the dative is used more broadly, and can indicate both personal trust as the preposition does, along with giving credence to what has been said or written (see §1.3.1.2). The deliberate contrast in these verses suggests that the latter is in view. 224 In both 6:40 and 6:47 believing results in life, and while the object of belief is not explicit in 6:47, by this point in the Gospel it has been established that believing is in Jesus. 225 Beutler, "Faith," 177. 226 So Rensberger can say that “belief requires a disposition to be taught by God.” Rensberger, "Spirituality," 177.

3.3 Knowing, Believing and Speaking Out (7:1–52)

Chapter seven begins an extended section depicting Jesus’ interactions with the crowds in Jerusalem, which continues to develop the role of knowledge with regard to belief. The crowd speculates regarding Jesus’ identity (7:25–29, 40–44), with a focus on knowledge, as οἴδα appears five times and γινώσκω twice within four verses (7:25–29). Some assert that they know where Jesus is from, and Jesus apparently affirms their knowledge of him and his earthly origin (7:28). Yet he effectively mocks their claim to know him, for the crowd do not know the one who sent him and thus his heavenly origin (7:28–29).227 Secure in what they ‘know’, their flawed knowledge leads them to seek to arrest Jesus (7:30). Not all share this ‘knowledge’, however, as Ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου δὲ πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτὸν (7:31). This believing is motivated by the signs that Jesus has done, which they see as evidence that Jesus is the Christ.228 There is no indication regarding the nature or quality of the belief, rather this section demonstrates the intrinsic connection between believing in Jesus and what one knows about him.229

As Jesus teaches, his words are interpreted by the narrator to explain that after Jesus’ ministry, believers will receive the Spirit. Jesus promises the flow of living water that quenches thirst (7:38), while the narrator explains that the living water is the Spirit, ὃ ἔμελλον λαμβάνειν οἱ πιστεύσαντες εἰς αὐτόν (7:39).230 After Jesus’ glorification, genuine believers will be marked by having the Spirit.

Nicodemus reappears, acting in a way suggestive of developing belief, in contrast to the explicit unbelief of the authorities. Both this appearance and the subsequent one in chapter 19 are explicitly linked to Nicodemus’ first appearance.231 The audience is

227 Jesus will explicitly dismiss their claims to know him in 8:14, 19. 228 Schnackenburg, John, 1:561. This contrasts with unbelief which demands proof even when signs have been seen (7:3–5). 229 Contra Farelly, who suggests this belief is reminiscent of that in 2:23, and so the implied audience would not take it at face value. Whilst there is a similar connection to signs, the belief here is not questioned. Farelly, Disciples, 50. 230 There is debate as to whether the water flows from Jesus or the believer; whilst there are parallels with 4:14, the role of giving the Spirit is not attributed to believers at any other point, making the latter option unlikely. Favouring Jesus as the source see Brown, John, 1:320–21; Lincoln, John, 254–55; C. Bennema, "The Giving of the Spirit in John's Gospel - A New Proposal?," EvQ 74, no. 3 (2002): 199–200; J. Marcus, "Rivers of Living Water from Jesus’ Belly (John 7:38)," JBL 117, no. 2 (1998). For the believer as the source see Michaels, John, 463–65. 231 Farelly, "An Unexpected Ally," 39.

encouraged to connect these scenes to form an overall perspective of Nicodemus, rather than making a final judgement based on his misunderstanding in chapter three. Nicodemus calls upon the rulers to uphold the law in dealing with Jesus (7:51). His decision to speak out results in a hostile response, as the authorities declare categorically that μή τις ἐκ τῶν ἀρχόντωνἐπίστευσεν εἰς αὐτὸν (7:48). The hostile response of the Pharisees indicates that Nicodemus may have come to understand Jesus.232 While Nicodemus is not explicitly identified as a believer, the allegation of the authorities shows that they saw his words as suggestive of such an identification (7:52). The contrast between Nicodemus and the authorities hints at the importance of publicly declaring allegiance to Jesus as an element of genuine belief, as this speaking out is what differentiates Nicodemus from the rest of the Pharisees in this scene.

3.4 Believing but Not Yet True Disciples (8:12–59)

Chapter eight builds on the issue of Jesus’ heavenly origin, raised in chapter seven, which is now declared an essential truth that must be believed. The interaction is triggered by Jesus’ promise of τὸ φῶς τῆς ζωῆς to ὁ ἀκολουθῶν ἐμοὶ (8:12; cf. 1:4–5). While the nature of this following is not described here, as the result of following is life, following must be part of genuine believing.233 Initially Jesus’ origin is raised in the context of the validity of his witness, as Jesus knows where he has come from and where he is going, while the Pharisees do not (8:14; cf. 8:19). Then Jesus declares ἐὰν γὰρ μὴ πιστεύσητε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, ἀποθανεῖσθε ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν (8.24). This statement again presents a binary option where one must either believe or face the consequences.234 A key question is what must be believed, as conveyed by the ὅτι clause, which may be identified as an absolute ‘I am’ statement. While this statement has been taken as a divine reference, it appears to be ambiguous.235 The

232 Hylen, Imperfect, 34; Klink, John, 379. 233 Collins argues for ethical implications here, based on similar expressions in 1QS 4:9–11. Collins, "Follow," 51, 54. 234 While the expression ‘in your sins’ could be locative, dying in a state of sin, the emphasis that John puts on obedience with regard to eternal consequences (3:19–21, 36; 5:29; 8:51) suggests a causal interpretation. 235 Brown sees 8:24 along with 8:28, 58, and 13:19 as divine references, on account of parallels with the Old Testament divine name. Brown, John, 1:533. Lincoln, Truth, 89. Motyer, warning against a premature classification, describes both 8:24 and 28 as odd, commanding attention with their deliberate ambiguity. Motyer, Your Father, 159. Williams suggests that the earlier use of ἐγώ εἰμι in 6:20 is also a divine reference, linking to Isa 41:10. C. H. Williams, "'I Am; or 'I Am He'? Self-Declaratory Pronouncements in the Fourth Gospel and Rabbinic Tradition," in Jesus in Johannine Tradition (eds. R. T. Fortna, et al.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 346. A divine reference is not at the forefront in 6:20, but an audience already familiar with the Gospel, and in particular 8:58, would potentially see echoes of the divine name in these earlier instances. Denying such theological significance, Förster sees the expression as merely self-referential. H. Förster,

ambiguity is reflected in the crowd’s response Σὺ τίς εἶ; (8:25); they do not interpret it as a divine reference. The ambiguity of the expression suggests that the content is provided by the preceding context, most likely in Jesus’ statements ἐγὼ ἐκ τῶν ἄνω εἰμί and ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου (8:23). The use of the same pronoun and verb, along with their proximity, suggest that Jesus is emphasising the importance of this teaching regarding his origin.236 The following verse (8:25) uses τὴν ἀρχὴν to point the audience back to this preceding teaching, reinforcing the emphasis on Jesus’ heavenly origin.237 With the focus on Jesus’ origin continuing, 8:28 should be understood in parallel to 8:24, with πιστεύω replaced by γινώσκω. As the response of belief recorded in 8:30 follows on immediately, that belief should be taken primarily as indicating an acceptance of Jesus’ heavenly origin.

John 8:30–31 contains two references to believing, and the connection between these statements is contentious.238 First, as Jesus was speaking, πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτόν (8:30), while the next verse begins, Ἔλεγεν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς πρὸς τοὺς πεπιστευκότας αὐτῷ Ἰουδαίους (8:31).239 The primary issue is whether these two statements have the same referent, an issue that arises in part because of the supposed difference in meaning between the constructions with πιστεύω, but also on account of the contrast between the description of belief and the hostility later in the chapter.240 The use of the perfect participle in 8:31 suggests a continuity of referent, that Jesus is speaking to those who have just believed.241 The continuity is

"Selbstoffenbarung und Identität. Zur grammatikalischen Struktur der „absoluten“ Ich-Bin-Worte Jesu im Johannesevangelium," ZNW 108, no. 1 (2017). 236 On this teaching, see Loader, Jesus, 55–57. 237 von Wahlde argues that this verse should read "I told you in the beginning what I also tell you now", following the correction in 픓66 as well as the parallels between this chapter and chapters 6 and 10. von Wahlde, "Literary": 579. Funk takes the correction to 픓66 as original. R. W. Funk, "Papyrus Bodmer II P66 and John 8, 25," HTR 51, no. 2 (1958). However it appears more like an attempt to smooth out a difficult passage. The explanation of Caragounis based on contemporary use of τὴν ἀρχὴν as an adverbial accusative best fits the evidence, with the rendering “From the beginning!-precisely what I have been saying (speaking) to you.” C. C. Caragounis, "What Did Jesus Mean by τὴν ἀρχήν in John 8:25?," NovT 49, no. 2 (2007). Contra H. Förster, "Überlegungen zur Grammatik von Joh 8,25 im Lichte der handschriftlichen Überlieferung," ZNW 107, no. 1 (2016). 238 On the relationship of these two statements, see Seglenieks, "Untrustworthy": 61–64. 239 Several commentators argue for one of these references being a later addition. Brown, John, 1:354; Hawthorne, "Concept": 118; C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (London: SPCK, 1955), 284–85. Although in the second edition of his commentary, Barrett rejects the idea. Barrett, John, 344. 240 Arguing that the believers in each statement are the same include Carson, John, 347–48; Michaels, John, 503–4; Lincoln, Truth, 90; Braun, Jean, 3:122. Seeing the dative indicating lesser faith, thus a different group, are Barrett, John, 344; I. de la Potterie, La vérité dans saint Jean (2 vols.; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977), 2:842–43; Moloney, Signs and Shadows, 103. However, these constructions are overlapping in meaning, thus alone the change is not evidence for a different referent (see §1.3.1.2). 241 Motyer argues that the faith in 8:31 is ‘acceptance of Jesus as the Prophet’, as he is acclaimed as such in

supported by the use of the conjunction οὖν, which in narrative contexts signifies both development and close connection.242 The element of development is seen in the topic shift to the nature of true discipleship, while there is continuity in setting and audience. Therefore, these two verses refer to the same group of believers, who have just believed in Jesus’ heavenly origin, and to whom Jesus’ following words are directed.243

The incomplete nature of the faith described in 8:30–31 is reflected in the following call to become ἀληθῶς μαθηταί μού (8:32). While some differentiate between belief and discipleship, the connection between believing and discipleship has already been established, and thus the call to true discipleship is a call to genuine belief (§3.2).244 While a group within the crowd have displayed an incipient faith that has grasped something of Jesus’ identity, they are called to the greater understanding and commitment of genuine belief.245 The nature of this genuine belief is conveyed as Jesus tells his audience of his desire that μείνητε ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῷ ἐμῷ (8:31). As in 5:38, this implies both acceptance of, and acting upon, God’s message. However, the subject and object are transposed compared to 5:38, turning this into a call for perseverance, implying also a fuller acceptance of his teaching.246 The goal of commitment to Jesus’ teaching is expressed as γνώσεσθε τὴν ἀλήθειαν (8:32), with the most likely content of τὴν ἀλήθειαν being the breadth of Jesus’ teaching, although Jesus’ later identification of himself as the truth (14:6) may emphasise the aspect of his identity. The result is that ἡ ἀλήθεια ἐλευθερώσει ὑμᾶς (8:32), with freedom contrasted with slavery to sin (8:34–36). True discipleship is both cognitive and ethical, comprising an understanding of the person of Jesus and a life lived in freedom from sin. As true discipleship is genuine belief, such belief must go beyond a partial understanding of Jesus’ identity and must also embrace the ethical implications of Jesus’ message.

7:40, as well as discerning hints of Deuteronomy 18:18 in John 8:26, 28 as Jesus speaks what he hears from God. Motyer, Your Father, 157. However, if this believing points back to chapter seven, the obvious title to refer to is ‘Christ’, as ‘Prophet’ is mentioned once, compared to ‘Christ’ occurring five times. Jesus speaking what he hears from God relates to his heavenly origin, and thus belief in Jesus’ heavenly origin is still in view. 242 Runge, Discourse, 43; Buth, "Οὖν," 157; Levinsohn, Discourse, 82. 243 Frey, "Glauben," 12. It is equally unnecessary to read the participle in 8:31 as pluperfect in sense, as does J. Swetnam, "The Meaning of πεπιστευχότας in John 8,31," Bib 61, no. 1 (1980): 107. 244 Those making such a distinction include Motyer, Your Father, 60; Rainbow, Johannine, 314. Rainbow describes genuine discipleship as steadfast abiding, profession and conduct, but degrading believing to mere profession. 245 Walter draws parallels between the faith here and the faith that fell short in 2:23–25. Walter, L’incroyance, 91. 246 Motyer, Your Father, 169.

The following interaction with the crowd centres on the ethical aspect that has been raised in the call to true discipleship.247 The crowd rejects the call to true discipleship, displaying this in their actions (8:37).248 Jesus rejects the crowd’s claims to be children of Abraham (8:41), following up with the striking accusation that the Devil is their father (8:44).249 The familial language evokes the image in the prologue of the believer as a child of God (1:12–13), confirming that those who believe will display their familial allegiance to Jesus through their ethical actions.250 The familial imagery is also used to present love as the appropriate response to the one who has come from God (8:42).251 The crowd responds with accusations that amount to a denunciation of a false prophet (8:48, 52), seeking a way to dismiss the challenge he has presented to them.252 Jesus declares ἐάν τις τὸν ἐμὸν λόγον τηρήσῃ, θάνατον οὐ μὴ θεωρήσῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (8:51), which unlike the previous emphasis with regard to Jesus’ word on accepting or believing, uses τηρέω to convey action. It is used in John with the sense of obedience, connected with αἱ ἐντολαί (14:15, 21; 15:10). As the actions of this crowd reveal their spiritual state, Jesus declares that the one who is aligned with him will show it in right action.

Along with the ethical focus, Jesus continues the call to accept his message. The crowd’s unwillingness to accept his words is seen in their quick retorts rejecting Jesus’ challenges (8:33, 39, 41), while Jesus challenges the crowd again, saying ἐγὼ δὲ ὅτι τὴν ἀλήθειανέγω, λ οὐ πιστεύετέ μοι (8:45).253 While the true disciple will know the truth (8:31–

247 In this dialogue it is likely that the broader crowd interact with Jesus, not only those he directly addressed in 8:32. Motyer, Your Father, 162–63. Contra Griffith, Jesus does not address a different group, but his focus narrows in 8:31–32 to a subset of the crowd then widens out to the broader group. This accounts for the rapid shift from incipient belief to hostility, although those believers are subsumed into the hostility so completely that the audience must infer that they have not progressed to genuine belief. Although speculative, it could be that these incipient believers are like those in 12:42–43 who value glory from the crowd over that from God. 248 Jesus has linked acceptance of his teaching and a desire to do God’s will in 7:17. 249 Motyer uses the parallel with the Testament of Dan to argue this is an ethical statement not an ontological one, a prophetic condemnation that seeks to persuade rather than merely denounce. Motyer, Your Father, 148– 49, 185, 212. 250 Brown, "Believing," 19; J. Frey, "'Ethical' Traditions, Family Ethos, and Love in the Johannine Literature," in Early Christian Ethics in Interaction with Jewish and Greco-Roman Contexts (eds. J. W. van Henten, et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 190. An important implication of this is the separation of ethnic and spiritual identity. Schneiders, "Reflections": 41. 251 The ethical context suggests that love may have an ethical dimension, however the nature of love is not explored here. 252 Motyer, Your Father, 199. 253 Whilst Barus claims the present tense here is an encouragement to continue to believe, Jesus’ words describe those listening as not only unbelieving but unable to respond (8:47). Barus, "Faith," 247.

32), this crowd fails to recognise or accept the truth in Jesus’ words. Jesus’ challenge in 8:45 implies that recognising the truth that he speaks will lead to belief. Believing rests upon a foundation of accepting the truth of Jesus’ message, while failure to see the truth in his words leaves one unable to believe—and in the case of the crowd, leads to the opposite of belief, violence towards Jesus himself (8:59).254

3.5 Blindness or Belief (9:1–41)

The account of the blind man brings out striking character contrasts. The story has parallels with the healing in chapter five, but the positive responses of the blind man form a stark contrast to the failures of the man healed earlier.255 The blind man is initially unaware of who has healed him, but this lack of knowledge lasts only until a second encounter with Jesus (9:35), where Jesus asks Σὺ πιστεύεις εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; While the formerly blind man is unaware of the identity of the Son of Man, he is not content in this ignorance, as he seeks from Jesus the identity of the Son of Man, saying τίς ἐστιν, κύριε, ἵνα πιστεύσω εἰς αὐτόν; (9:36).256 Ignorance itself does not appear to be culpable, rather it is the attitude that is content to remain in ignorance, and which does not seek after the truth. Once Jesus declares that he is referring to himself, the man declares his belief unambiguously, saying Πιστεύω, κύριε (9:38), and then the man προσεκύνησεν αὐτῷ (9:38). The implications of προσκυνέω are unclear, however an act of prostration as seen in encounters with God’s messenger (Gen 18:2) is most likely, for while the man has made significant progression in understanding Jesus’ identity it does not appear that he perceives Jesus as divine, which would be necessary in order for him to be an object of worship.257 Unlike the man healed in chapter five, this man demonstrates belief both in his attitude which seeks understanding and in his declaration

254 Ethical, propositional, and relational ideas are intertwined in this passage, rather than, as Morgan, there being a contrast between a propositional and a relational focus. Morgan, Roman, 429–31. 255 A. M. Reimer, "The Man Born Blind: True Disciple of Jesus," in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel (eds. S. A. Hunt, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 430, 437. 256 D. Estes, The Questions of Jesus in John: Logic, Rhetoric and Persuasive Discourse (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 149–52. 257 If he did perceive Jesus’ identity as divine he would be the only character to do so before the cross. Hence many commentators identify this as a physical act, including Beasley-Murray, John, 159–60; Carson, John, 377. Others see it as the intrusion of a post-resurrection perspective, but that is less plausible given the author’s concern to distinguish story and discourse levels of the text (see §1.3.1.4). Smith, John, 199. Schneiders identifies the progression of understanding Jesus as a man (9:11), a prophet (9:17), ‘from God’ (9:33), and finally Son of Man (9:35–38). S. M. Schneiders, "To See or Not to See: John 9 as a Synthesis of the Theology and Spirituality of Discipleship," in Word, Theology, and Community in John (eds. J. Painter, et al.; St. Louis, MO: Chalice, 2002), 201; J. Painter, "John 9 and the Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel," JSNT 28, no. 1 (1986): 31–32.

of faith.258 His attitude reinforces the importance of understanding Jesus and an openness to his teaching (cf. 6:60–71; 7:25–31), while his confession adds to the evidence of Nicodemus (7:51–2) that such public witness is necessary, although not yet allowing a definitive conclusion (see further §3.8).

The positive portrayal of the blind man is emphasised by the contrast between him and the Pharisees, who claim knowledge but demonstrate unbelief. Their unbelief is evident in their response, as Οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι περὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι ἦν τυφλὸς καὶ ἀνέβλεψεν (9:18). The focus then turns to knowledge, with 9:20–31 containing ten instances of οἶδα. In addition to confirming the veracity of the miracle (9:20–21, 25), there are competing claims to know about Jesus.259 The Jews ‘know this man is a sinner’ (9:24), and while they know that God spoke to Moses, they do not know where this man is from (9:29). The responses of the formerly blind man (9:25, 30–31) cast doubt on the Pharisees’ claims to know. They may claim to know, but that does not mean they know the truth. As will be confirmed in 9:41, their certainty in their erroneous knowledge prevents them from believing in Jesus. Belief requires true knowledge.

Amidst this contrast, the aspect of discipleship is repeated. The blind man is called a disciple of Jesus by the Pharisees (9:28), as he, unlike his parents, is unafraid to declare what he believes. It is unclear if this is intended as a genuine characterisation, but regardless of the intent, the man’s response in 9:35–39 will show him to truly be a disciple, even if at this stage he has little understanding of who Jesus is. This suggests that one can be characterised as a disciple, at least at the story level, without a full understanding of Jesus’ identity.260 In contrast the Jews declare themselves disciples of Moses. When combined with the subsequent characterisation of the right response to God as both being θεοσεβής and doing God’s will (9:31), discipleship entails right action, by adhering to God’s will as revealed in Scripture. Correspondingly, to be a disciple of Jesus would mean adhering to his commands, thus reinforcing Jesus’ description of the true disciple in 8:31–32. As in chapter eight, ethical action is an essential part of genuine discipleship and thus genuine belief.

258 The man’s witness to Jesus becomes a focus of the scene. Lincoln, Truth, 99. 259 Muderhwa, B.V., "The Blind Man of John 9 as a Paradigmatic Figure of the Disciple in the Fourth Gospel," HTS Teologiese Studies/HTS Theological Studies 68, no. 1 (2012), Art. #1008, 7. 260 As are those in 6:60–66, although they do not progress beyond their limited understanding. While this man is a disciple, his limited understanding precludes identifying him as a paradigmatic disciple, contra Muderhwa, "Blind," 8.

3.6 Believing: Knowing and Being Known (10:1–42)

Chapter 10 continues the focus on knowing that has been prominent in chapters 7–9 and connects knowing to following. In his symbolic discourse (παροιμία) Jesus depicts his followers as sheep (τὰ ἴδια πρόβατα), who are distinguished by the fact that οἴδασιν τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ (10:4).261 The emphasis on ‘his own’ sheep implies these are believers, as it refers to the ones who respond, whereas it is simply ‘the sheep’ who hear.262 To respond to Jesus’ voice is to accept his message. Equally Jesus’ sheep οὐκ οἴδασιν τῶν ἀλλοτρίων τὴν φωνήν (10:5), an image of singular focus. Accepting Jesus’ message is not merely internal but results in following Jesus (10:4), an action already noted as linked to believing (§2.3).263 In contrast to Jesus’ sheep, those to whom Jesus speaks fail to understand the challenge presented to them (10:6). This failure to respond is repeated in 10:25, reiterating the importance of believing in response to Jesus’ disclosure of his identity. The Gospel continues to declare that genuine belief requires acceptance of Jesus’ message, along with following Jesus.

The knowledge that belief entails is not simply acceptance of Jesus’ teaching, but also mutual personal knowledge. Jesus declares regarding his sheep that γινώσκω τὰ ἐμὰ καὶ γινώσκουσί με τὰ ἐμά (10:14). This mutual knowledge may include a knowledge of identity, as Jesus knows his sheep by name (10:3). However, the comparison with the mutual knowledge of Jesus and the Father (10:15) indicates this knowledge must be more than merely informational, but includes a personal and experiential dimension.264 As Jesus’ sheep are equally those who genuinely believe, then those who believe must share in this mutual personal knowledge.

Jesus indicates the evidential role of his works, which are to lead to an understanding of his connection to the Father, a necessary step towards genuine belief. Having declared the

261 On παροιμία see U. Poplutz, "Paroimia und Parabole: Gleichniskonzepte bei Johannes und Markus," in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language (eds. J. Frey, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). 262 A. Reinhartz, The Word in the World: The Cosmological Tale in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: Scholars, 1992), 75. The idea of belonging to Jesus has been suggested in 6:37, 39 where those who believe are those ὃ δέδωκέν μοι. 263 The theme of imitating Jesus, seen especially in John 13, suggests that following Jesus has an implication of following his example, thus incorporating an ethical obligation. Collins, "Follow," 55–56. 264 De la Potterie emphasises the experiential character of ‘knowing’ here, which is suggested by the use of γινώσκω rather than οἶδα. de la Potterie, "οἶδα": 714–15.

crowd’s lack of belief in 10:25, Jesus then calls on them to believe in 10:37–38, with an emphasis on his works. Jesus points to his works as his credentials— εἰ οὐ ποιῶ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πατρός μου, μὴ πιστεύετέ μοι (10:37; cf. 10:21). Recognising though that many do not believe in him, Jesus adds the call κἂν ἐμοὶ μὴ πιστεύητε, τοῖς ἔργοις πιστεύετε. These two kinds of belief are not equivalent, for the call to believe in Jesus is a call to the genuine belief this Gospel seeks to evoke in contrast to ‘believing the works’ as a lesser alternative. The call to ‘believe the works’ indicates giving credence to what Jesus has said and done.265 The intended result of believing the works is that γνῶτε καὶ γινώσκητε ὅτι ἐν ἐμοὶ ὁ πατὴρ κἀγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρί (10:38). This implies that giving credence to the works entails perceiving their significance with regard to the identity of Jesus, as evidence for the connection between the Father and Son. The repetition of γινώσκω highlights the verbal aspect of the two different verb forms, conveying the intent that people both come to know and go on knowing this connection of Father and Son. As in chapter eight (§3.4), grasping this close connection of Father and Son is a step towards genuine believing.

Jesus then goes into the region where John the Baptist had been baptising, and, πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτὸν ἐκεῖ (10:42). The summary nature of this section conveys no more information about believing than that it was evoked by the way Jesus fulfilled the testimony of the Baptist.

3.7 Imperfect but Acceptable Belief (11:1–12:11)

The particular contribution of chapter eleven is to show the place of imperfections within acceptable belief. The crowds in the preceding chapters have shown faith that falls short of acceptable belief, either through a lack of commitment or a lack of understanding. Now those who are apparently committed to Jesus show deficiencies in their faith. If the faith of such committed followers is to be understood as acceptable, then the question is raised as to what distinguishes their faith from that of the preceding crowds. Three features are seen in the examples of belief in this chapter which have been absent from the preceding unacceptable responses—growth, commitment and a willingness to act.

265 While ἔργον primarily indicates actions, 14:10 suggests that it can include both, and John does not draw a sharp distinction between word and deed. Salier, Semeia, 81, 144–46.

While at the story level acceptable belief is compatible with incomplete knowledge, Jesus is seen working to bring such faith to a sufficient understanding. This need is conveyed in the opening scene of the chapter, after announcing the death of Lazarus, Jesus tells his disciples χαίρω διʼ ὑμᾶς ἵνα πιστεύσητε (11:15). For Jesus to rejoice at the occasion of the death of his friend is striking, and the benefit for his disciples must be significant. The disciples have already been described as believing (2:11), yet here Jesus acts so that they might believe. The recognition of the two levels functioning in the text enable the assessment that the disciples believe in Jesus in an acceptable way, yet they also have more to understand and believe (cf. 16:30–31) as they move towards the more complete picture of genuine belief that is possible after the resurrection. Acceptable belief must grow in knowledge in order to fulfil the expectations of the cognitive aspect of genuine belief as presented at the discourse level.

The second element that distinguishes the belief seen in this chapter from that of the earlier crowds is commitment. Thomas displays commitment in his willingness to go and die with Lazarus, despite the fear of returning to Judea (11:8).266 Despite the courage displayed in this statement, Sylva sees a deficiency of faith, claiming Thomas denies a central part of Jesus’ message in not seeing past death.267 However, whilst Thomas does not understand that this mission would be characterised by resurrection not death, this misunderstanding should not be equated with unbelief.268 Jesus has not divulged his plans to raise Lazarus, so there is no message which Thomas fails to believe. Thomas’ commitment is better seen in contrast to those who turn away at difficult times, which Jesus decries as unbelief (6:60–64), highlighting the ongoing aspect of belief.

The element of commitment is also seen in the response of Martha to Jesus. Martha displays belief in Jesus (11:21–22) and declares her confidence that her brother will be raised on the last day (11:24).269 While Jesus does not contradict her, he seeks to deepen her understanding. His declaration Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀνάστασις καὶ ἡ ζωή (11:25) functions as a

266 T. Popp, "Thomas: Question Marks and Exclamation Marks," in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel (eds. S. A. Hunt, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 509. 267 D. Sylva, Thomas – Love as Strong as Death: Faith and Commitment in the Fourth Gospel (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 11–12. 268 Skinner, John and Thomas, 55. Beutler goes further to identifies Thomas as the model disciple, taking this willingness to die together with his later confession (20:28). Beutler, "Faith," 27; Wang, Sense, 191. 269 Hylen, Imperfect, 79.

challenge to Martha who sees Jesus as able to prevent death but not reverse it within the current age. Jesus makes this challenge explicit, asking πιστεύεις τοῦτο; (11:26). The accusative demonstrative pronoun functions like the dative, calling for acceptance of the previous statement.270 It is a call to believe in the identity of Jesus as the resurrection and the life, but also to believe in the implications of this for those who believe (11:26). In light of the Gospel’s focus on the identity of Jesus, along with the use of the ‘I am’ statement to draw attention to the claim Jesus makes, the focus here is on the identity of Jesus over the results.271 Jesus’ challenge to Martha does not undermine the commitment she displays in her initial response to Jesus (11:21–22; cf. 11:32), a commitment stronger than the challenge of the death of her brother.272

Martha rises to the challenge and indicates that her commitment includes accepting the challenging claims that Jesus makes. Martha’s response is to declare ἐγὼ πεπίστευκα ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἐρχόμενος (11:27). The combination of the titles ‘Christ’ and ‘Son of God’, only seen here and in 20:31, leads some to identify this confession as reflecting ideal belief.273 Martha presents her confession as an acceptance of Jesus’ words, beginning Ναὶ κύριε. Schnackenburg casts doubt on Martha’s degree of understanding, but the disciples in chapter six showed that acceptance of Jesus’ teaching is the primary concern, which Martha displays.274 Moloney is particularly critical of this confession, pointing to the previous use of these titles in situations of misunderstanding

270 In the Hellenistic period there was an overlap in usage where the accusative could take the place of the dative, influenced by phonetic shifts which removed the difference between dative singular and accusative singular forms. G. Horrocks, Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers (2nd ed.; Chichester: Wiley- Blackwell, 2010), 116. 271 A. T. Lincoln, "The Lazarus Story : A Literary Perspective," in The Gospel of John and Christian Theology (eds. R. J. Bauckham, et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 232. 272 The parallels between Martha and Mary, speaking the same words to Jesus (11:21, 32), invite a comparison. S. Miller, "Mary (of Bethany): The Anointer of the Suffering Messiah," in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel (eds. S. A. Hunt, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 477; R. F. Collins, "‘Who Are You?’ Comparison/Contrast and Fourth Gospel Characterization," in Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John (ed. C. W. Skinner; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark 2013), 83. While Martha interacts further with Jesus and confesses her faith, Mary goes no further than her initial statement. This may suggest of a lack of hope, failing to see past death, so Sylva, Thomas, 51–52; Bennema, Encountering, 155. However, while Mary even more than Martha may not expect Jesus to bring life now, the minor role of Mary means that any argument over the details of her belief and understanding can only be an argument from silence, while any shortcoming does not prevent her from following Jesus (11:29). 273 Bennema, Encountering, 149; M. W. G. Stibbe, "A Tomb with a View: John 11.1–44 in Narrative-Critical Perspective " NTS 40, no. 1 (1994): 47; M. M. Beirne, Women and Men in the Fourth Gospel: A Genuine Discipleship of Equals (London: Sheffield Academic, 2003), 133; P. F. Esler and R. A. Piper, Lazarus, Mary and Martha: Social-Scientific Approaches to the Gospel of John (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 88. 274 Schnackenburg, John, 2:332.

(1:49; 6:14) along with Martha’s use of the lesser title διδάσκαλος (11:28) as conveying inferior belief. Yet we have observed that earlier uses of ‘Christ’ and ‘Son of God’ do not highlight misunderstanding, and nor are there negative connotations to addressing Jesus as teacher (§2.2). Moloney also argues that the use of the perfect form of πιστεύω here indicates a prior faith rather than a response to Jesus’ declaration, and so she continues in her lack of understanding (11:21).275 While the perfect indicates that Martha is not confessing a new faith based on Jesus words in 11:25–26, her prior faith includes a misunderstanding not of Jesus’ identity, but of his mission to bring life now rather than only at the resurrection. Arguing directly against Moloney, both Gail O’Day and Margaret Beirne point out that there is no rejection, either implicit or explicit, of this confession, nor a clear indication of limited understanding.276 The parallels with the purpose statement suggests her faith conforms to the ideal given by the author. Therefore, this confession must be taken as conveying both an acceptance of Jesus’ claims, and a response of acceptable belief, even if Martha does not yet fully understand Jesus’ mission. Martha’s commitment in the face of challenging teaching mirrors that of the disciples in 6:68–69, in contrast to the crowds who reject such challenges (6:60–66; 8:31–59; 10:31–39), indicating that commitment is an important part of acceptable belief in contrast to the unbelief of the crowds. Martha, as Thomas before, exemplifies the ongoing aspect of belief.

When the action moves to the tomb, the third element that distinguishes acceptable belief is displayed—a willingness to move to action. At first, Martha hesitates and questions Jesus before she opens the tomb (11:39).277 Moloney argues this response indicates she does not have full faith, her fear being incompatible with truly believing that Jesus is the resurrection and the life.278 Despite her reluctance Martha opens the tomb for Jesus, but her hesitation implies a deficiency in her attitude, not expecting Jesus to raise her brother immediately.279 Martha is not alone in such a misunderstanding, as none of the Gospels show

275 F. J. Moloney, "Can Everyone Be Wrong? A Reading of John 11:1–12:8," NTS 49, no. 4 (2003): 513–15. 276 G. R. O'Day, "Martha: Seeing the Glory of God " in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel (eds. S. A. Hunt, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 492,499; Beirne, Women, 133. 277 While the text says ἦραν οὖν τὸν λίθον, Martha appears as the one with authority to open the tomb, and if the tomb was sealed with a large stone it is likely she would have needed assistance to move it. O’Day argues that 4:39 serves to indicate the reality of Lazarus’ death rather than a lack of faith. While the description of the stench may add to the vividness of the account, there is also a hesitation to obey Jesus, which suggests less than complete confidence. O'Day, "Martha," 500–1. 278 Moloney, "Reading John 11": 520. The problem with applying Moloney’s label of ‘full faith’ to anyone pre- resurrection was noted with the Samaritan woman in chapter 4 (§2.5). 279 Lincoln states that while Martha’s confession in 11:27 is formally complete, it is evidently lacking given her

anyone truly understanding Jesus prior to the resurrection, however positively they respond.280 This lack of understanding is not a lack of faith in Jesus, as shown by her commitment and action. In response to Martha’s hesitation at the tomb, Jesus reminds her that ἐὰν πιστεύσῃς ὄψῃ τὴν δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ (11:40). Believing involves trusting Jesus sufficiently to open the tomb, as it is this action which allows the glory of God to be seen in the raising of Lazarus. To genuinely believe is to trust, but also to act.

As Jesus raises Lazarus, his prayer confirms the importance of believing that Jesus is sent from God. Jesus states the reason for his public prayer as διὰ τὸν ὄχλον τὸν περιεστῶτα εἶπον, ἵνα πιστεύσωσιν ὅτι σύ με ἀπέστειλας (11:42). His earlier comment about building the disciples’ belief (11:15) suggests that this prayer may have been especially for the benefit of the disciples. While it is the broader crowd who ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτόν (11:45; cf. 12:11), their belief is on account of what was done, not what was said.281 Whether directed at the disciples or a wider audience, this prayer conveys the importance of believing Jesus’ identity as one sent by God.282

The final scene with the family of Lazarus continues to demonstrate the coexistence of incomplete understanding and acceptable belief. In this scene, Mary appears as a positive character, both affirmed in her action by Jesus (12:7) and contrasted with the character of Judas. While Judas’ actions lead to Jesus’ death, Mary’s prepare Jesus for death.283 However, despite this positive aspect, it should not be asserted that Mary recognises the need for Jesus’ death.284 Neither Mary nor the narrator give any indication that she is aware of the significance of her action. Instead, like Caiaphas immediately before, her action is unknowingly prophetic.285 Mary displays devotion to Jesus which given the positive context

response at the tomb. Lincoln, "Lazarus," 230. 280 The lack of understanding for all characters prior to the cross highlights the vital importance of distinguishing the presentation of belief at the story level compared to the discourse level. 281 While Croteau decries this faith as not reflecting a permanent conversion on account of not going past the sign, this judgement appears based upon an a priori assumption that signs-based faith is inadequate. Croteau, "Analysis," 65. The crowds in this Gospel are repeatedly characterised by σχίσμα (7:43; 10:19) and thus it is unwise to interpret them as representing a single belief-response. 282 Ueberschaer, "Johannesevangelium," 463. 283 Skinner, John and Thomas, 224–25. 284 As do Farelly, Disciples, 60; Moloney, "Reading John 11": 516, 523; Beirne, Women, 154; Lee, Symbolic, 220. As Zimmermann observes, both sisters display imperfections in their faith and actions. R. Zimmerman, "Figurenanalyse im Johannesevangelium: Ein Beitrag zu Sinn und Wahrheit narratologischer Exegese," ZNW 105, no. 1 (2014): 44. 285 Sylva, Thomas, 54. Similarly Conway says that Judas’ opposition gives Jesus an opportunity to interpret the

reflects acceptable belief at the story level, even if her understanding at this stage is incomplete.

3.8 The Attitude of Belief: Unhidden (12:12–50)

When Jesus enters Jerusalem, the narrator points again to the future growth of the understanding of the disciples. Observing the symbolic imagery, the narrator states that ταῦτα οὐκ ἔγνωσαν αὐτοῦ οἱ μαθηταὶ τὸ πρῶτον (12:16). However, as was the case in 2:22, once Jesus is glorified τότε ἐμνήσθησαν ὅτι ταῦτα ἦν ἐπʼ αὐτῷ γεγραμμένα καὶ ταῦτα ἐποίησαν αὐτῷ (12:16). Their later understanding encompasses the meaning of the symbolic actions associated with Jesus’ entry as understood in light of Zech. 9:9.286 Again, this demonstrates that while the faith of the disciples was acceptable at this point in the story-level, they are on the path to genuine belief as seen at the discourse level, and their lack of understanding should not be assumed to be acceptable in a post-resurrection context.

Upon the arrival of some Greeks, Jesus makes a series of pronouncements which describe the attitude that genuine belief comprises. The first concerns the seed which unless it dies will remain (μένω) alone (12:24). This is another indication of the purpose of Jesus’ death, but appears to be told more as a model of sacrificial living (12:25) than as something to be believed.287 The second uses the contrast of either loving or hating one’s life (12:25). As it is linked to eternal life, it must represent an attitude that is part of genuine believing. This is a semitic idiom that indicates preference rather than the extremes of love and hate, and parallels are found in the other Gospels with more moderate language (Matt 10:39; Mark 8:35; Luke 17:33).288 It thus indicates that genuine belief includes an attitude which prioritises eternal life over preservation of earthly life, and therefore is not hidden when facing opposition.289 The coming of the Greeks also evokes missionary themes, connected to the Isaianic background of this section, thereby bringing out a need for public witness entailed in belief.290

action on another level. C. M. Conway, Men and Women in the Fourth Gospel: Gender and Johannine Characterization (Atlanta: SBL Press, 1999), 153. 286 The failure to understand Jesus in light of Scripture is a recurring failure (cf. 20:9). 287 The image of sacrificial living is reinforced by the language of serving in the following verse (12:26) 288 Expressions using ideas of love and hate to indicate preference are found in Gen 29:30–31; Deut 21:15; Matt 6:24; and Luke 14:26 (cf. Matt 10:37). 289 A further hint at the visibility of genuine faith is found in the call to πιστεύετε εἰς τὸ φῶς (12:36), with the use of ‘the light’ in place of Jesus, in the context of this chapter, forming a suggestive image. 290 J. Beutler, "Greeks Come to See Jesus (John 12,20f)," Bib 71, no. 3 (1990): 346–47.

The Gospel begins to sum up Jesus’ public ministry, observing the negative responses to Jesus, both those οὐκ ἐπίστευον εἰς αὐτόν (12:37), but also the ‘secret believers’. The widespread unbelief is explained in the words of Isaiah (12:38–40), with an element of divine sovereignty in the declaration that διὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἠδύναντο πιστεύειν (12:39).291 Despite the predominant response of unbelief some apparently did believe, as ἐκ τῶν ἀρχόντων πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτόν (12:42). Yet this faith appears to be flawed as those who believed did not confess their faith, for ἠγάπησαν γὰρ τὴν δόξαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων μᾶλλον ἤπερτὴν δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ (12:43). This is a strong indictment, as this attitude has been characterised as incompatible with genuine belief (5:44).292 Following Jesus’ statement in 12:25, it must be concluded that the attitude displayed in 12:43 cannot co-exist with genuine believing.293 The narrator’s awareness of these secret believers suggests that some later publicly professed their faith (such as Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus), and therefore this faith can represent a step towards genuine belief, but as it stands it is not accepted by Jesus.

The final section of Jesus’ public teaching confirms the necessity for genuine belief to be visible and active. Jesus begins by equating belief in him with belief in the Father, saying Ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ οὐ πιστεύει εἰς ἐμὲ ἀλλὰ εἰς τὸν πέμψαντά με (12:44; cf. 5:24; 14:1). Stating that belief in Jesus is belief in God highlights the incompatibility between the flawed attitude towards God seen in 12:43 and a right response to Jesus. Jesus then states that πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ μὴ μείνῃ (12:46). As with Jesus’ earlier identification of his presence as the antidote to darkness (12:35–36), this implies that his followers are visible, while also evoking the ethical implications of light and darkness as in 3:19–21. The ethical and visible aspects of belief are also seen in the descriptions of those who fail to believe as τίς μου ἀκούσῃ τῶν ῥημάτων καὶ μὴ φυλάξῃ, ὁ ἀθετῶν ἐμὲ καὶ μὴ λαμβάνων τὰ ῥήματά μου (12:47–48). Whilst they may have heard Jesus’ words, they do not put them into practice,

291 Lett argues it is the combination of the images from the two parts of Isaiah, showing Jesus both as God enthroned and as crucified, which is the cause of Jewish unbelief. J. Lett, "The Divine Identity of Jesus as the Reason for Israel's Unbelief in John 12:36–43," JBL 135, no. 1 (2016): 172. However, this overly downplays the element of divine sovereignty that is presented as an explanation for unbelief. 292 Bassler, "Mixed": 641. The desire for honour from people (φιλοτιμία) had negative connotations in the ancient world, and could be a characteristic of tyrants (Herodotus, Hist. 3.53; Thucydides, Hist. 3.82; Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1125B 22). R. L. Fox, Pagans and Christians (London: Penguin, 1988), 53. Tam differentiates between those in 5:41–44 and here, and therefore offers a more positive assessment. Tam, Apprehension, 111. 293 Their failure to witness is a significant failure in light of the prominence of the theme of witness. O’Brien, "Written": 292.

thereby rejecting both Jesus and his message. While unbelief is characterised by this rejection, the genuine believer must hear, receive, and act, thereby coming into the light through both public witness and ethical action.

3.9 Summary of Believing in John 5–12

These chapters have presented four key aspects of belief, and hinted at a fifth, as Jesus challenges people to respond to him in belief.294 The first, prominent especially in the context of conflict with the crowds, is the cognitive aspect that is presented primarily in terms of propositional belief regarding Jesus’ identity. John 1–4 has already established the importance of Jesus’ identity, and in 5–12 the crowds demonstrate that at the story level a sufficient understanding of his identity is vital in order to respond rightly to Jesus, and to sustain ongoing commitment, even if a more complete understanding is not yet possible. In addition to reinforcing the messianic identity of Jesus, grasping the heavenly origin of Jesus is presented as essential (8:12–30; 10:38). This understanding is seen to be essential for genuine belief at the discourse level, as Jesus uses events in order to further the disciples’ belief (11:15), while the narrator continues to indicate that greater understanding lies beyond the events of the cross (12:16). The knowledge which is essential for belief is not merely awareness of facts, but an acceptance and internalisation of the information (§3.2). The knowledge of those accepted by Jesus is contrasted with the opponents of Jesus who rest in the certainty of their knowledge (particularly evident in chapter nine). Similarly, a willingness to be taught by God (6:45) is contrasted with the rejection of things not yet understood which leads some away from Jesus (6:60–66). Differentiating the story and discourse levels of the text allows us to see that there are two different standards of belief presented, with the distinction continuing to be evident in what must be understood. Prior to the cross, acceptable belief requires a sufficient grasp of Jesus’ identity, which appears to primarily entail an understanding of his unique and messianic role. For the audience, genuine belief must add to this at least an understanding of Jesus’ heavenly origin; the following chapters may indicate further elements that the cognitive aspect of genuine belief requires in a post-resurrection context.

Outside the realm of understanding, the two levels of the text continue to function

294 Painter argues that John 1–12 confronts the world with the challenge to believe. Painter, "Eschatological," 37.

together to present the other aspects of belief, and the second key characteristic is that belief encompasses an ethical aspect. Building on the general ethical statements of chapter three, the essential nature of an ethical response is reinforced in chapter five (5:14, 28–29). This call becomes more concrete in the ethical allegations against the unbelieving crowd in chapter eight, whose actions reveal their spiritual heritage. Ethical action is only to be understood within the context of belief, for action alone is not the necessary response (6:28–29). Yet equally the link between action and eternal fate (5:28–29) makes the ethical aspect an essential part of genuine belief.

The third characteristic of belief that these chapters display is the ongoing aspect of belief. Genuine belief entails an ongoing commitment, as indicated by the language of following and being a disciple. The characters which are presented positively are those who continue to respond well to Jesus, such as the Twelve in contrast to the crowd who turn away (6:60–71). So too Mary and Martha continue in faith despite their bereavement, while the blind man refuses to give in to persecution. There are characters who present an initial believing response to Jesus (6:14; 8:30), but only those who continue to believe are seen to display genuine belief.

The fourth characteristic of belief is a public aspect. The attitude that belief entails is one that prioritises the eternal over the temporal (12:24–25), and God over men (5:41–44), which undergirds a public acknowledgement of belief in Jesus. This, along with the presentation that those who genuinely believe declare their faith (6:68–69; 9:30–33, 38) and act it out (11:39–41), unlike those who fall short of genuine belief, leads to the conclusion that secret faith is not genuine belief. Genuine belief requires open display, in word and deed—a public witness to belief.

The final aspect which continues to be touched upon is the relational aspect of belief. This aspect is not developed significantly in John 5–12, but is suggested by calls to follow Jesus, and to be his disciple (8:12, 31–32; cf. 10:14). The relational aspect of belief will become much more a focus in John 13–17.

Thus at this point in the narrative, it can be argued that genuine belief at the discourse level comprises: (1) a understanding of Jesus’ identity that includes his unique and messianic role, and his heavenly origin; (2) ethical action; (3) ongoing attachment to Jesus; (4) public

witness; with some evidence that it also includes (5) a relationship of following and discipleship.

4 Genuine Belief: Reading John 13–17 From chapter 13, John moves from public ministry to Jesus speaking to his own. The preceding chapters have established five aspects of genuine belief, but in the more intimate context of the Farewell Discourse, these aspects are intensified. Where the story and discourse levels of the text have been clearly distinct, the two levels become closer as Jesus’ hour arrives (13:1). They are not yet brought together, as Jesus continues to prepare the disciples for something which is to come. Yet, the disciples are continually called forward, to greater clarity of understanding, to a deeper relationship, to more encompassing obedience, to perseverance beyond the cross, and to the risks of a public faith.

4.1 Love and Service (13:1–38)

While the disciples have demonstrated acceptable belief, in the Farewell Discourse Jesus teaches his disciples in order that they might go on to attain the genuine belief that is the aim of the discourse level of the text.295 A key element of this teaching is love, which is highlighted by its introduction in the opening verse and connection to the arrival of Jesus’ hour. Initially the narrator states that Jesus loved his own until the end (13:1), with the verbal link between τέλος and τετέλεσται (19:30) connecting to the cross. The connection is both temporal and modal, pointing both to Jesus’ love ‘until the end’ on the cross, but also to the quality of Jesus’ love, a complete expression of love.296 This image is important as the disciples are later commanded to imitate this love (13:34–35).

Jesus demonstrates love as an example for his disciples and calls them to imitate him as part of their discipleship (13:17, 34–35). He provides a practical demonstration of love by washing the disciples’ feet.297 As the disciples are the δοῦλοι to Jesus as κύριος, they are to model their serving upon his. While service is not directly linked to believing (cf. 12:26), the necessity of this imitation is conveyed in Jesus’ exhortation, εἰ ταῦτα οἴδατε, μακάριοί ἐστε

295 As defined in §1.3.1.1, genuine belief is the complete response that this Gospel seeks to evoke in the audience, while acceptable belief denotes those responses within the story, which are presented as acceptable at the time, yet fall short of genuine belief as it presented in a post-resurrection context. 296 B. Mathew, The Johannine Footwashing as the Sign of Perfect Love (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 260; Moloney, Love, 105. 297 Coloe argues that in the context the foot washing is an act of love more than service, but calling the disciples δοῦλοι indicates an element of service is in view. M. L. Coloe, "Welcome into the Household of God: The Foot Washing in John 13," CBQ 66 (2004): 410. The soteriological interpretation of the foot washing (13:8) connects the act to the cross, thus extending Jesus’ example beyond the simple act of service to encompass the cross as the example of sacrificial, perfect love. Mathew, Johannine, 419, 421.

ἐὰν ποιῆτε αὐτά (13:17). A broad imitation of Jesus is in view, as the specific example leads to the general command to love in 13:34.298 As love provides evidence of discipleship to others (13:35), it must necessarily involve visible action.299 The link to discipleship confirms that visible love is a necessary feature of believing, as being a disciple is equivalent to being a believer (§3.4). As visible and other-focussed (ἀλλήλους) it encompasses actions towards other people and may include both ethical and relational aspects. As Jesus is the model, the genuine believer must display sacrificial love (cf. 13:1), love which is fulfilled in active service towards one-another.

Despite the arrival of the hour, the disciples still lack understanding, although an end to this limitation is now in view. The future more complete understanding is signalled by Jesus’ statement, γνώσῃ δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα (13:7). Given the announcement of the hour in 13:1, understanding will come after Jesus’ death and resurrection. The disciples’ failure to understand (13:28, 36–37) leads to Peter’s desire to prevent Jesus’ departure. Nevertheless, Peter does not take his lack of understanding as a reason to abandon Jesus, but rather he demonstrates the perseverance that belief entails.300 The perseverance of the disciples’ belief, in contrast to the crowds, is seen in Jesus’ affirmation ἀκολουθήσεις δὲ ὕστερον (13:36; cf. 7:34; 8:21). Their following is merely delayed, as truly following Jesus will only be possible after the cross, when genuine belief becomes possible.301 This statement also decisively brings the idea of following beyond simple physical presence, as this following will occur

298 Several scholars have advocated a literal imitation, including J. G. van der Watt, "Ethics and Ethos in the Gospel according to John," ZNW 97, no. 3–4 (2006): 170–74; Coloe, "Welcome": 411–15; J. C. Thomas, Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine Community (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991), 146–47. However, the majority understand a broader imitation is in view. C. Bennema, "Mimesis in John 13: Cloning or Creative Articulation?," NovT 56 (2014): 262; J. Zumstein, "Le lavement des pieds (Jean 13,1–20): Un exemple de la conception johannique du pouvoir," RTP 132 (2000): 354; F. J. Moloney, "A Sacramental Reading of John 13:1–38," CBQ 53, no. 2 (1991): 245; R. A. Culpepper, "The Johannine Hypodeigma: A Reading of John 13," Semeia 53 (1991): 141–44. Segovia links the love command to the foot-washing scene, as Jesus demonstrates his love then calls for imitation. F. F. Segovia, The Farewell of the Word: The Johannine Call to Abide (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 77. This view is more constructive than Segovia’s earlier work, which abstracted 13:34–35 from its context. F. F. Segovia, Love Relationships in the Johannine Tradition (Chico: Scholars Press, 1982). 299 B. B. J. Blaine, Peter in the Gospel of John: The Making of an Authentic Disciple (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2007), 61; Moloney, Love, 115; J. Zumstein, L'évangile selon Saint Jean (13–21) (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2007), 53. 300 Hopkins argues that Jesus’ assertion that Peter will follow him in death implies his commitment is real, and his shortcomings are cognitive not volitional. Hopkins, "Narratological", 113. The opposite view, that Peter in chapter 13 understands Jesus but rejects his offer is put forward by Schneiders. However, this is at odds with Jesus’ questioning the disciples’ understanding (13:7, 12). S. M. Schneiders, "The Foot Washing (John 13:1– 20): An Experiment in Hermeneutics," CBQ 43, no. 1 (1981): 87. 301 Bauckham, Glory, 145.

when Jesus has returned to the Father (7:33; 14:1–3, 28; 16:28). At the same time, Jesus declares that the disciples, except Judas, are clean, thereby indicating their acceptable belief (13:10–11; cf. 15:2–3).302 Jesus affirms their use of the titles διδάσκαλος and κύριος (13:13), which casts their limited understanding in a positive light.303 The cognitive aspect of belief continues to be clarified, as the acceptable belief of the disciples involves a correct, albeit incomplete, understanding of Jesus, while their later genuine belief will include greater understanding.

Jesus seeks to move his disciples towards the greater understanding of genuine belief, while pointing to the implications of receiving him once he is physically absent. Preparing his disciples is the purpose behind Jesus revealing his impending betrayal, ἵνα πιστεύσητε ὅταν γένηται ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι (13:19). Following the use in 8:58, the ἐγώ εἰμι in 13:19 must convey at least a hint of divinity to the audience.304 The following claim that to receive Jesus is to receive God reinforces the exalted nature of the statement.305 In this light, Jesus’ knowledge and control over what will happen is to enable the disciples to believe in Jesus’ divine identity once the events of the hour have transpired. This is immediately followed by the declaration, ὁ λαμβάνων ἄν τινα πέμψω ἐμὲ λαμβάνει, ὁ δὲ ἐμὲ λαμβάνων λαμβάνει τὸν πέμψαντά με (13:20).306 The language of this statement is evocative of physical welcoming and hospitality, particularly if the sending of the disciples is in view (cf. 19:27; 2 John 10). However, the inclusion of God (τὸν πέμψαντά με) indicates it is being used figuratively, conveying a welcoming attitude towards God’s representatives, including Jesus (cf. 1:10– 12).307 Alongside receiving and believing in Jesus, it is necessary to accept whomever he sends. Thus, the disciples are prepared to grasp Jesus’ divine identity after the cross, while in

302 Bennema, "Giving": 208. 303 Thus, it is unhelpful to focus upon them as conveying insufficient belief, as does Moloney, "Reading John 11": 515. 304 Ball argues this ‘I am’ must be interpreted in light of the instances in chapter 8. D. M. Ball, ‘I Am’ in John’s Gospel: Literary Function, Background and Theological Implications (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 198. 305 Carson, John, 471. 306 The pronoun τινα could point forward to Jesus’ sending of the Spirit (15:26), or to his sending of the disciples (20:21). The context of likening the disciples to a messenger who is sent (13:16) makes the latter more likely. Either way, the requisite attitude of accepting those who represent God remains in view. Brown, John, 2:571–72; Barrett, John, 445. 307 Cf. the parallel statement in Matt 10:40 which uses δέχομαι in place of λαμβάνω. Δέχομαι has a more established sense of welcoming or receiving a guest. W. F. Arndt, et al., BDAG, 221. John only uses δέχομαι once (4:45) and favours λαμβάνω to convey this idea of receiving a person, which appears to be distinctive within the NT. Arndt, et al., BDAG, 584. However, LSJ indicates ‘receive hospitably’ is a possible meaning for λαμβάνω. H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, LSJ, 1027.

light of Jesus’ impending physical absence, those who come as his representatives must be welcomed.

4.2 Know that the Father is in Me, and Keep My Commands (14:1–31)

Chapter fourteen opens with a double call to believe: πιστεύετε εἰς τὸν θεὸν καὶ εἰς ἐμὲ πιστεύετε (14:1). Each use of πιστεύετε is to be read as an imperative, following the preceding imperative Μὴ ταρασσέσθω.308 As the disciples already believe (2:11; cf. 13:10), this is a call to keep on believing despite the coming challenges.309 Whilst this is the only command to believe in God within this Gospel, this does not mean that such belief is unimportant, simply that for this Gospel such belief is inextricably linked to belief in Jesus (cf. 5:24).310 This opening sets the agenda for the teaching to follow, as Jesus prepares his disciples so that their faith might endure the cross (cf. 14:28–29).

In the following discourse ‘knowing’ features heavily, as Jesus conveys the understanding necessary for genuine belief. In the face of Jesus’ assertion of the disciples’ knowledge (14:4), Thomas denies knowing (14:5). Rather than a statement of unbelief and a rejection of Jesus’ claims, the disciples within the limits of their story-level context are not yet able to grasp what is to come.311 Philip continues the misunderstanding, not grasping that Jesus perfectly represents the Father (14:8). More serious than the prior misunderstandings (13:37; 14:5) which are failures to understand Jesus’ departure, Philip fails to grasp an important part of Jesus’ identity. Jesus’ incredulity towards Philip, and the following call to believe (14:10), directs the audience not to be like Philip, suggesting that for the audience at least, such a misunderstanding is not acceptable. Despite these misunderstandings, Jesus affirms the disciples in their knowledge of both himself and the Father (14:7b).312 They

308 Thus most OL MSS; see also Michaels, John, 776; Zumstein, Jean, 57; Carson, John, 488; Barrett, John, 101. Brown sees an indicative or an imperative functioning like a concessive clause. Brown, John, 2:618. While a concessive sense is possible, nothing requires it in this context. On the contrary, belief in God is never presented as a given for the disciples, nor can it be assumed that all Jews believe in God, as Jesus paints his opposition as opposed to God as well as himself (8:47, 55). 309 Beasley-Murray, John, 249. 310 Schnackenburg notes this is the only πιστεύω εἰς not directed at Jesus; this he states is on account of Jesus’ departure, and Jesus is commending his disciples into the care of the Father, and they are to draw from their faith in God to sustain their faith in Jesus. Schnackenburg, John, 1:560. However, there is nothing un-Johannine in this call as it continues the theme that the response to the Father, the Son, and even to the written revelation of God is one and the same (5:46–47; 8:19; 12:44). 311 Contra Sylva, Thomas, 68–71, 76. 312 Variant readings present the first instance of γινώσκω as either perfect or pluperfect, while the second may be and D* support א ,future, pluperfect, or the pluperfect of οἶδα. The manuscript evidence is not decisive, as 픓66 reading the perfect followed by the future, while A, B and C have two pluperfects. The significance of these

possess this knowledge ἀπʼ ἄρτι, which suggests a decisive moment as their future knowledge of the Father in verse 7a has become a present reality. The knowledge of the disciples is further affirmed as the future gift of the Spirit is dependent upon knowledge—which the disciples have through the witness of Jesus (14:17).313 Jesus’ affirmations confirm that the disciples display acceptable belief, while they also embody perseverance, as their lack of understanding is not paired with a lack of commitment to Jesus.314 However, greater understanding is needed, as Jesus is not content to leave the disciples in their ignorance.

The emphasis of Jesus’ teaching is his relationship with the Father, implying an understanding of this relationship is an essential part of belief. Jesus represents the Father (14:7, 9), and this representation is based upon their mutual indwelling, as indicated in Jesus’ question, οὐ πιστεύεις ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοίἐστιν; (14:10). The question implies that by now the disciples ought to believe this, and its importance is demonstrated by repetition (10:38; 14:20; 17:21).315 The final clause of 14:10, ὁ δὲ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοὶ μένων, repeats the idea. The change to μένων emphasises the ongoing nature of the relationship, for both ἐστιν and μένων have imperfective aspect and thus indicate continuous action, but ἐστιν focusses on what now is, while μένων has a lexeme that indicates continuation. 14:11a repeats the idea, with πιστεύετέ an imperative following Philip’s evident lack of belief. This imperative, along with the repetition, reinforces that this connection between the Father and the Son is an essential fact that must be believed. Jesus seeks to facilitate the disciples grasping this connection, saying, εἰ δὲ μή, διὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτὰ πιστεύετε (14:11).316 The works of Jesus are the works of the Father (14:10), and therefore are evidence of the connection between the two (cf. 10:38). While the disciples at the story-level misunderstand, their lack of

variants is that two pluperfects makes the statement negative, whereas the perfect and future combination is more positive. A positive statement would be in harmony with 14:7b and follows the logic of the preceding verses where Jesus has said they know the way (14:4), and then identified himself as the way (14:6). Michaels, John, 776; Barrett, John, 458. 313 While some manuscripts have the present ἐστιν rather than the future ἔσται, this is incompatible with the consistent presentation of the Spirit coming after Jesus’ departure (7:39; 14:26; 15:26; 16:7; 20:22). The use of the present arose to match the present tense of μένω, which is not problematic as the Spirit is with the disciples through Jesus. 314 As Popp notes, Thomas’ question indicates he wants to continue with Jesus. Popp, "Thomas," 512. So too, Philip has misunderstood before (6:5, 7) but continued with Jesus. As in chapter six, Jesus does not accept the misunderstanding, but immediately corrects it, for right understanding is vital. 315 The repetition shows this is not, as Tam argues, a redefinition but rather an emphasis on an important belief that the disciples are yet to grasp. Tam, Apprehension, 132. D gives weight to it & א ,Some manuscripts include μοι at the end of this clause. The absence in 픓66, 픓75 316 being an addition, and it likely arose in assimilation with the πιστεύετέ μοι in 14:11a.

understanding is limited, for Jesus tells the disciples that ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ they will both understand and experience the connection between the Father and the Son, as they are included in the relationship (14:20). As unity of action is the visible evidence of the connection between Father and Son, ‘being in’ primarily indicates a connection of mission, with only secondary implications for the Godhead.317 An active rather than metaphysical focus is further suggested as ‘being in’ is extended to include the disciples in 14:20. Malatesta has identified the Old Testament background of this expression in God’s declaration “I will take you to be my people, and I will be your God” (Exod 6:7). To this is added the promise of the prophets regarding God’s work within his people in the new covenant (Jer 30:22; 31:31–34; Ezek 34:30; 36:26–28), thus reflecting a relationship that colours one’s entire existence.318 Genuine belief not only grasps the connection between Father and Son (the cognitive aspect), but shares in the relationship (the relational aspect).

Jesus goes on to link both believing and loving him with right action. First, he says, ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ κἀκεῖνος ποιήσει καὶ μείζονα τούτων ποιήσει (14:12). Jesus’ works can include words (14:10), but the use of ποιέω implies deeds are in view, with the implication that, “the person with such faith, Jesus says, will do what I have been doing.”319 The shift to love comes in 14:15, saying Ἐὰν ἀγαπᾶτέ με, τὰς ἐντολὰς τὰς ἐμὰς τηρήσετε.320 This idea is repeated in 14:21, 23, 24, with the switch from ἐντολή to λόγος in verse 23 suggesting that not only are Jesus’ specific commands in view, but all of his teaching.321 The reference is primarily to the love command that appears in 13:34–35; the command to believe in Jesus would also be fresh in the audience’s mind (14:1, 11). Both loving and believing are connected to right action (14:12, 15), so obedience to the commands of Jesus is an essential part of the ethical aspect of genuine belief.322

Jesus concludes by reinforcing the initial message of the chapter, that the disciples should not be troubled. Jesus tells his disciples that his teaching is ἵνα ὅταν γένηται

317 Brown, John, 2:632. 318 Malatesta, Interiority, 25, 306–307. 319 Carson, John, 495. 320 Whilst there are several alternative readings for the tense of τηρέω they do not impact on the significance of the statement. 321 Segovia, Farewell, 101. The use of the plural ἐντολαί also suggests a broader referent, as Kanagaraj argues, although his attempt to link it to the Decalogue is at times forced. Kanagaraj, "Implied": 35–36. 322 The connections between believing, loving, and obeying strengthen the argument that these ideas function together as part of the concept of belief in this Gospel.

πιστεύσητε (14:29; cf. 13:19). For one who understands that Jesus’ departure is not simply death but a return to the Father, their faith will not be shaken by his leaving, but rather the events should strengthen belief.

4.3 Believe and Abide (15:1-27)

The most striking feature of John 15 from the perspective of belief is that the word πιστεύω never appears. Instead, the distinctive term of the chapter is μένω. The switch from one prominent term for describing the response to Jesus to another suggests a link between the two terms.323 Thus far μένω has been used to indicate continued presence with a person using παρά (1:39) or μετά (11:54). All instances of μένω in 15:1–10 are with ἐν, with the shift in preposition indicating intensification of relationship, although there is a danger of reading a Pauline idea of spiritual indwelling into the Johannine use of this language.324 As seen in §4.2, ‘abide in’ and ‘be in’ are essentially synonymous, with ‘abide’ stressing the ongoing aspect.325 Johannine usage draws upon the use of μένειν ἐν in the LXX, which Edward Malatesta has demonstrated indicates a relationship of fidelity and communion with Yahweh, and is part of covenant language.326 Thus, ‘being in’ and ‘remaining in’ primarily refer to relationship and commonality of purpose, rather than organic union.327

323 The connection is argued for by A. Schulz, Nachfolgen und nachahmen (Munich: Kösel, 1962), 172–76. Morris says that abiding is “practically equivalent to believing,” although without arguing the case. Morris, John, 297. Bultmann sees the language of μείνατε ἐν ἐμοίas an exhortation to constancy of faith. Bultmann, John, 529. 324 Bauckham notes the necessity of distinguishing the Pauline and Johannine use of this phrase, as Paul never makes it reciprocal, whereas that is a key idea in John. Bauckham, Glory, 12. Contra the suggestions in C. R. Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 417–19. 325 While Cook differentiates between the ‘being in’ of 15:2 and ‘abiding in’, this is unjustified. He does so on the basis of seeing a distinction between the ‘in me’ branch of 15:2 and the ‘abide in me’ branch of 15:4. R. Cook, The Theology of John (Chicago: Moody Press, 1979), 133–134. However, this fails to take account of the two sets of branches in 15:2, with the καθ- terms linking the disciples to the second more than the first. 326 Malatesta, Interiority, 60. Malatesta sees these being used in a new covenant sense in 1 John, an argument which Pryor has extended to the Gospel. Pryor, "Covenant": 49–50. 327 If the connection were primarily organic, Jesus would not need to pray for it in 17:21, for it would already be a reality. J. C. Dillow, "Abiding Is Remaining in Fellowship: Another Look at John 15:1–6," BSac 147, no. 585 (1990): 46–47. This is reinforced by considering 14:30, where ἐν ἐμοὶ is used in a negative sense with regard to the ruler of the world, where it would be unnecessary to deny any organic connection. Instead, Jesus is denying a common purpose, despite apparently submitting to the ruler of the world in going to the cross. Schnackenburg, while favouring a spiritual connection, acknowledges that the disciples are not called into a mystical experience but to bear fruit. Schnackenburg, John, 3:99–100. Bauckham sees language of being and remaining in as indicating intimate relationship. Bauckham, Glory, 10, 13, 19; T. E. Pollard, "The Father-Son and God-Believer Relationships according to St John: A Brief Study of John’s Use of Prepositions " in L'évangile de Jean: sources, rédaction, théologie (ed. M. De Jonge; Gembloux: Duculot, 1977), 368–69.

Some exegetical matters must be addressed in order to rightly connect the vine image to the concept of belief. The image begins with a binary option, where πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μὴ φέρον καρπὸν αἴρει αὐτό, καὶ πᾶν τὸ καρπὸν φέρον καθαίρει αὐτὸ (15:2). This verse has been the subject of vigorous debate, as some interpretations of this passage may be seen as counter to a doctrine of perseverance, and therefore it can be difficult to disentangle exegesis from theological interpretation.328 However, if ἐν ἐμοὶ is understood as indicating an active relationship rather than an ontological or spiritual reality, then such implications are avoided. This verse refers to those who are visibly attached to Jesus, of whom only some bear fruit.329 The characteristically Johannine binary imagery distinguishes between branches that abide and bear fruit and those that do not and are therefore delivered to the fire, an image of destruction and judgement.330 The Gospel has used the terms ὁ πιστευων and οἱ μαθητοί to indicate people who appear to believe but who subsequently prove not to be genuine believers (6:60–66, 8:30–59). So too here, those ἐν ἐμοὶ appear connected to Jesus, but only those who abide and bear fruit are genuine believers.331 Those who fail to abide end in destruction (15:6), the same fate as those who do not believe (3:16); this reinforces the connection between believing and abiding, as they both characterise those who escape destruction.

The image of bearing fruit is used to indicate the necessity of obedience within genuine belief. Καρπός has been used to indicate people coming to believe (4:36), and as an allusion to the atoning significance of Jesus’ death (12:24). While in chapter fifteen καρπός might be indicative of mission, the focus of the Farewell Discourse is upon the disciples and their relationship with Jesus, thus the fruit is better understood as the qualities of life that flow out of an abiding relationship with Jesus.332 This may include mission, but it cannot be

328 Ryle characterises this verse as “the favourite weapon of all Arminians”. J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels, Volume 4: John 10:31–21:25 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), 99. 329 Knowledge of agricultural practice should not be relied upon, as this passage does not use standard agricultural language. It is primarily about people not plants, and so the vineyard image should not be pushed too far. J. C. Laney, "Abiding Is Believing: The Analogy of the Vine in John 15:1–6," BSac 146, no. 581 (1989): 57; J. G. van der Watt, Family of the King: Dynamics of Metaphor in the Gospel according to John (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 29, 50. 330 Zumstein, Jean, 102. The image aligns with the Old Testament use of the vine image (esp. Ezek 15:1–8), with no suggestion of survival, testing, or later reward after this fire. Therefore, the fire cannot be understood in parallel to 1 Cor 3:15, as does Dillow, "Abiding": 53. 331 As in those earlier examples, the challenging image prompts the audience to question the nature of genuine belief. Seglenieks, "Untrustworthy": 64–67. 332 Whilst Bolt argues that 13:16, 20 and 14:12–14 indicate mission is the context of this passage, from 14:21 the focus is more on obedience, and the earlier indications of mission should not override this shift in focus. P.

limited to it.333 The dichotomy in 15:4–5, where only those abiding can and will bear fruit, indicates that bearing fruit is evidence of abiding, and thus obedience will be visible where there is genuine believing. Obedience is also conveyed through a shift from the expression of mutual abiding in 15:4–5 to τὰ ῥήματά μου ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ in 15:7. The concept of Jesus’ words abiding within has been used to convey accepting and acting upon Jesus’ message, as a sign of a true disciple and the opposite of unbelief (5:38; 8:31). The theme of obedience is reinforced as abiding is linked to discipleship, for those who bear much fruit γένησθε ἐμοὶ μαθηταί (15:8).334 Γίνομαι is being used here in the sense of demonstrating that something is so; it is visible action that bears witness to belief (cf. 13:35).335 As Jesus is holding out the standard for which his followers are to aim, μαθηταί here indicates true disciples. The final reference to fruit in 15:16, ὁ καρπὸς ὑμῶν μένῃ, indicates the need for ongoing obedience.

The disciples are affirmed as acceptable believers, as Jesus describes them as καθαροί (15:3), while exhorting them to continue in relationship.336 As in 13:10, the declaration of cleanliness is an affirmation that the disciples are acceptable believers.337 Despite this affirmation, the disciples are given the command μείνατε ἐν ἐμοί, κἀγὼ ἐν ὑμῖν (15:4). While Leon Morris explains that the disciples are to live such lives that Jesus will continue to abide with them, this appears to reverse the order of the text, saying essentially that bearing fruit leads to abiding (contra 15:4–5).338 What is needed is an ongoing response to Jesus, with the focus here being on the responsibility of the disciples.339 There is a mutuality to this abiding,

Bolt, "What Fruit Does the Vine Bear? Some Pastoral Implications of John 15:1–8," RTR 51, no. 1 (1992): 17. Also seeing a missional focus are Köstenberger, Missions, 184–85; B. Witherington III, John's Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 258. 333 Morris, John, 595; Schnackenburg, John, 3:100. Lee rejects a missional orientation, instead seeing a growth in love. Lee, "Friendship," 65. 334 There are variant readings of either the future or aorist for γίνομαι. The external evidence favours the aorist, while the future would contradict the prior designation of Jesus’ followers as disciples and believers (cf. 13:35). Metzger, Textual, 246. 335 Arndt, et al., BDAG, 199. 336 Καθαροί is not to be confused with καθαίρω. If that were the intent, one would expect to find the more common καθαριζω used in 15:2, whereas καθαίρω was likely a figurative way to refer to pruning. Whilst the similarity may convey the implication that the disciples have already been pruned, the use of καθαίρω and καθαροί together (along with αἴρω) is stylistic and should not be allowed to eclipse the significance of Jesus declaring his disciples ‘clean’. 337 Jesus’ acceptance is further indicated in his designation of the disciples as friends, which involves being taken into confidence by Jesus (15:14–15), in contrast to the lack of trust that Jesus demonstrates in 2:24. 338 Morris, John, 595. 339 This passage does not deal with the issue of whether the disciples could in fact fail to abide. The purpose of this section is to strengthen and encourage the disciples, not to convey or counter a doctrine of perseverance. Whilst some, such as Dillow, argue that the command requires the possibility of failure, that is not sufficiently demonstrated. Dillow, "Abiding": 49.

for as the disciples abide in Jesus, he will abide in them in a mutual relationship.340 The call to abide is a call to persevere in relationship as well as obedience, thus bringing together the ethical, relational, and ongoing aspects of belief as essential characteristics of genuine belief.

Abiding is intertwined with a relational aspect alongside obedience, as the disciples are to μείνατε ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ τῇ ἐμῇ (15:9). The attention to love indicates abiding has a relational aspect, however this is immediately tied back to the idea of obedience, as Jesus declares that ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολάς μου τηρήσητε, μενεῖτε ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ μου (15:10). The disciples are to keep Jesus’ commands καθὼς he has kept the Father’s commands. While Jesus obeys the Father, he is never said to believe, thus the focus here is ethical rather than evoking the command to believe, with the plural ἐντολάς suggesting a broad referent (cf. 14:15). Obedience is necessary for abiding in Jesus’ love, thus the relationship is maintained by right behaviour. This is reinforced as Jesus designates his disciples as φίλοι, contingent upon their obedience (15:14).341 The presentation of obedience leading to abiding in love is a reversal of the order in 14:23, where love leads to obedience. Holding both perspectives indicates that love and obedience are both necessary as interrelated parts of the response that Jesus calls for, an ethical and a relational aspect to belief.

Mutual love is again commanded in 15:12, reinforcing the call to a relational and ethical response, which is fulfilled in active service for one another (cf. 13:34).342 The subsequent description of love in 15:13 alludes to Jesus’ impending death on behalf of his φίλοι, which sets the example for the disciples to model their love for one another (καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς 15:12). The love command is repeated in 15:17, with ταῦτα indicating the role of this statement summing up the purpose of the preceding material. The response of love required of the disciples is emphasised as an essential part of abiding with Jesus, of being his disciples, and thus of believing.

340 Rensberger characterises abiding as persisting in an intimate relationship. Rensberger, "Spirituality," 179. 341 Obligations within friendship do not exclude a relational aspect. M. Theophilos, "John 15.14 and the ΦΙΛ- Lexeme in Light of Numismatic Evidence: Friendship or Obedience?," NTS 64 (2018): 43. John presents this as genuine friendship by incorporating the idea of speaking παρρησία (16:25), a feature of genuine friendship (Plutarch, Adulator 5 [Mor. 51C]). On contextual issues of friendship see Lee, "Friendship."; O'Day, "Jesus as Friend."; D. Konstan, Friendship in the Classical World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), esp. 93–121. 342 The proximity of the call to mutual love to that of abiding suggests abiding should not be understood individualistically, but also as abiding in community. A. B. Latz, "A Short Note towards a Theology of Abiding in John's Gospel," JTI 4, no. 1 (2010): 115–16.

The theme of opposition illuminates the nature of belief in stark contrast to the response of the world. The response of the world is hate, expressing itself in persecution, in contrast to love that expresses itself in keeping the word of Jesus and of the disciples (15:18– 20). This continues the strong connection between love and obedience (14:23–24; 15:10), as well as repeating the connection between responding to Jesus and to his followers (13:20). The underlying cause of this hatred is that the world does not know the Father (15:21), which is less ignorance and more wilful rejection, as Jesus has revealed himself (15:24–25).343 In contrast to the world, those who genuinely believe will be characterised by love for Jesus and his disciples, and by knowing God.

4.4 At Last You Believe (16:1–33)

As the teaching focus of the Farewell Discourse continues, chapter sixteen keeps in view the distinction between story and discourse level. At the story level, the disciples continue to display limited understanding, failing to grasp what Jesus is saying (16:18). However, they know Jesus and the Father (14:7) unlike those who oppose them, who οὐκ ἔγνωσαν τὸν πατέρα οὐδὲ ἐμέ (16:3; cf. 15:21). Jesus’ cessation of teaching at this point indicates acceptance of the belief of the disciples at the story-level. Yet the need for greater understanding at the discourse level is indicated, as Jesus tells the disciples that despite there being more for them to learn, οὐ δύνασθε βαστάζειν ἄρτι (16:12). The use of ἄρτι points to a point later when the deficiency will be remedied, as does the reference to a subsequent remembering of Jesus’ words (16:4). The greater understanding will only be possible after the cross, for it is the Spirit who both enables the remembering of Jesus’ teaching (14:26) and guides the disciples into complete understanding (16:13).344 The interplay of the two levels here confirms the pattern that acceptable belief allows limited understanding, but greater understanding is needed for genuine belief after the cross.

343 F. J. Moloney, "The Structure and Message of John 15:1–16:3," ABR 35 (1987): 45–46. The declaration that if he had not revealed himself, ἁμαρτίαν οὐκεἴχοσαν , suggests that only responding rightly to the available information is essential. However, this is conveyed through contrary to fact conditions, which point to the current status of the world as culpable, not to a hypothetical alternative. Segovia, Farewell, 190–91. 344 J. Frey, "‘Ich habe den Herrn gesehen’ (Joh 20,28): Entstehung, Inhalt und Vermittlung des Osterglaubens nach Johannes 20," in Studien zu Matthäus und Johannes/Études sur Matthieu et Jean (eds. A. Dettwiler, et al.; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009), 270–71. Given what has been observed of the two levels of the text, it is overly harsh to judge all belief prior to the giving of the Spirit as unbelief, as does V. Hasler, "Glauben und Erkenne im Johannesevangelium: Strukturale und hermeneutische Überlegungen," EvT 50, no. 4 (1990): 286.

Jesus’ teaching on the Spirit reinforces the importance of accepting Jesus’ identity as part of genuine belief. The Spirit will convict the world περὶ ἁμαρτίας μέν, ὅτι οὐ πιστεύουσιν εἰς ἐμέ (16:9). This builds on the earlier connection between sin and unbelief, for while in 8:24 unbelief could be taken as an obstacle to the forgiveness of sins, here the failure to believe is itself sin.345 The comparison with 8:24 also indicates, given the same link to sin, that πιστεύουσιν εἰς ἐμέ (16:9) is essentially equivalent to πιστεύσητε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι (8:24). The parallel use of the two expressions indicates the need for both accepting Jesus’ identity and trusting him within genuine belief.

Despite the disciples’ incomplete understanding, Jesus both affirms and indicates the necessity of their love for him and belief about him (16:27). In the Farewell Discourse the relationship of love has been described as conditional, with obedience necessary to abide in Jesus’ love (15:10, 14).346 Similarly here, love from the Father is presented as the result of the disciples’ love and belief.347 The content of the ὅτι clause, that Jesus has come from God, continues the emphasis in the Farewell Discourse on Jesus’ relationship with the Father. The combination of φιλέω and πιστεύω ὅτι brings together both a relational and a cognitive response, and both aspects are linked to the Father’s love.348 Receiving love from the Father functions as an affirmation that the described response is acceptable belief. The need for love for Jesus and for understanding that he comes from God continues to convey the necessity of the relational and cognitive aspects of belief.

The last words of the disciples before the cross are a confession of a key truth about Jesus that must be believed. In the only confession within the Farewell Discourse, the disciples declare that νῦν οἴδαμεν ὅτι οἶδας πάντα καὶ οὐ χρείαν ἔχεις ἵνα τίς σε ἐρωτᾷ· ἐν τούτῳ πιστεύομεν ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθες (16:30). With Jesus’ departure imminent, the disciples express their belief that Jesus has come from God, and they affirm a key truth about Jesus

345 Although as 8:34 indicates, sin also includes actions. 346 Whilst as Barrett notes, this should not be seen as contradicting the wider declarations of God’s love (3:16), there is a particular level of care from God for those who are genuine believers, which is also seen when Jesus prays for his own but explicitly not for the world (17:9). Barrett, John, 496. 347 Brown sees the perfect as indicating that “a continuous attitude of life is implied”, but this does not account for the choice of the perfect rather than the present tense. Brown, John, 2:724. The perfect, in drawing attention to both a past event and an ongoing action, draws attention to the prior event that has led to the present state, where the present tense in the first clause does not. 348 It is not merely creedal, as Michaels, John, 850.

that must be believed.349 The response from Jesus, Ἄρτι πιστεύετε (16:31), has predominantly been read as a question, thus casting doubt on the faith expressed by the disciples in 16:30.350 In light of Jesus’ affirmations of the disciples’ faith that both precede and follow their confession (16:27; 17:8), Jesus’ response is better understood as a statement that indicates the disciples have finally understood what he has been teaching about the relationship between the Father and the Son, a relationship they formerly misunderstood (14:8).351 This is not to assert that the disciples have attained the understanding that genuine belief requires. The disciples fail to affirm the second part of Jesus’ statement regarding his return to the Father (16:28b), which combined with the positive tone indicates the disciples remain confused about Jesus’ departure (cf. 13:36; 14:5; 16:17). Additionally, the disciples appear to miss the future reference of Jesus’ promise of plain speech (16:25), for Jesus’ statements are no less ambiguous than those earlier in the Gospel (7:33; 8:42; 12:49; 14:28; 16:10).352 The disciples display a shortcoming, not in their confession, but in their mistaken assumption that now is the moment of supreme revelation (16:29). While they are yet to grasp that the cross is to come, Jesus affirms their acceptable belief and they come closer to the goal of genuine belief.353

4.5 The Disciples Have Believed—May They Be One (17:1–26)

In his prayer Jesus affirms the disciples in their acceptable belief (cf. §4.4). The first affirmation states, τὸν λόγον σου τετήρηκαν (17:6). Following the calls to keep Jesus’ word (8:51; 14:23; cf. 14:21; 15:10), and the connection between those calls and a relationship of acceptable belief, this is an affirmation of acceptable belief. Jesus goes on to affirm the disciples’ knowledge in 17:7, having stated the intrinsic connection between knowledge and

349 On this confession and the response to it, see C. Seglenieks, "'Now You Believe': The Faith of the Disciples in John 16:30–33," Colloq 50, no. 2 (2018). Cf. Nicholson, Death, 68–69. 350 This view is reflected in the majority of commentators, including Barrett, John, 497; Beasley-Murray, John, 288; Brown, John, 2:726; Carson, John, 548; Keener, John, 2:1047; Lincoln, John, 427; Moloney, John, 454; Schnackenburg, John, 3:164–65; Segovia, Farewell, 268; Tam, Apprehension, 140. The rare exceptions are M.- J. Lagrange, Évangile selon Saint Jean (2nd ed.; Paris: Lecoffre, 1925), 432; Stibbe, John, 173. Chennatu understands this exchange positively, but by focusing on covenant relationship as overriding questions of understanding. Chennattu, Johannine, 129–30. Morgan sees a switch from propositional belief in 16:29–30 to relational trust in 16:31, perhaps influenced by the traditional reading of Jesus’ response as a question. However, the absolute use of πιστεύω is more likely follow the preceding use. Morgan, Roman, 414. 351 All early manuscripts omit punctuation, thus identifying a question is a later interpretative decision. Seglenieks, "Now You Believe": 98. 352 Whilst Michaels sees this as plain speech, similar statements throughout the Gospel are not perceived as such by those who hear, even by the disciples. Michaels, John, 851. 353 Croteau, whilst less positive than what has been concluded here, sees 16:29–30 as a progression in the disciples’ faith. Croteau, "Analysis," 114–15.

eternal life (17:3).354 His statement begins νῦν ἔγνωκαν, indicating what the disciples have just come to understand, that Jesus is from the Father (16:29–30). Jesus’ affirmation continues, describing the disciples’ threefold response to his words, αὐτοὶ ἔλαβον καὶ ἔγνωσαν ἀληθῶς ὅτι παρὰ σοῦ ἐξῆλθον, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν ὅτι σύ με ἀπέστειλας (17:8). Firstly, they have received his words, conveying an acceptance of the claims Jesus has made. Secondly, they understand the implications of those claims, that Jesus has come from God. Finally, the disciples have believed that Jesus is sent by God, emphasising the intellectual aspect of πιστεύω. The double emphasis on the origin of Jesus ensures that the audience is aware that the origin of Jesus and the relationship between Jesus and the Father are an essential part of what must be known and believed.

Jesus’ prayer assumes that witness will characterise those who genuinely believe. Jesus envisages that the disciples will bear witness about him (cf. 15:27) leading others to believe (17:20). There is no indication that belief through indirect testimony is inferior as those who thus believe are to be one (17:21), just as the disciples are one (17:11). The quality of belief is not based upon the input which evoked the belief, rather it is the proper object which is essential, here indicated with the standard Johannine expression εἰς ἐμέ. While not commanded, the assumption of witness suggests that it is an expected part of the public aspect of genuine belief.355

Expressing the goal of the prayer as ἵνα πάντες ἓν ὦσιν (17:21) conveys that a visible relational aspect is part of genuine belief. Oneness is presented with two dimensions, a oneness amongst fellow believers, and oneness with the Father and Son. ‘Being one’ is based upon the relationship of the Father and the Son, as Jesus says, καθὼς σύ, πάτερ, ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν σοί. The use of καθὼς indicates that ‘being one’ is equivalent to a mutual ‘being in’, and thus is a continuation of the concept of ‘being in’ and ‘remaining in’ that has featured significantly in the Farewell Discourse.356 Oneness is not the end in itself, but rather is ἵνα ὁ

354 In 17:3 such knowledge may entail relational knowledge as well as propositional knowledge. Barrett, John, 504; Carson, John, 556. 355 This would be strengthened if the prayer is read as missional more than priestly, as Coloe argues. M. L. Coloe, "John 17:1–26: The Missionary Prayer of Jesus," ABR 66 (2018). 356 The goal of Jesus’ followers being one has already been indicated in 11:55, and the oneness of Father and Son in 10:30. The oneness of believers is not to be equated with the oneness of God, which is indicated by μόνος in 17:3.

κόσμος πιστεύῃ ὅτι σύ με ἀπέστειλας (17:21).357 The goal is restated in 17:23 as ἵνα γινώσκῃ ὁ κόσμος ὅτι σύ με ἀπέστειλας, indicating that where propositional belief is concerned, knowing and believing are interchangeable. 17:23 sharpens the idea of ‘being one’, pointing to a goal, ἵνα ὦσιν τετελειωμένοι εἰς ἕν. If ‘being one’ is perfectible, as suggested by the use of τελειόω, that implies that there are degrees of ‘being one’, and thus it is not simply a metaphysical status that is conveyed. As both ‘being in’ and ‘remaining in’ focus upon a relationship characterised by communion and obedience (§4.2–3), so too ‘being one’ is best conceived in these terms rather than primarily indicating a metaphysical status.358 As with the enacting of mutual love (13:34–35) ‘being one’ is to evoke belief from the world, and so it must have a visible outward dimension. One part of the visible dimension is obedience, as the believer demonstrates oneness with Jesus by obedience, just as Jesus demonstrates his oneness with the Father through his obedience.359 The oneness amongst believers entails a visible relationship as with the command to love one another. Both dimensions of oneness reflect the intertwined aspects of relationship and ethical action required in belief.

4.6 Summary of Believing in John 13–17

The most significant development in the presentation of belief in John 13–17 is the focus on the relational aspect of belief, conveyed primarily through the language of love and friendship. While Jesus has previously condemned the lack of love for God (5:42; 8:42), prior to John 13 there is no call to love Jesus or the Father. A call to relationship has been seen in the call to follow Jesus as a disciple, but the relational aspect is intensified in the call to imitate Jesus’ love, and to remain in his love. This relational aspect is also conveyed through the language of friendship, drawing on Graeco-Roman ideals of true friendship and openness. This relationality not only encompasses the believer and Jesus, but extends to co-believers as well, through the call to love ‘one another’ (13:34; 15:12) and the goal of unity (17:21).

A second characteristic that is developed in these chapters is the ethical aspect. Obedience has been conveyed in a negative fashion through the connection of disobedience

357 Moloney, Love, 131. 358 Several Church Fathers indicate that this is the sense of ἓν, including Origen, Against Celsus 8.12, (ANF 4.643); Novatian, On the Trinity 27 (ANF 5:637), as do V. Balabanski, "The Prayer of Jesus as an Inspiration and Call to Ecumenical Unity: Looking for "Jesuanic Resonance" in John 17:20–21," in Jesus – Gestalt und Gestaltungen: Rezeptionen des Galiläers in Wissenschaft, Kirche und Gesellschaft (eds. P. von Gemünden, et al.; Freiburg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 642–43; Carson, John, 394; Appold, Oneness, 11–12. 359 Skinner, "Love," 35.

with judgement (3:36; 5:29). Now obedience is enjoined upon the disciples in positive terms, calling on them to keep the commands of Jesus. This obedience is expressed in the mutual love which entails active care for one another that may be self-sacrificial. Ethical action towards one another is evidence of belief (13:35), however it is insufficient to see obedience merely as evidence for belief. Obedience and belief are linked such that while obedience is part of belief, so too belief is presented as obedience (6:28–29). There is no linear progression from one to the other, rather both are enmeshed in the network of terms that convey the concept of genuine belief. Ethical action is particularly construed as imitation of Jesus, thereby intensifying the ethical aspect beyond good deeds (5:29) to the whole of life.

The focus upon abiding in chapter 15 serves to reinforce a third characteristic of belief, the ongoing aspect. While the disciples have attained acceptable belief, they must continue on in their belief for it to be genuine belief. Perseverance is conveyed in both relational and ethical terms (abiding in the word 15:7; abiding in love 15:9). Presented in the context of Jesus’ hour, genuine belief must endure beyond the cross.

A fourth aspect of belief, identified earlier in John 1-12, the public aspect, is also further developed in 13-17. Where the focus thus far has been on an open acknowledgement of one’s own faith, there is now attention on the effect of witness upon others. It is assumed that the believer will bear witness to others, leading them to believe (15:27; 17:20). Alongside the idea of verbal witness, the relational and ethical aspects of belief are to be displayed publicly as an essential form of witness (13:35; 17:21). The context of Jesus’ departure necessitates this shift from Jesus’ role bearing witness to himself, to his followers taking on that role. Genuine belief requires not only public declaration, but witness in word and deed that might lead others to believe.

In addition to these elements, John 13–17 retains the earlier emphasis upon the cognitive aspect of belief. The focus falls upon knowledge of the relationship of Father and Son, as well as the imminence of Jesus’ death. The distinction between acceptable belief and genuine belief diminishes as the disciples grasp what Jesus is teaching about his relationship with the Father, indicating this is an important truth to be believed as they progress towards the post-resurrection genuine belief. The coming completion of genuine belief is foreshadowed (13:36; 14:26; 15:26; 16:13). The disciples continue to be affirmed by Jesus in their acceptable belief, yet they still fail to understand Jesus’ departure, and thus have not yet

reached genuine belief. At this point, the picture of genuine belief has been expanded, but prior to the cross the picture remains incomplete.360

At this point in the narrative, it can be argued that genuine belief at the discourse level comprises: (1) a relationship of love and friendship with Jesus, which extends to fellow believers; (2) ethical action as an ongoing way of life, especially directed to fellow believers; (3) ongoing attachment to Jesus; (4) public witness through word and deed; (5) an understanding of Jesus’ identity that includes his unique and messianic role, his heavenly origin, and his relationship to the Father.

In addition to the aspects conveyed in these chapters, the interconnectedness of the various aspects is seen more clearly than before. The aspects of ethics and relationship are connected in 14:21–23. In 15:7–10 relational, ethical and ongoing aspects are brought together, and in 16:27 relational and cognitive aspects are combined. This confirms the contention that the range of aspects that comprise the ideal response to Jesus need to be examined together, for they are woven together in a complex network of elements within the broader concept of belief.

360 Thus chapters 13–17 do not convey a fully comprehensive picture discipleship, contra Tolmie, Jesus' Farewell, 228. Painter argues that 13–17 develop the nature of ‘authentic faith’ through the use of μένω, τηρέω, γινώσκω, and οἶδα. The relational aspect conveyed by μένω, and the ethical aspect conveyed by τηρέω have been explored above. However, the greatest focus on knowing comes in 7–10, and the focus on knowing within 13– 17 is more limited, focused upon the relationship of Father and Son. Painter, "Eschatological," 37.

5 Genuine Belief: Reading John 18–21 The climax of the Gospel is crucial for the presentation of genuine belief. While human responses recede from focus in chapters 18-19, the resurrection has already been signalled as decisive for understanding Jesus (2:22). With the resurrection of Jesus, the two levels of the story and the discourse will be brought together, in order to convey the final picture of the nature of genuine belief which the Gospel seeks to evoke in the audience.

5.1 The Passion (18–19)

Peter’s denial of Jesus serves to illuminate further the nature of belief, particularly in light of its context. When Jesus is arrested, Peter follows, and whilst ἀκολουθέω here indicates physical following, its links with the idea of belief and discipleship may soften the impact of the following denial. Peter’s denial is serious as he denies his personal connection to Jesus, however he does not deny Jesus’ identity or mission.361 His action is similar to that of the ‘secret believers’, who do not publicly acknowledge their belief (12:42). While his failure is temporary, Peter’s need for restoration (21:15–17) points to the inadequacy of a response that does not include public acknowledgement, for his failure to acknowledge his faith cannot be overlooked by Jesus. The case is strengthened that ‘secret believers’ are not (yet) genuine believers, as public witness is required.362

Jesus’ purpose in coming into the world is described, not as earlier to bring life, but now ἵνα μαρτυρήσω τῇ ἀληθείᾳ (18:37). As Jesus commissions the disciples to the same mission as himself (17:18; cf. 20:21), they must also be called to bear witness to the truth. Building on the earlier assumption that the disciples would bear witness (15:27; 17:20), this indicates that witness is a necessary response entailed in genuine belief.

The narrator highlights for the audience that even Jesus’ death is evidence that he is the Messiah, in order to encourage belief. A claim to eyewitness testimony, ὁ ἑωρακὼς μεμαρτύρηκεν (19:35), draws attention to the nature of Jesus’ death.363 The purpose of this

361 His failure is still that of a disciple, not an outsider. Hopkins, "Narratological", 161. Contra von Wahlde, who claims that his denial indicates “complete misunderstanding.” von Wahlde, "Witnesses": 403. 362 Adkisson sees 18:15–27 as mitigating against the idea that Jesus condemned those who refused to confess him out of fear, but that fails to distinguish between Peter’s temporary failing and the earlier presentation of an attitude that precludes confession. Adkisson, "Examination," 114. 363 R. J. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 368.

100

witness is ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς πιστεύ[σ]ητε.364 The following scripture citations (Ps 34:21; Zech 12:10) draw attention to the significance of the manner of Jesus’ death, as both indicate that the manner of Jesus’ death confirms his messianic identity.365 Thus even in death, Jesus demonstrates that he is the Messiah; the witness here is to evoke belief in his identity.

The final scene of chapter 19 depicts two secret believers moving beyond their secrecy. The ambiguity of Nicodemus’ earlier response to Jesus has been noted (§2.4), while Joseph is explicitly accounted as one of those who believed in secret (19:38). Dennis Sylva argues that the use of δέω indicates that Nicodemus and Joseph are participating in the “handing over of Jesus to the power of death” and thus have not understood the ‘lifting up’.366 Yet this places too much theological weight upon δέω; it is used to describe preparation for burial. In contrast, the act of seeking permission to take the body of Jesus, then conducting preparations for the burial, are visible public acts (19:38–40), so their actions bear witness to their alignment with Jesus.367 The lack of a verbal confession is not sufficient to condemn them and their progression to become genuine believers accounts for the narrator’s earlier knowledge of the existence of such secret believers.368 They have moved their faith out of secrecy and towards genuine belief, with the sequence of appearances of Nicodemus serving as an encouragement to the audience to move beyond secrecy.369

364 As in 20:31, there is textual uncertainty as to whether this is a present or aorist subjunctive, with the present subjunctive having better early support. G. D. Fee, "On the Text and Meaning of John 20:30–31," in To What End Exegesis?: Essays Textual, Exegetical, and Theological (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001); D. A. Carson, "Syntactical and Text-Critical Observations on John 20:30–31: One More Round on the Purpose of the Fourth Gospel," JBL 124, no. 4 (2005): 697, 708. However, the tense cannot determine whether this statement is indicative of a purpose either to evoke or sustain belief. In constructions of ἵνα with the subjunctive of πιστεύω, the present subjunctive is used in relation to both unbelievers (6:29) and believers (13:19); similarly, the aorist is used with believers (11:15) and unbelievers (6:30). Therefore, each tense can be used for both continuing and inceptive belief. Wang, Sense, 40–46. Cf. Vistar, "Supreme", 56–58. Contra M. Edwards, John (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004), 199; Beutler, Commentary, 518. 365 A. T. Lincoln, "The Beloved Disciple as Eyewitness and the Fourth Gospel as Witness," JSNT 85, no. 1 (2002): 25; Brown, John, 2:953–54. Thus, it is insufficient to see this as merely indicating that Jesus truly died, as does Barrett, John, 556. 366 D. D. Sylva, "Nicodemus and His Spices (John 19.39)," NTS 34 (1988): 149. Rensberger also sees this burial as an act of unbelief, with no view to the resurrection. D. Rensberger, Johannine Faith and Liberating Community (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 40. 367 Farelly, Disciples, 80; C. R. Koester, "Theological Complexity and the Characterization of Nicodemus in John’s Gospel," in Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John (ed. C. W. Skinner; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 180–81. 368 Bennema sees the lack of verbal confession as grounds for a negative assessment. Bennema, Encountering, 83–84, 194. 369 The limited evidence precludes a more definite assessment of their faith beyond observing their trajectory.

101

5.2 A Resurrection Faith (20:1–29)

Chapter 20, while opening with a continuation of the motif of the disciples’ misunderstanding, relates the move of the disciples from acceptable belief to genuine belief. Mary Magdalene is representative of the way Jesus’ followers had neither grasped the reality of Jesus’ impending death, nor were they expecting a resurrection (20:2), while initially Peter and the Beloved Disciple show no greater understanding. At the tomb an apparently positive response, as the Beloved Disciple εἶδεν καὶ ἐπίστευσεν (20:8), is complicated by the subsequent statement that οὐδέπω γὰρ ᾔδεισαν τὴν γραφὴν ὅτι δεῖ αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῆναι (20:9).370 The qualifying statement has often been taken to indicate that his belief is still lacking, especially as he does not subsequently bear witness to his faith.371 However, 20:9 does not preclude belief in the resurrection in 20:8, as οὐδέπω does not require the continuation of the situation of not knowing, while the tense of ᾔδεισαν indicates time prior to when the Beloved Disciple saw and believed.372 The possibility of faith in the risen Jesus being conveyed in 20:8 becomes certain when the role of the Beloved Disciple in the narrative is considered. The narrative has shown the audience that the Beloved Disciple exists in a privileged relationship to Jesus, party to greater understanding (13:23–26). As such, the audience is prepared to expect that the Beloved Disciple will be the first character to believe in the resurrection, a response set up by his arrival at the tomb first.373 It is not clear what brings the Beloved Disciple to believe at this point, but if the audience is aware of the privileged position of the disciple, they can accept that the Beloved Disciple may believe in the resurrection before the information necessary for such belief is revealed to the audience.374

370 The statement that the Beloved Disciple believed does not imply that Peter did not. Skinner, John and Thomas, 124; Quast, Peter, 121. 371 The lack of response within the narrative would be more than outweighed if the Gospel itself is taken as the witness of the Beloved Disciple. Kurz suggests that the lack of response by the Beloved Disciple, as in chapter thirteen where he does not act upon his awareness of the betrayal, is part of the character’s function standing in for the implied audience, for the audience can understand the events but cannot affect them. W. S. Kurz, "The Beloved Disciple and Implied Readers," BTB 19, no. 3 (1989): 102–5. Lincoln supports this identification of the Beloved Disciple functioning as a literary device, whilst arguing this does not preclude a real figure who provides the witness of the Gospel. Lincoln, "Beloved Disciple": 19. Those seeing incomplete faith in 20:8–9 include Thyen, Johannesevangelium, 758; J. Clark-Soles, "Mary Magdalene: Beginning at the End," in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel (eds. S. A. Hunt, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 629; D. A. Lee, "Partnership in Easter Faith: The Role of Mary Magdalene and Thomas in John 20," JSNT 58 (1995): 39–40; I. De la Potterie, "Genèse de la foi pascale d'après Jn. 20," NTS 30 (1984): 31; P. S. Minear, "'We don’t know where…' John 20:2," Int 30, no. 2 (1976): 127. 372 Menken, "Interpretation," 128. 373 J. L. Resseguie, "The Beloved Disciple: The Ideal Point of View," in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel (eds. S. A. Hunt, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 546. 374 Arguments concerning the grounds for faith here particularly centre on the symbolism of the grave clothes.

102

While the Beloved Disciple has attained genuine belief, Mary is yet to do so. Mary fails to recognise Jesus (20:13–14), but this is a lack of physical perception rather than a theological statement, for when Jesus calls her by name, she realises who he is (20:16). Whilst Teresa Okure is right to see Jesus’ response to Mary not as a rebuke, the instruction Μή μου ἅπτου (20:17) is at least indicative that Mary does not understand that Jesus is to ascend to the Father.375 Jesus commissions Mary to tell the disciples that he is risen, implying that Mary’s misunderstanding of Jesus’ mission is not critical, as she is still included in the mission.376 The disciples also complete their journey to genuine belief, as Jesus appears and bestows the Spirit upon them (20:22).377 From this point receiving the Holy Spirit is an essential mark of being a genuine believer.

However, Thomas does not see the risen Jesus, and does not make the step to genuine belief, declaring, Ἐὰν μὴ ἴδω … οὐ μὴ πιστεύσω (20:24). Despite the popular characterisation as ‘doubting Thomas’, he is no more doubtful than the other disciples hiding behind locked doors.378 Thus Collins sees Thomas as representing the disciples’ doubt, with his expression of doubt in accord with Sylva’s characterisation of Thomas as the one who speaks παρρησία,

Schneiders, Written, 209; B. Byrne, "The Faith of the Beloved Disciple and the Community in John 20," in The Johannine Writings (eds. S. E. Porter, et al.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 33, 37–38. Koester argues that the relationship of the Beloved Disciple with Jesus, along with the climactic point in the narrative, are indicative of belief that Jesus was alive. Koester, "Hearing": 344. Others identifying resurrection belief include Frey, "Ich habe," 275; Menken, "Interpretation," 127; Farelly, Disciples, 142; Byrne, "Faith," 31; Zumstein, "Stratégie," 241; R. Mahoney, Two Disciples at the Tomb (Frankfurt: Lang, 1974), 270-74. Moloney sees this as another example of the journey from ‘not knowing’, and thus ‘no faith’ in verse two to ‘believing’ which constitutes ‘full faith’ in verse eight. F. J. Moloney, "John 20: A Journey Completed," ACR 59, no. 4 (1982): 424. The faith here is commendable as unlike both Mary and Thomas later in the chapter, the Beloved Disciple believes without wanting to touch Jesus. F. J. Moloney, "‘For as Yet They Did Not Know the Scripture’ (John 20:9): A Study in Narrative Time," ITQ 79, no. 2 (2014): 106. 375 T. Okure, "The Significance Today of Jesus' Commission to Mary Magdalene," International Review of Mission 81, no. 322 (1992): 181; O’Brien, "Written": 294; C. M. Tuckett, "Seeing and Believing in John 20," in Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. Boer (eds. J. Krans, et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 181. Contra Byrne, who sees this scene as reflecting full understanding. P. Byrne, "That You May Come to Believe that Jesus is the Messiah (John 20)," DRev 135, no. 2 (2017): 103. 376 Alongside this inclusion, Mary has also been seen displaying the characteristics of true discipleship in persistence and in actively seeking Jesus. Bennema, Encountering, 201; Clark-Soles, "Mary," 638. 377 Riley argues that both Mary and the disciples display their recognition of Jesus as divine through their use of κύριος (20:18, 25). While the case for Mary is tenuous, as it both breaks the pattern that Riley argues for, along with overlooking the shortcoming suggested by 20:17, for the disciples it aligns with the endorsement of genuine belief entailed in the giving of the Spirit. Riley, Lord, 174–75. 378 Lee, "Partnership": 43; B. Schliesser, "To Touch or Not to Touch? Doubting and Touching in John 20:24– 29," EC 8, no. 1 (2017): 72. Hopkins observes that the narrator treats Thomas gently. Hopkins, "Narratological", 208.

103

whether opposing or accepting Jesus.379 Jesus does not leave Thomas faithless, as he makes a second appearance for his benefit.380 Jesus tells Thomas μὴ γίνου ἄπιστος ἀλλὰ πιστός (20:27). This is the only use of the adjective πιστός in John’s Gospel, and the expression εἰμί with πιστός is used to indicate the idea of being faithful.381 Along with the use of γίνομαι with the sense of ‘show oneself’ (cf. 15:8), this is a call not to believe but for Thomas to demonstrate that he believes.382 The use of the adjective avoids labelling Thomas as an unbeliever, for unbelief entails rejection of Jesus.383 Instead, Thomas is still coming to understand the death and resurrection of Jesus and will show himself to be a genuine believer.

Whatever Thomas’ shortcoming, he now declares his faith in the most significant confession of the Gospel, Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου (20:28). This is the only confession of Jesus as God, reflecting the LXX rendering of Yahweh Elohim as κύριός ὁ θεός.384 The prominent place of the confession immediately prior to 20:30–31 indicates that it is a statement of the genuine belief that this Gospel seeks to evoke. The significance of the confession is reinforced by its structural role, forming an inclusio with 1:1, θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.385 Jesus’ identity as God is highlighted at this key moment in the resolution of the narrative. Initially no-one comprehends the resurrection, but first the Beloved Disciple and then Mary become aware that Jesus is risen and believe in the resurrection. In turn the disciples come to believe, but the resolution is incomplete. It is only at this point, as Thomas makes his confession, that all the disciples attain genuine belief. The words of Thomas ultimately

379 R. F. Collins, "'Blessed are those who have not Seen': John 20:29," in Transcending Boundaries: Contemporary Readings of the New Testament: Essays in Honor of Francis J. Moloney (eds. R. M. Chennattu, et al.; Rome: LAS, 2005), 187; Sylva, Thomas, 113–34. Popp instead sees Thomas wanting what the disciples have received, but this underplays his refusal to believe. Popp, "Thomas," 516. The failure is serious, as Farelly notes, for as a disciple Thomas is called to give similar witness in order to call others to faith. Farelly, Disciples, 85. 380 Sylva, Thomas, 104; Schlier, "Glauben," 282. 381 This is seen in other NT usage, as in Luke where πιστός indicates acting faithfully, in accordance with one’s faith, in three parables in Luke 12:35–48; 16:1–13; 19:11–27. See also K. W. McFadden, "Does ΠΙΣΤΙΣ mean 'Faith(fulness)' in Paul?," TynBul 66, no. 2 (2015): 260. Wang suggests a similar idea based on Rev 2:10, although arguing for ‘become’ rather than ‘show oneself’. Wang, Sense, 195–96. Cf. De la Potterie, "Genèse": 42. 382 Barrett, John, 572. 383 Thus better rendered ‘unfaithful’ rather than ‘faithless’ as Schliesser, "Touch": 73. Cf. Klink, John, 877–78. 384 Skinner, John and Thomas, 70. The effect of these titles for a Graeco-Roman audience may have been heightened by their imperial use, notably by Domitian. Cassidy, John, 13–16; van Tilborg, Reading, 38–47. Riley argues that κύριος here also indicates Jesus as divine. Riley, Lord, 176. 385 Thomas believes what the implied audience has known from the start of the narrative. Beutler, Commentary, 515; Farelly, Disciples, 126; Zumstein, Jean, 291.

104

capture the response this Gospel seeks to evoke, a response only possible after the cross.386

Despite this demonstration of genuine belief, the words of Jesus turn the audience’s attention from Thomas to future believers. While Jesus’ words, Ὅτι ἑώρακάς με πεπίστευκας (20:29), are often taken as a question, Thomas has just demonstrated genuine belief, and thus there is no reason for Jesus to question his faith.387 Nor are there grounds to condemn those who believe after seeing.388 The following declaration that μακάριοι οἱ μὴ ἰδόντες καὶ πιστεύσαντες does not downgrade those who do see, for even the Beloved Disciple has seen and then believed (20:8).389 Instead, Thomas should be seen as an example for all subsequent believers, as he declares his belief in Jesus as his God.390 Jesus’ blessing upon those who will believe speaks to the audience, to those who have not seen but whom the text seeks to draw into belief. Genuine belief is that which can confess Jesus as God, whether it reaches that point with or without seeing.

5.3 So That You Might Believe (20:30–31)

As the disciples have now attained genuine belief, the narrator summarises the purpose of the preceding narrative, stating, ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται ἵνα πιστεύ[σ]ητε (20:31).391 Ταῦτα, whilst primarily referring to the signs which have been written in this book, is used broadly and encompasses the whole narrative of the Gospel. The preceding narrative has conveyed numerous calls to believe, as well as to respond to Jesus through a range of other terms, which is suggestive of an evangelistic aim for the Gospel. However, alongside calls to begin to respond to Jesus have been calls to continue in belief, in relationship, and in obedience. The complex and ongoing response, along with the way the narrative functions to raise questions as to the nature of genuine belief, indicates that alongside an evangelistic role

386 A. T. Lincoln, "'I am the Resurrection and the Life': The Resurrection Message of the Fourth Gospel," in Life in the Face of Death (ed. R. N. Longenecker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 134; Schliesser, "Touch": 90. 387 Carson, John, 659. The parallels between 20:29 and 1:51, and the function of both as assurance not correction, have been observed by Wang, Sense, 197; O’Brien, "Written": 295. 388 As do Haenchen, John, 2:211–12; Bultmann, John, 695–96. The positive role of seeing Jesus’ works has been discussed in §3.6 & §4.2. 389 Bonney notes the parallels in language between 20:19–23 and 26–29 which indicate that Thomas receives what they received. The focus is not on how Thomas comes to faith, but upon Jesus, the object of his faith. Bonney, Caused, 131, 162–63; Skinner, John and Thomas, 73; Moloney, "John 20": 430. 390 Hillmer, "They Believed," 77. 391 There is the same textual issue here as in 19:35; again, the external evidence favours the present subjunctive. However, no interpretative weight can be placed upon this distinction as to whether this is evoking new belief or sustaining existing belief (see §5.1).

105

the Gospel has a clear function to encourage and deepen existing belief.392

The believing that the Gospel is intended to evoke is described as πιστεύ[σ]ητε ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (20:31). While commonly translated “believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”, Carson, and more recently Jensen, have argued on syntactical grounds that Jesus is the predicate not the subject, and so it should instead be “believe that the Christ is Jesus.” This makes the known information of the audience the category of ‘Christ’, and the author’s intention is to show that Jesus is the one who fulfils that category.393 Wallace has challenged Carson's interpretation on grammatical grounds, arguing that the issue cannot be confidently judged one way or the other, but the traditional interpretation (that Jesus is the subject) is more likely.394 While Carson and Jensen present a stronger grammatical argument, their conclusions are problematic when considered in light of the Gospel as a whole. A crucial flaw in their position is that it downplays the ‘Son of God’ aspect of 20:31. Not only is Jesus called ‘Son’ much more than ‘Christ’,395 but it is inadequate to see ‘Son of God’ as essentially messianic, as Jensen appears to.396 Son of God conveys the divine connection (see below) that is at the root of the conflict over Jesus’ identity (5:17–18; 8:58; 10:30–33). It is the question of Jesus’ identity which is central to the Gospel, rather than the identity of the Messiah, while the identification of the audience as at least partly Graeco-Roman (see §1.1) precludes identifying ‘Messiah’ as a known category for the audience.397 The broader evidence of the Gospel and its purpose therefore necessitates the traditional interpretation.

The purpose statement focuses belief upon Jesus’ identity as it is belief that Jesus is ὁ

392 Schnelle, Johannes, 12; Tovey, Jesus, 104. 393 Thus taking the Gospel as written to Jews, to persuade them that the expected Christ is Jesus. D. A. Carson, "The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: John 20:31 Reconsidered," JBL 106, no. 4 (1987): 643; M. D. Jensen, "John Is No Exception: Identifying the Subject of εἰμἰ and Its Implications," JBL 135, no. 2 (2016). 394 Wallace, Greek, 44–46. 395 The terms ‘Son’, ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of Man’ appear a total of 41 times, compared to ‘Christ’ 19 times, of which 3 are questioning the identity of John the Baptist. 396 Jensen, "John": 349. 397 Those who see John as focused around recognition of who Jesus is, and thus the question ‘who is Jesus?’ rather than as Carson suggests ‘who is the Christ?’ include Culpepper, Anatomy, 88; F. Lozada, A Literary Reading of John 5: Text as Construction (New York: Peter Lang, 2000), 57. Lincoln, while not focusing on recognition, sees the central issue as the identity of Jesus. Lincoln, Truth, 177–78. Cf. A. Denaux, "The Twofold Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: A Reading of the Conclusion to John's Gospel (20:31)," in Studies in the Gospel of John and its Christology (eds. J. Verheyden, et al.; Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 529–30; Klink, John, 883.

106

Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (20:31).398 Some argue that these two terms should be understood as parallel here, and see ‘Son of God’ as conveying substantially the same thing as ‘Christ’.399 However, it has been seen through the Gospel, especially in 3:13–18 and 5:19–27, that the term ‘Son of God’ has been used in close connection with ‘Son of Man’ and ‘Son’. Therefore, while ‘Son of God’ can be a messianic title (as it probably is in 1:49), here it is used to sum up what has been conveyed through the three ‘Son’ terms.400 As Christ, Jesus is the one who is sent by God in fulfilment of the promises of the Old Testament; as the ‘Son of God’ he is more than this.401

Believing in Jesus as the Son of God is primarily an understanding and acceptance of the relationship between Jesus and the Father. All three ‘Son’ titles are used to show Jesus closely connected to the Father, encompassing origin and action. The Son is sent by the Father and has descended from heaven; he is God's μονογενής ὑιός (3:16), and ὁ πατὴρ ἀγαπᾷ τὸν υἱὸν (3:35). The relationship is evidenced in unity of action, and the Son completely represents the Father, doing his work (5:19; 8:28; 12:49; 14:10). The closeness of connection conveyed through the ‘Son’ titles goes beyond being God’s representative to indicate one who exercises the power of God in life and judgement. Taking these divine prerogatives strongly implies that the Son is more than human, he is a divine being. Throughout the Gospel the intimate connection between Jesus and God, indicated through the terminology of sonship, comes to imply this element of divinity, alongside the explicit indications of Jesus’ divine status (1:1; 8:58). When the meaning that has been built into Jesus’ identity as Son is understood, this statement of purpose is seen to be in accord with the confession of Thomas (20:28), for the Son is God.402

This chapter then finishes by declaring again that it is life which is the goal and result of genuine belief. It is only belief that accords with the description of 20:31 that is genuine.403

398 Schnackenburg observes that all instances of πιστεύω with ὅτι clauses proclaim Jesus as Christ and Son of God or take up an aspect of this fundamental confession. Schnackenburg, John, 1:563. 399 Kruse, John, 454; Bruce, John, 395. 400 Appold, Oneness, 63–64. 401 Jesus is presented as fulfilling passages including Zech 9:9 and Isa 53. On the idea of the Messiah in John, see M. de Jonge, "Jewish Expectations about the 'Messiah' according to the Fourth Gospel," NTS 19 (1973). 402 Thus Loader states that neither 20:28 nor 20:31 are more or less adequate than the other. Loader, Jesus, 117– 19. The preceding explanation of the titles ‘Christ’ and ‘Son of God’ is necessarily limited to the central connotations for Johannine belief. Cf. Zumstein, Jean, 297; Vistar, "Supreme", 59–63. 403 Witherington, John's Wisdom, 31.

107

Motyer suggests that believing alone does not lead to life, but only belief to which is added discipleship.404 However, here as elsewhere it is believing that results in life, and there is no mention of discipleship. Rather, as has been seen throughout the preceding analysis of the Gospel, discipleship is presented as integral to believing: a genuine believer is a true disciple. It is not a matter of adding discipleship to belief, but rather of understanding the Johannine concept of belief as more than merely propositional.405 As this thesis demonstrates, while genuine belief does include propositional belief, it is much more than that.

5.4 A Call to Discipleship (21:1–24)

The final appearance of Jesus functions as a call to discipleship, reinforcing and clarifying several key aspects of genuine belief, the first of which is love.406 The disciples’ initial failure to recognise Jesus (21:4) is simply a function of physical distance, rather than a comment on the quality of their belief, as is confirmed by their subsequent recognition when they come closer (21:12).407 Central to the call to discipleship is the threefold questioning of Peter that forms his rehabilitation (21:15–17). In the sequence both ἀγαπάω and φιλέω are used, but as they are used interchangeably elsewhere in the Gospel, and appear in this context alongside other word pairs with no obvious distinction in meaning, the variation appears to be stylistic (see §1.3.1.3).408 The use of δεύτερον and τρίτον suggests the narrator is presenting these as repetitions of the same question, while Peter, answering Jesus the first two times beginning with ναὶ, identifies his response using φιλέω as equivalent to what Jesus is asking with ἀγαπάω.409 Jesus is calling on Peter to declare aloud his love for Jesus, a relationship which he had denied. Peter’s declaration then forms both his restoration and the basis for his commission to care for Jesus’ sheep. The way love issues in service and care of others on behalf of Jesus (cf. 13:34) confirms that both the relational and ethical aspects of belief are

404 Motyer, Your Father, 61. 405 Reinhartz, Word, 35. 406 John 21 is often regarded as a later addition to the Gospel, so Lincoln, John, 508–9; Barrett, John, 576; Schnackenburg, John, 3:341–4. However, there are narrative links between this chapter and the rest of the Gospel, while the lack of manuscript evidence for the circulation of the Gospel without chapter 21 suggests that the early audience encountered this chapter as part of the complete literary unit of the Gospel. Klink, John, 890– 4; P. S. Minear, "The Original Functions of John 21," JBL 102, no. 1 (1983); S. S. Smalley, "The Sign in John XXI," NTS 20, no. 3 (1974). 407 Contra Hylen, Imperfect, 71. 408 The other pairs are: οἶδα and γινώσκω; ἀρνίον and πρόβατον; and βόσκω and ποιμαίνω. Cf. D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 53. 409 Barrett, John, 584. Contra Böhler, who sees Peter unable yet to offer self-sacrificial love, seeing 21:18–19 as pointing to a future willingness on Peter’s behalf, rather than the call to follow (21:19) indicating fulfilment of 13:36. D. Böhler, "Liebe und Freundschaft im Johannesevangelium. Zum alttestamentlichen Hintergrund von Joh 21,15-19," Bib 96, no. 4 (2015): 607–8.

108

needed.410

Jesus’ final command is to tell Peter, Ἀκολούθει μοι (21:19, 22). As this command falls at the close of the Gospel it cannot indicate following in the sense of physically being present with Jesus. Coming after the repeated call to ‘feed my sheep’, this is an alternate way of calling Peter to follow Jesus in his role as a shepherd (cf. 10:11).411 The call to follow echoes the first call to follow (1:43; cf. 1:39), as well as explaining what was meant by Peter ‘following later’ (13:36–37), that he would finally follow Jesus unto death.412 This reinforces that the ongoing aspect of following of Jesus is essential.

The closing lines echo the attestation of 19:35, asserting that οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀληθὴς αὐτοῦ ἡ μαρτυρία ἐστίν (21:24). Whilst the plural form of οἶδα here may indicate a group giving its approval to the text, it also serves to draw in the audience. Those of the audience who believe will agree with this statement, accepting the truth of the witness that has been presented in this Gospel, and therefore responding with genuine belief. The closing note of witness also recalls this important motif, and the role of a believer in bearing witness to Jesus that is part of the public aspect of belief (17:20).

5.5 Summary of Believing in John 18–21

These chapters bring the presentation of belief in the Gospel to its climax—that of complete resurrection faith. The story and discourse levels coalesce as the understanding that this genuine belief requires is demonstrated in the confession of Thomas alongside the purpose statement of the Gospel. The purpose statement of 20:31 is crucial in this discussion of genuine believing in John, for as Barrett states, this verse is a summary of Johannine theology.413 Genuine belief requires not only an understanding and acceptance of Jesus as God’s Messiah, but also that Jesus as God’s Son is not only sent by God but utterly aligned with God and is himself divine. The latter must not eclipse the former, as the manner of

410 Moloney observes that love entails actions here. Moloney, Love, 188-89; Tam, Apprehension, 181. 411 Collins states it is a call for Peter to follow Jesus “in a way he has previously not done.” Collins, "From John": 367. Whilst Peter is called into a specific role, as the shepherding language is focused upon him, it is a particular manifestation of the broader call to mutual love, and thus the call to discipleship directed at Peter can be universalised to include the audience. The echoes of chapter 10 are noted by D. F. Tolmie, "The (not so) Good Shepherd: The Use of Shepherd Imagery in the Characterisation of Peter in the Fourth Gospel," in Imagery in the Gospel of John (eds. J. Frey, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 364–65. 412 Collins, "Follow," 46–47, 60–61. 413 Barrett, John, 575.

109

Jesus’ death reinforces his messianic identity (19:34–36). The unveiling of the resurrection in chapter 20, culminating in Thomas’ confession in 20:28 immediately prior to the statement of purpose, indicates that the reality of Jesus’ resurrection must form part of the content that must be believed. This is further emphasised by the relative absence of πιστεύω from chapters 18–19 in the context of the crucifixion, before a return to prominence in chapter 20 associated with recognising the resurrection.414 The contribution of chapters 18–21 to the cognitive aspect of belief is to highlight the need to believe in Jesus’ divine identity, along with believing in his resurrection.

The prominent theme of witness, evident throughout the passion narrative (18:37; 19:35) and into the resurrection account (20:29–31; 21:24), reinforces the necessity of the public aspect of belief in the form of witness. Peter reinforces this, as he imitates the secret believers in hiding his faith and must be rehabilitated. At the same time, several secret believers move their faith into the open as their burial of Jesus makes their allegiance public. The placement of their story adjacent to the key moment of Jesus’ death, and the absence of criticism, show they are examples of genuine belief, belief that makes itself public.

The Gospel closes with a final call to discipleship in light of the resurrection. The final calls are to follow Jesus and to care for his sheep, conveying the continued connection of relationship and action. These are to be embodied in an ongoing commitment that continues as long as life may last. While the primary contributions of chapters 18–21 have been to the cognitive and public aspects of belief, these final chapters reinforce the picture of belief that has developed through the Gospel. Genuine belief requires cognitive, relational, ethical, ongoing and public aspects.

414 Painter, Quest, 328. Recollection by the audience of the earlier promise to rebuild the temple (2:19) would add to this emphasis.

110

6 Conclusions about Believing in the Gospel of John Having analysed the material in the text of John’s Gospel, we are now in a position to evaluate the overall presentation of genuine belief within this Gospel. The preceding analysis has uncovered five aspects that are woven together. At times the focus is on one element or another, but each are linked together inextricably with the others, so that the concept of belief is not made up of wholly discreet elements but rather it is a complex concept with numerous facets. Some of these are introduced in the prologue, while others are only brought to light through the interactions of the characters with Jesus. Both the direct comments of the narrator and the narrative world that conveys the story of the ministry of Jesus work together to convey the concept of belief. The characteristics of genuine belief that have been identified are: a cognitive aspect, a relational aspect, an ethical aspect, an ongoing aspect, and a public aspect.

6.1 Believing as Cognitive

Belief is commonly conceived in propositional terms, a feature that is particularly evident in Christian tradition with a historic focus on creeds and confessions.415 Previous scholarship has focused on the propositional aspect of belief, and the preceding analysis confirms that a significant aspect of the Johannine concept of belief is propositional. Indeed, as Louis Walter states, “On ne peut pas venir à Jésus sans savoir qui il est”.416 The Gospel conveys the propositional aspect of belief through two primary means: the indication of what is to be believed through the use of ὅτι clauses with πιστεύω, and through the significance of ‘knowing’ (using both οἶδα and γινώσκω). The use of ὅτι with πιστεύω culminates with the purpose clause in 20:31. The significance of this statement, summing up the reason for this Gospel, stresses that genuine belief must accept the propositions that follow. Other uses of ὅτι with πιστεύω display a high degree of overlap in the content that is to be believed, focusing upon the identity of Jesus.417 The use of the dative overlaps with the use of ὅτι, but has a wider use, in particular to point towards accepting other sources which bear witness to Jesus and his identity. The use of οἶδα and γινώσκω has been observed to be similar to that of

415 Propositional belief in John is not counter-rational acceptance of information. Morgan, Roman, 428. 416 Walter, L’incroyance, 20. While Bultmann argued for a faith apart from content, that view has been critiqued even by his student Käsemann. R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (vol. 2; London: SCM, 1965), 66; Käsemann, Testament, 25–26. 417 Morgan observes that the beliefs indicated with ὅτι are the same as the beliefs that are implicit when πιστεύω is used in a more relational way. Morgan, Roman, 427.

111

πιστεύω ὅτι, conveying what is to be known and accepted regarding Jesus.418 These two elements, ‘knowing’ and ‘believing that’ function together to convey the necessary cognitive aspect of believing. However, the use of ‘believe that’ ensures that the audience will know that more than mere intellectual awareness is required, but a volitional acceptance of the information is also essential.419

The cognitive aspect of believing has displayed the distinction between acceptable belief at the story level and genuine belief at the discourse level. While the Gospel, as indicated in 20:31, seeks to evoke belief that leads to life, a belief that requires knowing and accepting certain propositions, the characters in the Gospel do not demonstrate the required understanding before chapter 20. Prior to this point, characters may display acceptable belief (the response to Jesus which he accepts within the story), but none believe in either Jesus’ divinity nor in his impending death and resurrection. It is only after the resurrection that the disciples progress beyond their partial comprehension and come to sufficient understanding of Jesus to enter into genuine belief.420 Thus, the disciples serve as models of belief for the audience, despite their shortcomings.421 Yet there is a need to attend to the way the narrative works, for it is belief which includes a post-resurrection understanding of Jesus which forms the genuine belief that the Gospel of John seeks to evoke in the audience. While it is unhelpful to apply this standard to characters within the story, the ‘high’ understanding of Jesus reflected in the prologue, Thomas’ confession, and the purpose statement form the centre of the propositional dimension of belief. It is this propositional belief, demonstrated by Thomas and reinforced by the narrator in 20:31, which the text seeks to evoke in the audience.

If propositional belief is central to the concept of genuine belief, it must be determined what content must be believed. The Gospel does not present as necessary an exhaustive knowledge of Jesus or his mission, for the only statement that may indicate such complete understanding (ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ 16:13) indicates a future process, rather than a

418 Gaffney, "Believing": 231; Thompson, John, 304. 419 Believing and knowing, while not identical, are closely connected in John. Schlier, "Glauben," 286. Gaffney differentiates the emphasis of the two, saying that believing is more volitional, and knowing more intellectual, so, more than just understanding, believing accepts the moral consequences. Gaffney, "Believing": 240. 420 Ueberschaer, "Johannesevangelium," 469; M. de Jonge, Jesus: Stranger from Heaven and Son of God (trans. J. E. Steely; Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1977), 8; Thompson, John, 10–11. 421 Beutler, "Faith," 23.

112

present requirement. Thus it would be pressing too far to insist that any doctrine that can be established from the text of the Gospel is a belief necessary to receive eternal life. The focus is primarily on accepting the identity of Jesus, as summarised in 20:31 (see §5.3).422 As the Messiah, Jesus is the one sent by God in fulfilment of Scripture, although rejecting assumptions about this role (6:14–15; 18:36).423 Royal imagery is particularly prominent, with Jesus called king (1:49; 12:13; 19:19) and ironically presented as king in chapters 18– 19, along with the imperial resonances of titles such as ‘Saviour of the World’ and ‘Lord’. As Son of God, Jesus is intimately connected to the Father, coming from him and representing him.424 But more than this, the connection of the title to the confession of 20:28, along with the prologue, shows that Jesus as the Son of God is himself divine.425 Through the narrative, Jesus is given divine roles (5:20–27), while the ‘I am’ statements allude to his divine identity. While Jesus’ identity as Messiah and his relationship to the Father are misunderstood throughout his ministry, and none grasps his divinity before the cross, these are all essential components of the propositional element of belief.426 While characters such as the disciples, the Samaritan woman, and the blind man have demonstrated that coming to understand Jesus’ identity may be a process, ultimately to fail to accept these propositions after Jesus has risen is to fail to receive the life that Jesus promises.

Alongside belief in Jesus, the Gospel also refers to belief in the Father (5:24; 14:1) and in Moses (5:46). Belief in Moses is acceptance of the witness of the Torah about Jesus, and thus is effectively equivalent to belief in Jesus. However, it connects to the role of understanding Scripture in the discourse-level belief (2:22; 12:16; 20:9) and emphasises

422 Schnackenburg states that to believe in Jesus means “above all to acknowledge his claims for his own person.” Schnackenburg, John, 1:561; Zumstein, "Stratégie," 238. Son of God and Christ summarise the identity of Jesus as presented across the Gospel. Denaux, "Twofold Purpose," 533. 423 Koester summarises Jesus as Messiah being the one in whom God’s promises are fulfilled. Koester, Word, 173. 424 Decourtray notes that Jesus does not simply reveal his person but also his relationship with the Father (and Spirit). Decourtray, "Conception": 566; Ueberschaer, "Johannesevangelium," 458. The use of Son of God in the summary of belief in 20:31 probably evokes not only previous instances of Son of God, but also the use of Son, and of Son of Man, as the titles are interconnected. B. E. Reynolds, The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 222–23. The motif of ascent and descent similarly emphasises the connection of Jesus to the Father. Meeks, "Man from Heaven": 60. 425 Koester, Word, 173; Denaux, "Twofold Purpose," 533–34; Neyrey, Ideology, 94–96. On the Christology of the prologue as a development of Jewish and early Christian tradition, see M. Hengel, The Son of God (London: SCM, 1976), 73. 426 Riley makes a similar case that κύριος indicates Jesus’ divinity, although it is not grasped by any characters prior to the resurrection. Riley, Lord, 189-90. While belief in Jesus’ divinity is essential, the inclusion of ‘Christ’ in 20:31 indicates that Jesus’ divinity is not the sole crucial aspect of his identity, contra B. A. du Toit, "The Aspect of Faith in the Gospel of John with Special Reference to the Farewell Discourses of Jesus," Neot 25, no. 2 (1991): 331.

113

belief in Jesus as fulfilling Scripture. Belief in the Father is necessary, but is not a key focus of the Gospel, as it is entailed in belief in Jesus. To believe in Jesus is to believe in his identity as the one who came from heaven, sent by the Father, which necessitates belief in the Father who does the sending.427 Thus, belief in the Father can be seen as an essential component of the cognitive aspect of belief.

The question can still be asked as to whether the Gospel presents anything further as necessary to the cognitive aspect of belief. One key element that must also be included is the death and resurrection of Jesus. The emphasis on the veracity of Jesus’ death in 19:35, along with the unveiling of the resurrection that culminates in the confession that reflects genuine belief in 20:28 indicates that the audience must believe the reality of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Beyond this, some writers have suggested that details of the mission of Jesus must also be believed, whether construed in terms of the cross, atonement, or his mission to bring life.428 However, while Jesus’ life-giving mission is an important feature in the Gospel, it is never conveyed as essential to believe the mission, it is only necessary to believe in Jesus. The ‘I am’ statements draw attention to this life-giving mission, but while their stylistic role highlights Jesus as life-giving, this appears as the reason why one ought to respond to Jesus by believing, rather than forming the necessary content of belief.429 Schnackenburg notes the simplicity of the doctrinal aspect of faith, where short confessions rather than detailed professions of truths are enough.430 While a broader acceptance of Jesus’ message is entailed in the call to trust Jesus (on trust see further §6.2), there appears to be space for varied knowledge or understanding on issues beyond the core christological concerns reflected in 20:31.

The key elements of the cognitive aspect are belief in Jesus as the Messiah, as the divine Son of God, and the one who is risen, and belief in the Father who sent Jesus.

427 Ueberschaer, "Johannesevangelium," 470–71. While Thompson has sought to shift the focus onto God, rather than Jesus, belief in the Father remains a minor theme. Thompson, "Signs": 96; M. M. Thompson, The God of the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001). 428 See Ueberschaer, “Glauben ist nach dem Johannesevangelium Glauben an Jesus un seiner Identitaet und seiner damit verbundenen soteriologischen Bedeutung” Ueberschaer, "Johannesevangelium," 470. Koester insists on recognition that Jesus brings salvation, while Köstenberger argues that faith must affirm Jesus as providing atonement for the sin of the world. Koester, Word, 173; A. J. Köstenberger, A Theology of John's Gospel and Letters (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 473. 429 Contra Hillmer, who states “The confession of Christ in terms of the Johannine ‘I am’ expressions is a criterion of authentic discipleship.” Hillmer, "They Believed," 86. 430 Schnackenburg, John, 2:332.

114

6.2 Believing as Relational

The primarily cognitive connotations of the English word ‘believe’ has led some to interpret the call to believe as strictly limited to an assent to key doctrine. Yet we must go beyond such cultural preconceptions, as such a limited concept of belief is inconsistent with the evidence of the Gospel of John, and a cognitive aspect does not exhaust the meaning of πιστεύω.431 In the Graeco-Roman world, πιστεύω conveyed a relationship of trust more than the idea of propositional belief.432 In addition to the relational sense of πιστεύω, the relational aspect of belief has been seen through the vocabulary of love and friendship, through images of following, discipleship and family, through the language of ‘being in’, ‘remaining in’ and ‘being one’, and through the relational element of knowing.433

The contextual use of πιστεύω as primarily indicating trust is compatible with Johannine usage. While constructions with ὅτι indicate a cognitive form of belief, most instances of πιστεύω in John have a personal object rather than a proposition. The use of εἰς seems particularly suggestive of a close relationship with its hints of movement towards the object. In this way it may function similarly to the language of being ‘in’, as spatial language used to reflect a relational reality. While trust entails an acceptance of what a person says, and thus a cognitive aspect, the use of πιστεύω in John indicates trust placed in a person, not merely in the message they bring. In addition, that trust is to lead into action, as suggested by the related images of following and discipleship.434 The idea of trusting a person also includes a commitment to that person, a commitment that is also suggested by the frequent reference to Jesus as κύριος in a sense that implies acknowledging his authority.435 As a result, the term ‘allegiance’ may be a useful term to convey some of the breadth of the response of genuine belief, as it entails trust and commitment that leads to action.436 Thus the

431 As observed in §1.2.1, some scholars do see belief as primarily relational, or as relational and cognitive, thus Koester, Word, 161; Barus, "Faith," 367; Schnackenburg, John, 1:560; Dodd, Interpretation, 179–185. 432 Morgan, Roman, 444. 433 Morgan observes that outside the NT, trust is closely connected to friendship and love. Morgan, Roman, 450. 434 The nature of such action will be considered in the following section §6.3. 435 Riley, Lord, 192–93. 436 Newbigin, Light, 7. Carter similarly suggests the idea of loyalty, parallel to the loyalty given to a king. Carter, John, 266; Bates, Salvation, 95–96; Yoo, "Rhetoric", 185; Abbott, Johannine, 46. Of course, this should not be understood in the Johannine context as blind loyalty, or loyalty that is merely dutiful. D. Konstan, "Trusting in Jesus," JSNT 40, no. 3 (2018): 253–54; T. Morgan, "Faith in Dialogue," JSNT 40, no. 3 (2018): 302. On the language of allegiance, see Bates, Salvation, 5–6, 78, 92; Timmins, "Faith". Cf. D. Wiebe, "The Role of Belief in the Study of Religion: A Response to W. C. Smith," Numen 26, no. 2 (1979): 236. Frey advocates something similar, “Es geht nicht um das Fürwahrhalten von distinkten Sachverhalten, es geht vielmehr um das Ganze der Zugehörigkeit der Menschen zu Christus”. Frey, "Glauben," 18.

115

relational aspect of the ideal response to Jesus can be characterised as entering into a relationship of personal trust, which can be labelled as allegiance.

The nature of this relationship is reflected through images of friendship, of following and discipleship, and familial imagery. While the Graeco-Roman context of friendship is complex, and involved relationships with mutual obligations, it also involved relationships of closeness and affection. In addition, the use of παρρησία in light of Graeco-Roman discussions of true friendship indicates that the friendship in view is true friendship rather than self-interested attachments. When placed alongside the inclusion of Jesus’ followers in a relationship of love with both Jesus and the Father, the relational idea is strengthened. While love has been understood at times as ethical, Mark Appold has argued that in John love cannot be simply ethical given it is a continuation of love between Father and Son.437 An element of affection is suggested, for example, by the sadness of Peter when his love is questioned (21:17). Segovia highlights the centrality of love with regard to belief, saying, “To love Jesus is to believe in him”.438 The language of discipleship and following convey the image of a Rabbi and his disciples, or a Hellenistic philosopher and his students. Whilst these images have a range of implications, one of those is relationality.439 These images entail a presence with, interaction with, and learning from a teacher—a close interpersonal relationship.440 The familial image of believers as children of God (1:12) similarly presents a close and affective relationship between the believer and Jesus. The consistent picture of these images reflects the necessity of entering into such a close and affective relationship as part of genuine belief.441

The proximity and intensity of the relational aspect is expressed through the language of being in, remaining in and being one. This is language of attachment which is not to be understood ontologically but practically.442 While Morris draws connections with Pauline usage of ‘in Christ’, such connections are not substantiated by the Johannine usage.443 While

437 Appold states “the appeal is not an exhortation to begin loving or to do one’s own meritorious part but to continue in the reciprocity of loving which has its beginning in the oneness of Father and Son.” Appold, Oneness, 39. 438 F. F. Segovia, "The Love and Hatred of Jesus and Johannine Sectarianism," CBQ 43, no. 2 (1981): 269. 439 Hillmer, "They Believed," 84. 440 On the relationship between a Jewish Rabbi and their students, see Köstenberger, "Jesus as Rabbi". 441 J. N. Bremmer, "Why Did Jesus' Followers Call Themselves 'Christians'?," in Maidens, Magic and Martyrs in Early Christianity (ed. J. N. Bremmer; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 3–5. 442 B. Lindars, The Gospel of John (New Century Bible; London: Oliphants, 1972), 269. 443 Morris, John, 296.

116

there may be a spiritual dimension, this is not the primary focus. Thus it is better to speak, as Schnackenberg does, of an attachment to Jesus which conveys this relational idea, rather than in terms of an ‘organic union’.444 The use of such striking language to convey the nature of the relationship vividly conveys the closeness it involves. The relational images are interconnected, as ‘abiding’ overlaps with images of friendship and love, together presenting a close, even intimate relationship.445 Alongside these images we can also put the relational implications of knowing, as to know a person is not merely intellectual, but implies relationship.446 Such a relationship is necessary, for as love or hatred of Jesus parallels belief and unbelief in him, to genuinely believe requires this relational love.

The relational aspect is extended beyond the relationship between the believer and Jesus to encompass the relationship between believers.447 Believers are commanded to love one another (13:34; 15:12), which entails relationship, not merely outward actions. Such a relationship is also indicated in Jesus’ prayer for unity (17:21) which envisages a unity of believers modelled on the relationship of unity between Father and Son. Finally, that relationship is enacted as Jesus gathers his followers into a community around him, who travel together, eat together, and even after Jesus’ death are found together (21:2). To enter into a relationship with Jesus is to join in relationship with others who similarly believe.448

The relational aspect of belief involves a close interpersonal relationship with Jesus, characterised by trust and love, and extending out to fellow believers.

6.3 Believing as Ethical

Alongside the propositional and relational aspects, a core aspect of genuine belief is

444 Schnackenburg, John, 1:560; 2:332. 445 Lee, "Friendship," 63. 446 Morgan, Roman, 428–29; Rainbow, Johannine, 290–92; D. Rensberger, "The Messiah who has Come into the World," in Jesus in Johannine Tradition (eds. R. T. Fortna, et al.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 21; Barus, "Faith," 120. Schnackenburg argues that the Jewish background of the Gospel influences this relational dimension of knowledge. Schnackenburg, John, 1:565. 447 Carter observes the social and communal element. Carter, John, 265. Frey sets the love command within the framework of a family ethos, centred on care for others in the community. Frey, "Ethical," 199–201. 448 While this communal relationship is conveyed in terms of love, πιστεύω is not used to refer to the relationship between believers in John or in the NT more broadly, a point highlighted by several responses to Morgan’s work. Morgan, Roman, 399; Konstan, "Trusting in Jesus": 253; L. Alexander, "A Map of Understanding: The Riskiness of Trust in the World of the Early Christians," JSNT 40, no. 3 (2018): 284; L. G. Driediger-Murphy, "'Do Not Examine, But Believe!' A Classicist's Perspective on Teresa Morgan's Roman Faith and Christian Faith," RelS 54, no. 4 (2018): 573. Rensberger goes too far in equating belief or unbelief with the choice to join a community. Rensberger, Johannine Faith, 37–49.

117

that of ethical action.449 Ethical action is conveyed through the calls to ‘keep my commands’ and ‘keep my word’, with the plural ‘commands’ (14:15) indicating this cannot be limited to the explicit command to ‘love one another’. The call to such action is emphasised and essential, and the principal command, to love one another, appears no less than three times (13:34–35; 15:12,17).450 That this call to love entails an ethical aspect is conveyed through Jesus’ practical example (13:1–15). In addition, the binary presentation of belief and unbelief is paired with the presentation of those who do good and those who do evil (5:28–29), along with the contrast of those who believe against those who disobey (3:36). Thus John presents ethical action as an intrinsic part of belief, as it can equally be described as the differentiating factor in one’s eternal fate. The centrality of ethical action is supported by the imagery of light, as both coming to the light and walking in the light are used to convey the idea of a life that is upright and characterised by right action. Obedience is not presented following on as a result of belief, it is simply that those who believe obey, and those who do not believe disobey.

The problems observed in the previous section with regard to conceiving of belief as more than propositional are more evident when it comes to the ethical aspect. The ethical response can be downplayed, as seen in Dorothy Lee’s suggestion that the absence of ‘obey’, and use of ‘keep’ instead, is more fitting with friendship, and conveys the idea of holding what is precious and life-giving.451 While many will accept that John presents an ethical response as necessary, considering it as an integral part of belief is rare. Thus while Paul Rainbow acknowledges that it is necessary, he describes it as a ‘secondary condition’.452 David Croteau describes obedience as the result of true belief, while Craig Koester speaks of faith leading to action.453 This is perhaps in part influenced by too strong a dichotomy between faith and works, with faith, as already observed, being conceived in essentially cognitive terms. While Moody Smith is correct that to claim one can believe without obedience and love is an “anti-Johannine statement”, we must go beyond that to see that they

449 J. G. Van der Watt, "Ethics in Community in the Gospel and Letters of John," in The Oxford Handbook of Johannine Studies (eds. J. M. Lieu, et al.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 369; Brown, "Believing," 20. 450 Moloney emphasises the way John presents love as necessitating action. Moloney, Love, 210. Cf. B. M. Stovell, "Love One Another and Love the World: The Love Command and Jewish Ethics in the Johannine Community," in Christian Origins and the Establishment of the Early Jesus Movement (eds. S. E. Porter, et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2018), 442; Schlier, "Glauben," 291. 451 Lee, "Friendship," 70. 452 Rainbow, Johannine, 315. 453 Croteau, "Analysis," 135; Koester, Word, 178. Cf. Decourtray, "Conception": 568–69.

118

are not only essential but intrinsically part of the concept of genuine belief that John presents.454

The nature of ethical action that John calls for is a matter of character of life, lived in imitation of Jesus. The Gospel does not present specific ethical commands, only the overarching command to love one another. As other New Testament texts indicate this command is foundational for the Old Testament law (Matt 22:38–40), it conveys a life lived in accordance to God’s instruction.455 The visible demonstration of love towards others is highlighted by the way such love functions as a witness (13:35). Jesus provides a demonstration of practical love for the disciples to emulate, which forms part of a broader call to imitate the attitudes and actions of Jesus.456 The centrality of imitation for Johannine ethics is highlighted by the absence of specific ethical commands. While the call to love one another may entail a particular concern for right action to fellow believers, the example of Jesus’ love for those who do not yet believe indicates that it should not be understood in a restricted sense, but must extend to all the world.457 Thus, the ethical aspect of belief cannot be limited to observing a set of rules, rather it calls for a character of life.458

The ethical aspect entails a life of obedience to Jesus, living in imitation of him, and crucially in imitation of his visible love for others, as an essential component of genuine belief.

6.4 Believing as Ongoing

The fourth key aspect of genuine belief is that it necessarily entails an ongoing response.459 The use of μένω stresses the need to continue in belief (see §4.3), as it focusses on the ongoing aspect of an attachment to Jesus. This is particularly evident with the

454 Smith, "Ethics," 113. 455 The breadth of the Johannine ethical vision does not imply vagueness, as Johannine ethics should not be disconnected from the specific and concrete examples given by Jesus. C. Bennema, "Moral Transformation through Mimesis in the Johannine Tradition," TynBul 69, no. 2 (2018): 201. 456 Bennema, "Mimesis"; van der Watt, "Ethics in Community," 373. 457 Skinner, "Love."; M. Gorman, "John's Implicit Ethic of Enemy-Love," in Johannine Ethics: The Moral World of the Gospel and Epistles of John (eds. S. Brown, et al.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017). Cf. Brown, "Believing," 18. Contra R. B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation, a Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 147. 458 While Johannine ethics may have political implications, that dimension is not developed within the Gospel. J. G. van der Watt, "Quaestiones disputatae: Are John's Ethics Apolitical?," NTS 62 (2016): 493–94. 459 Those pointing to the ongoing aspect of belief include Wang, Sense, 47; Rainbow, Johannine, 300; Thompson, "Signs": 95; Appold, Oneness, 269; Schnackenburg, John, 1:566.

119

disciples, who are presented as having a saving relationship with Jesus yet are still commanded to remain in Jesus (15:3–4). While the language of endurance (ὑπομονή) is absent from John, the concept is present, and is demonstrated through the characters.460 The disciples are presented as persevering in contrast to the crowds (6:60–71), while others who believe demonstrate both an ongoing relationship and continued adherence despite challenges (4:1–42; 9:1–38; 11:1–44). The vocabulary of ‘following’ and ‘being a disciple’ also indicate a continuing relationship.

The ongoing aspect is implied in the aspects of belief that have already been identified, and these aspects are tied together with μένω. This is most obvious with the relational aspect, as relationships are not momentary but are ongoing processes. Similarly, the idea of ethical action is an ongoing way of life. Even the aspect of propositional knowledge implies an ongoing acceptance of the facts that are known and believed. Each of these aspects are connected with ‘abiding’ in chapter fifteen: the propositional through the call that τὰ ῥήματά μου ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (15:7), the relational through the call to μείνατε ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ τῇ ἐμῇ (15:9), and the ethical through the call that ὁ καρπὸς ὑμῶν μένῃ (15:16).

The identification of genuine belief as necessarily ongoing is supported by grammatical features of the Johannine language of belief. As observed in §1.3.1.2, John only uses the verb πιστεύω and never the corresponding noun πίστις, a pattern which reduces the possibility of interpreting believing as ‘faith’ in the sense of a thing that can be acquired.461 Along with the Johannine preference for imperfective verb forms compared to the Synoptics, this pattern is best explained as a Johannine technique to present an active and ongoing concept of belief.

John does not envisage that an initial positive response to Jesus necessarily entails that one will continue in this ongoing response of genuine belief. It has been observed at numerous points that people can make such an initial reaction to Jesus, but not go on (6:60– 66; 8:31–58; 15:1–6), or have doubts raised about whether they genuinely believe (2:23– 25).462 At none of these points is the audience given insight into the inner experience of the

460 Rainbow, Johannine, 296. 461 Adkisson, "Examination," 64. 462 Walter speaks of the two faces of unbelief, both the refusal to believe but also the failure to go on following.

120

characters who do not go on in believing. Therefore, any speculation as to whether these characters attained a sufficient cognitive aspect of belief will not contribute to our understanding of Johannine belief. Because they do not demonstrate this ongoing aspect of belief, they cannot be accounted as genuine believers.

The ongoing aspect of belief entails continuing in the cognitive, relational, and ethical aspects of belief.

6.5 Believing as Public Witness

A final key aspect that is essential to genuine belief is that of public witness. The aspect of public witness is presented in two forms, the first of which is a public acknowledgement of one’s allegiance to Jesus. While the verb ὁμολογέω appears infrequently, numerous confessions are narrated, showing the importance of confession as part of faith.463 While the importance of confessions have led several scholars to focus on clear confessions as the only true evidence of genuine belief, belief can also be expressed indirectly and non-verbally.464 The need for this public confession is also conveyed through those who fail to confess, who also display attitudes which fail to prioritise the eternal over the temporal. The Jews are condemned for seeking glory from man rather than God (5:41–44) and this attitude is the reason for the secrecy of those in 12:42–43. This attitude contrasts with Jesus’ words about being willing to lose one’s life (12:24–26); an idea Jesus will repeat to his disciples (15:13). The awareness of the Gospel author of these secret believers, along with the narrative movement away from secrecy by Nicodemus, encourages those in the audience who may be keeping their faith secret to move into public acknowledgement of their faith.

In addition to being acknowledgements of allegiance, public confessions can be seen as expressions of the second form of public witness, which is presenting Jesus in order that others might believe. The central role for witness throughout the narrative begins with John the Baptist as a model of such witness (1:7, 29, 32).465 The Samaritan woman fulfils a similar

Walter, L’incroyance, 122–24. 463 Schnackenburg, John, 1:566. 464 Non-verbal expression of faith is seen in Nicodemus (19:38–42). Hylen and Bennema both stress the role of confessions in determining belief. Hylen, Imperfect, 55; Bennema, Encountering, 194. Barus, however, allows for alternate expressions of faith. Barus, "Faith," 98. 465 Lincoln has demonstrated the significance of witness in John and highlights the role of believers as

121

role, as her witness leads the villagers to come to believe (4:28–30, 39). The disciples are assumed to fulfil the role of witnesses, as it is their words which will lead others to believe (17:20). While Jesus does not command his disciples to be his witnesses (cf. Acts 1:8; Matt 28:18–20) he sends them as he was sent (20:21), with the implication that their role is a continuation of his own.466 The Gospel itself is presented as an example of such witness (19:35; 21:24). Therefore we can conclude that bearing witness is a part of genuine belief.467

The public aspect of belief requires public confession of allegiance to Jesus, along with bearing witness about Jesus to others, so that they in turn might believe.

6.6 Genuine Belief in John

According to the Gospel of John, genuine belief, which is belief that leads to life, consists of five parts: a cognitive aspect, a relational aspect, an ethical aspect, an ongoing aspect, and a public aspect. The cognitive aspect requires knowing and accepting that Jesus is the Messiah, the divine Son of God, and the one who is risen, along with belief in the Father who sent Jesus. The relational aspect involves a close interpersonal relationship with Jesus, characterised by trust and love, and extending out to fellow believers. The ethical aspect involves a life of obedience to Jesus, living in imitation of him, and crucially in imitation of his visible love for others, as an essential component of genuine belief. The ongoing aspect entails continued allegiance to Jesus, expressed through continuing in the cognitive, relational, and ethical aspects of belief. The public aspect requires public confession of allegiance to Jesus, along with bearing witness about Jesus to others, so that they in turn might believe. The combination of these are necessary to receive life in a post-resurrection context.

witnesses. Lincoln, Truth, 242–255. 466 Köstenberger, Missions, 190–192, 215. 467 Beutler emphasises the element of confessing faith by suggesting that the Gospel’s purpose is to encourage Christians to confess their faith in a hostile context. Beutler, "Faith," 20–21; Painter, "Eschatological," 51–2.

122

7 Graeco-Roman Belief: Devotion to the Gods In order to establish the religious repertoire that an early audience of the Gospel may have brought to the text, we need to examine the Graeco-Roman religious context.468 Whilst πιστεύω is a central concept for the Gospel of John, the term does not play the same central role in Graeco-Roman religious contexts.469 Therefore, ‘devotion to the divine’ is more appropriate as a phrase to refer to the breadth of responses that may be analogous to the concept of belief as conveyed in the Gospel of John (on ‘belief’ in the Graeco-Roman context, see §7.1.2). The repertoire of the early audience consists of the various patterns of devotion to the divine, not limited to those that the audience directly participated in but those with which they may have been familiar. This repertoire will be established by analysing the various aspects of devotion to the divine that were common within the Graeco-Roman world, in particular looking at Asia Minor and Greece, with a focus from the 1st Century BC through to the 2nd Century AD.470 The religious repertoire of an early audience will be the basis for the investigation of potential interplay between the religious background of an early audience and the text of the Gospel of John (§9.2). These comparisons will enable conclusions to be drawn as to how an early audience of the Gospel may have received the concept of belief that it seeks to convey.

The religious world of the first century was diverse, and therefore this study will focus on a series of expressions of religious activity and devotion in order to build a

468 On the idea of ‘repertoire’ see Bolt, Jesus, 8–10; Salier, Semeia, 7–10. 469 Schliesser, "Faith," 3; Morgan, Roman, 1–2, 123. See further discussion on the role of πίστις in the Graeco- Roman religious context below, §7.2.2. 470 As established in §1.3.2, the Gospel of John was written in the first century AD, most likely in Ephesus. Even if not the location of its initial composition, traditions linking John to Ephesus make it likely that the Gospel was being read there both early and extensively. Therefore, it provides a focus for investigating the context of the early audience. However, there was a common culture throughout much of the Eastern Mediterranean, at least in urban areas, as reflected in standard forms for inscriptions, rituals, and pottery styles. W. A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 15. MacMullen similarly sees that the paganism of the Roman Empire must have shared characteristics that enabled the rapid spread of Christianity throughout the Empire. R. MacMullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), xii. Given that this study is exploring the range of patterns of devotion which an early audience of the Gospel would have been familiar with, rather than describing the exact forms of religious expression in one location, it is reasonable to postulate that the audience would have been familiar with the common expressions of religious devotion within the region, not merely those specifically attested in Ephesus. While this was a period where there were changes in religious expression, these changes were a gradual process. Even such an apparently new religious form as emperor worship finds roots in both Hellenistic ruler cults and Roman state cult (see §8.3). The recognition that there was a process of change means that evidence from Classical Greece or Republican Rome must be treated cautiously, as there may have been developments by the time that the Gospel was written. Conversely, the gradual nature of this change means that a narrow temporal window is not essential.

123

composite picture of the patterns of devotion that would likely have been within the experience of an early audience. This chapter will focus on the most common expressions of devotion, primarily centred upon the Olympian pantheon (§7.2). The following chapter will consider other expressions of religious activity that may display different patterns of devotions, including those associated with Asclepius (§8.1), Isis (§8.2), and emperor worship (§8.3). In order to facilitate subsequent comparison and contrast, the material within each of the following sections will be grouped in similar categories to those used in the summary of the Johannine material (§6). While it could be argued that this introduces an illegitimately Christianising element to the study, it must be noted that the Gospel of John emerged within the Graeco-Roman religious world of the first century.471 Given that the intention is to compare one first century body of evidence with another, to do so necessitates some form of casting one in terms of the other.472 Indeed, using the Gospel of John as a launching point for such an investigation is needed, for the Graeco-Roman sources that deal with devotion to the divine are much more scattered, and a starting point which gives an initial focus is vital. The Gospel of John presents in a single document a coherent model of relating to the divine within a first century Graeco-Roman context, and thus provides an appropriate beginning point. To begin in this way does not require making value judgements on the merits of other models of relating to the divine in comparison to that found in the Gospel. Further, this study is focussed on the repertoire that may have influenced how the audience encountered the material in the Gospel, and so those aspects of religious expression that have some connection to what is found in the Gospel will be most significant. Other aspects to religious expression, however, are not excluded, as seen with the discussion of the place of ritual within Graeco-Roman religion (see §7.2.5). 7.1 Conceptual and Terminological Issues The way that Graeco-Roman religion operated and related to the rest of life, is radically different to the modern Western Christian experience. Therefore, there are

471 Issues regarding Christian terminology and Graeco-Roman contexts will be explored below, but the comparisons being made in this thesis are not between ancient Graeco-Roman religion and a modern conception of Christianity, but between Graeco-Roman religion and the Gospel of John as a document written within the Graeco-Roman world. As van den Heever has observed, post-Renaissance conceptions of doctrine and ritual have had the effect of removing early Christianity from its embeddedness in the Graeco-Roman religious world, with the attendant issues of terminology and categorisation. G. van den Heever, "Redescribing Graeco-Roman Antiquity: On Religion and History of Religion," R&T 12, no. 3 (2005): 218–20. 472 As the Gospel of John was written within the context of the first century Graeco-Roman world, it is reasonable to expect some similarities in the form of religious expression. However, there must also be differences, as the early Christians were perceived as distinctly different. See L. W. Hurtado, Destroyer of the Gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016).

124

conceptual and terminological issues that must be addressed, in order that, as far as possible, we might avoid reading in our preconceptions of what religion is or should be, and instead to uncover something close to the first century religious experience. The first two issues concern the validity of applying the terms ‘belief’ and ‘religion’ to the Graeco-Roman sphere. The third problem centres on how to understand the religious realm in relation to the wider culture and society, as religious elements permeate much of daily life. Fourth, the relationship between the various expressions of religious devotion needs outlining. Finally, the relationship between Greek and Roman expressions of religious activity must also be considered, to determine the degree to which they can be treated together as equivalent phenomena.

7.1.1 Belief in the Graeco-Roman World

The first significant issue to address is whether the terminology of belief, that is propositional belief, is applicable to the Graeco-Roman religious world, or whether belief is a uniquely Christian feature. The reaction against terminology and ideas that are tied to Christianity finds its origin in a possibly justified response to an earlier generation of scholarship.473 As Graeco-Roman religion had less of a role for propositional belief than the more creedal and doctrinal Christianity, it was conceived as lesser, in some cases not genuine. Thus, Franz Cumont presents a ‘grand narrative’ of the fall of paganism and the rise of Christianity, where the old religion of the Greeks and Romans was empty, a matter of unintelligible rites reproduced for tradition’s sake.474 Thus Graeco-Roman society was open to the ‘oriental religions’ which promised more meaning, which then prepared the way for the rise of Christianity, the pinnacle of these oriental religions.475 An alternative perspective that still downplays the significance of traditional Graeco-Roman religion is that of E. R. Dodds, who argued that societal changes in the Roman period produced an ‘age of anxiety’, anxiety which traditional religious expressions were unable to satisfy.476 Both these approaches are

473 For a fuller overview of these historical developments see J. B. Rives, "Graeco-Roman Religion in the Roman Empire: Old Assumptions and New Approaches," CBR 8, no. 2 (2010); J. Alvar Ezquerra, Romanising Oriental Gods: Myth, Salvation and Ethics in the Cults of Cybele, Isis and Mithras (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 1–12. 474 Cumont, Oriental, 31. Others to follow this view include J. E. Harrison, Prolegomena to the study of Greek religion (3rd ed.; London: Cambridge University Press, 1922); M. J. Vermaseren, Die Orientalischen Religionen im Römerreich (Leiden: Brill, 1981); R. Turcan, The Cults of the Roman Empire (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1996). 475 Cumont, Oriental, 31, 34. 476 Dodds focusses more on the Greek world, while Cumont attends primarily to the Roman. E. R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety: Some Aspects of Religious Experience from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965). Cf. A. J. Festugière, Personal Religion among the Greeks (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1954), 72–75; L. H. Martin, Hellenistic Religions: An

125

flawed, as they make invalid distinctions as to what is ‘real’ religion. The private and internal aspects of religion are privileged, and public and ritual elements are downplayed or dismissed. These judgements prevent an understanding of Graeco-Roman religion on its own terms.

The ‘grand narrative’ and particularly the characterisation of Graeco-Roman religion as declining and empty of meaning has been strongly challenged by the work of Ramsey MacMullen and Robin Lane Fox.477 They demonstrated that the ‘pagan’ religion of the Roman empire was vibrant and remained so beyond the rise of Constantine in the fourth century. In the desire to move away from misapplied concepts of ‘real’ religion, the centrality of ritual for Graeco-Roman religion has been emphasised. Alongside that the place of propositional belief within the Graeco-Roman system has been downplayed, and even denied.478 However, some of these rejections of belief appear confused. For example, Jean- Pierre Vernant describes Greek religion as “more of a practice, a manner of behaviour and an internal attitude than a system of beliefs and dogmas”. This appears to contrast an internal attitude with a belief system, yet it is unclear how Vernant proposes to distinguish the two.479 Armstrong meanwhile misunderstands the place of myth in Graeco-Roman religion, describing a piety of worship not of belief, where cult is primary and myth secondary.480 This itself appears Christianising, as it casts the Greek stories of gods and men as the source of beliefs, parallel to biblical narratives. Yet the flexibility of the mythological traditions argues against Greek mythology functioning this way.481 While the trend towards a focus on ritual has been helpful in terms of understanding Graeco-Roman religion on its own terms, an

Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987). 477 MacMullen, Paganism; Fox, Pagans. Cf. D. Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998), 12. 478 The downplaying of belief and focus on ritual is evident in numerous works on Greek and Roman religion, such as M. Beard, J. A. North and S. R. F. Price, Religions of Rome (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); J. Scheid and M. Linder, "Quand croire c'est faire. Le problème de la croyance dans la Rome ancienne," ASSR 38, no. 81 (1993): 48; L. B. Zaidman and P. S. Pantel, Religion in the Ancient Greek City (trans. P. Cartledge; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 27; A. H. Armstrong, Classical Mediterranean Spirituality: Egyptian, Greek, Roman (New York: Crossroad, 1986), xvi; J.-P. Vernant, Myth and society in ancient Greece (trans. J. Lloyd; Brighton: Harvester, 1979), 88. Philips advocates studying ‘meaning systems’ not beliefs. C. R. Phillips, "The Sociology of Religious Knowledge in the Roman Empire to A.D. 284," ANRW 16.3:2710. 479 Vernant, Myth, 88. 480 Armstrong, Classical, xvi. 481 V. Pirenne-Delforge, "Under Which Conditions Did the Greeks 'Believe' in Their Myths? The Religious Criteria of Adherence," in Antike Mythen. Medien, Transformationen, Konstruktionen. Festschriften für Fritz Graf (eds. U. Dill, et al.; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009); P. Veyne, Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths? (trans. P. Wissing; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 1–3.

126

overemphasis on this focus can be equally problematic.

In rejecting entirely the notion of belief, the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, and recent works have stepped back from the exclusion of belief as a valid category.482 There has been a recognition that while ritual may be primary, there is an associated thought world.483 These beliefs may be shaped by ritual rather than the reverse, but that does not thereby invalidate such beliefs. Indeed, Andreas Bendlin observes that individual belief is a necessary category to account for differing interpretations of ritual.484 The meaning of rituals may not be explicit, and indeed may vary depending upon the participant, but the lack of an official interpretation does not mean that rituals can be declared empty of meaning. A further argument comes from F. S. Naiden, who argues that without beliefs about the supernatural there is no basis for practical religion, for the actions of religion are set within a story of humanity and the supernatural.485 Thus, it appears that there may be some form of propositional belief within the Graeco-Roman religious system, and any investigation must consider what role propositional belief may take, even if that role is notably different to the role of propositional belief in Christian contexts.486

Despite these observations, the term ‘belief’ remains contentious, at least in part due to definitional issues. The term is often used without clarification as to what exactly is meant,

482 Ando has stated that the rejection of faith as a concept or category was “probably misconceived” while Versnel is harsher, calling the rejection of belief “sorely misguided”. C. Ando, The Matter of the Gods: Religion and the Roman Empire (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008), xi; H. S. Versnel, Coping with the Gods: Wayward Readings in Greek Theology (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 539. T. Harrison, Divinity and History: The Religion of Herodotus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) 19. See earlier Wiebe, "Role": 247. On the related idea of ‘theology’ in Greek religion, see Kindt, "Story." 483 The term ‘ritual’ can be read as indicating only physical action, and Larson understands the focus on ‘ritual’ as contributing to the thought/action divide. J. Larson, Ancient Greek Cults: A Guide (New York, NY: Routledge, 2007), 4. Scheid, despite minimising the role of belief, sees one function of ritual acts as conveying facts about the gods and the way things are. Scheid and Linder, "Quand croire": 53. 484 A. Bendlin, "Rituals or Beliefs? ‘Religion’ and the Religious Life of Rome," Scripta Classica Israelica XX (2001): 200. He observes that while Beard, North and Price allow for this variety of interpretation, their minimisation of belief proves problematic. 485 F. S. Naiden, "Recent Study of Greek Religion in the Archaic through Hellenistic Periods," CBR 11, no. 3 (2013): 407. Similar is Flower’s argument for a belief system within which religious actions make sense. M. A. Flower, The Seer in Ancient Greece (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008), 105. Cf. E. Eidinow, "The (Ancient Greek) Subject Supposed to Believe," Numen 66, no. 1 (2019), 56-88; J. L. Mackey, "Das Erlöschen des Glaubens: The Fate of Belief in the Study of Roman Religion," Phasis 20 (2017): 135; Wiebe, "Role": 235, 244. 486 Morgan suggests there is a consensus that there was at least a weak sense of belief, in the sense of belief in the existence of gods, and that they could help or harm. Morgan, Roman, 126. King argues that belief is present, and it is the organization of such beliefs, not their presence or absence, which distinguishes Christian and Graeco-Roman approaches. C. King, "The Organization of Roman Religious Beliefs," ClAnt 22, no. 2 (2003): 309.

127

often taken as propositional belief, but without differentiating this from belief in a person, which may be more relational.487 As a result of the confusion and contention around the term, for dealing with the Graeco-Roman material this study will not use ‘belief’ as an overarching term. Instead, the following study of Graeco-Roman religious expressions will be framed in terms of ‘devotion to the divine’, using this phrase to refer to all elements that comprise actions and attitudes towards the gods.488 The term ‘belief’ will be limited to the discussion of any evidence for the narrower idea of propositional belief within the expressions of Graeco-Roman religiosity.489

7.1.2 Religion in the Graeco-Roman World

A second discussion has been the validity of the term ‘religion’ for dealing with the Graeco-Roman world. One problem is that modern use of ‘religion’ evokes the image of organised structures operating in distinction from other dimensions of the socio-cultural world. Additionally, neither Greek nor Latin had an equivalent, with the Latin religio referring primarily to religious practices, while Greek is even further from our modern terminology.490 The existence of religion as a conceptual category in the ancient world is also debated. Beard identifies evidence for the emergence of religion as a distinct conceptual category in the work of Cicero, stating that “It was now possible for members of the Roman elite to proclaim a particular stance in relation to religious activity; it was no longer simply ‘something they did’.”491 However, despite the all-permeating nature of religious elements in the ancient world, there is evidence for conceptual distinctions of sacred and non-sacred, with religion as a cognitive domain, so it may be that in the context of religious developments that religion became a more readily identifiable category.492 The rejection of the term ‘religion’

487 Morgan notes the problem of the common failure to define ‘belief’. Morgan, Roman, 126. Cf. the similar failure to define belief in studies of John’s Gospel, as noted in §1.3.1.1. 488 What is entailed by ‘divine’ must also be conceived in Graeco-Roman terms (see §8.3.2). 489 Understanding ‘belief’ in merely propositional terms is also problematic with Christian sources, not only Graeco-Roman ones (see §6.2–5). 490 Bremmer describes religio as containing “a strong ritualistic aspect and was often connected with active worship according to the rules.” J. Bremmer, "'Religion', 'Ritual' and the Opposition 'Sacred vs. Profane': Notes towards a Terminological 'Genealogy'," in Ansichten griechischer Rituale (ed. F. Graf; Stuttgart & Leipzig: Teubner, 1998), 10. 491 M. Beard, "Cicero and Divination: The Formation of a Latin Discourse," JRS 76 (1986): 46; D. Feeney, Literature and Religion at Rome: Cultures, Contexts, and Beliefs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 5. North argues that Cicero’s contemporary, Julius Caesar, does not evidence such a concept. J. A. North, "Caesar on religio," ARG 15, no. 1 (2013), 35. 492 Woolf suggest the Greeks and Romans could “conceptualise religion as a discreet cognitive domain” and polis-religion is more about the interrelationship of society, politics and religious elements. G. Woolf, "Polis- Religion and its Alternatives in the Roman Provinces," in Römische Reichsreligion und Provinzialreligion (eds. H. Cancik, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 74. Parker points to civic authorities dividing the meeting

128

has been less widespread than the rejection of ‘belief’, and at times more implicit, as with the scholarly use of ‘cult’ as a way of avoiding using ‘religion’ and the implications thereof.493 Yet the use of alternate umbrella terms for religious matters is equally problematic.494 As a result, many scholars admit that while it is not a native term for Graeco-Roman culture, religion is nonetheless a useful redescriptive category for analysing the evidence in a meaningful way for a contemporary audience.495 As such, the term will be used to refer to aspects of life (both individually and socially) that involve relating to the divine.

7.1.3 Politics and Religion

One of the key concepts for understanding how Graeco-Roman religion operated is the idea of ‘polis religion’. This term, originating with Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood, sees religious activity as thoroughly entwined with all aspects of the life of a city, including the political dimension, and the polis functions as the mediator of individual cult participation.496 While Sourvinou-Inwood developed the concept in relation to the Greek polis, a similar idea has been applied in a Roman context with the label ‘civic religion’.497 Each city had its distinctive set of cults, which served to define the religious identity of the city and its citizens. The religion of sub-groups or individuals within the city is seen as governed by, and an expression of, the civic religion which is shaped and guided by the civic elites.498 This model accounts for the overlap of political and religious spheres, as the religious identity is shared

agenda into sacred and non-sacred sections, reflecting a conceptual idea of religion, although within the affairs of the city, not separate from the city. R. Parker, "What are Sacred Laws?," in The Law and the Courts in Ancient Greece (eds. E. M. Harris, et al.; London: Duckworth, 2004), 57. 493 L. B. Christensen, "'Cult' in the Study of Religion and Archaeology," in Aspects of Ancient Greek Cult: Context, Ritual and Iconography (eds. J. T. Jensen, et al.; Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2009), 21. 494 He indicates that ‘paganism’ has pejorative overtones, while ‘polytheism’ focuses on what in context was an unremarkable aspect. Rives, "Graeco-Roman": 242–43. 495 B. Nongbri, "Dislodging 'Embedded' Religion: A Brief Note on a Scholarly Trope," Numen 55 (2008): 452; B. Nongbri, Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept (London: Yale University Press, 2013), 157–58; Bendlin, "Rituals or Beliefs?": 205. 496 C. Sourvinou-Inwood, "What is Polis Religion?," in Oxford readings in Greek religion (ed. R. Buxton; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); C. Sourvinou-Inwood, "Further Aspects of Polis Religion," in Oxford Readings in Greek Religion (ed. R. Buxton; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). 497 On the relationship of Roman religion and state, particularly significant are the works of North and Scheid. See J. A. North, "Religious Toleration in Republican Rome," in Roman Religion (ed. C. Ando; Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003); J. A. North, "Conservatism and Change in Roman Religion," Papers of the British School at Rome 44 (1976); Scheid and Linder, "Quand croire"; J. Scheid, Quand faire, c’est croire: Les Rites sacrificiels des Romains (Paris: Aubier, 2005). 498 Sourvinou-Inwood states that all cult acts are dependent upon the polis. Sourvinou-Inwood, "Further Aspects," 51; Beard, North and Price, Religions of Rome, 1:359; M. Beard and M. Crawford, Rome in the Late Republic (Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985), 34–36. Shear has argued that polis-religion did not prevent alternative voices, but could drown them out. J. L. Shear, "Religion and the Polis: The Cult of the Tyrannicides at Athens," Kernos 25 (2012): 29.

129

by the city and maintained by the city.499 Thus civic magistrates also led religious ceremonies, as the religious organisation is essentially mapped onto the civic structures, so that the civic elite are also the religious elite.

The model of ‘polis-religion’ is widely accepted, although it has been critiqued more recently.500 These critiques suggest that the theory needs modifications or additions to account for the peripheral expressions of religion, those with a more ambiguous relationship to the city. This includes domestic religion, which while often mirroring the civic religion is not limited to that, magic, and participation in cult activities beyond the polis, such as travelling to oracle centres.501 These peripheral aspects reveal a role for individual concerns within the religious sphere, not merely civic issues.502 In addition, the importance of civic religion may have varied, with the public cults being most significant for the elites.503 Thus, while the model of polis-religion is helpful in situating the majority of Graeco-Roman religion within the polis, the study that follows will not be limited to civic religious expressions.504 Participation in some of the more marginal forms of religious expression may

499 Religion could be seen as primarily about civic cohesion. Momigliano, On Pagans, 63. 500 Woolf, "Polis-Religion."; J. Kindt, "Polis Religion - A Critical Appreciation," Kernos 22 (2009); E. Eidinow, "Networks and Narratives: A Model for Ancient Greek Religion," Kernos 24 (2011); A. Bendlin, "Looking Beyond the Civic Compromise: Religious Pluralism in Late Republican Rome," in Religion in Archaic and Republican Rome and Italy: Evidence and Experience (eds. E. Bispham, et al.; Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000); T. Harrison, "Beyond the Polis? New Approaches to Greek Religion," JHS 135 (2015): 167. 501 Public and private were not mutually exclusive spheres, and many elements of personal religious activity would have taken place in public view. Elements of domestic religion were often still communal, and people were influenced by a combination of personal and societal concerns. J. Kindt, "Personal Religion: A Productive Category for the Study of Ancient Greek Religion?," JHS 135 (2015): 46–47; Bendlin, "Looking," 131–32; Zaidman and Pantel, Religion, 63. Woolf suggests that while the polis prescribed certain religious elements and proscribed others, there was a neutral space between these for the practice of personal religion. Woolf, "Polis- Religion," 79–80. Eidinow suggests that while elements such as magic may have occupied a liminal space with regard to the polis, this does not necessarily imply isolation. Eidinow, "Networks": 22–23. 502 Ando describes individuals as having religious commitments that “were almost entirely bracketed from the interest of the state.” C. Ando, "The Ontology of Religious Institutions," History of Religions 50, no. 1 (2010): 63. However, as Bendlin notes, expression of private concerns could be accommodated within the public cults. Bendlin, "Looking," 132. Belayche identifies individual experiences and practices as connected to the broader societal norms. N. Belayche, "Individualization and Religious Rhetoric in Imperial Anatolia," in The Individual in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean (ed. J. Rüpke; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 243. 503 J. Rüpke, "Antike Großstadtreligion," in Zwischen Krise und Alltag: Antike Religionen im Mittelmeerraum (eds. C. Batsch, et al.; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1999), 13–30; Woolf, "Polis-Religion," 74. 504 Eidinow describes a similar approach that sees religion as embedded and thus closely connected to all of life, yet with space for individuals to create meaning. E. Eidinow, "Ancient Greek Religion: 'Embedded' ... and Embodied," in Communities and Networks in the Ancient Greek World (eds. C. Taylor, et al.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 54–56, 60–63.The marginalisation of some expressions of religion under the polis- model mirrors the marginalisation of such expressions by the elites of the time. The evidence of writers such as Cicero cannot be taken as disinterested, but as seeking to shape views according to elite interests. Woolf, "Polis- Religion," 75. One means for marginalisation was labelling practices as superstitio, which, in addition to conveying excessive religious activities, served a polemical function in identifying undesirable religion

130

have been less universal than participation in civic cults, yet they were still common, and an early audience of the Gospel of John would plausibly have encountered if not participated in them.

7.1.4 Graeco-Roman Religion: A Polytheistic Marketplace?

Given that this thesis will be focussing on a series of expressions of religious devotion, we must clarify how these various expressions fit together in the religious world of the first century. Whereas the polis had been the primary shaper of religious experience in the Classical period, some of the aspects of the polis model began to erode moving into the imperial period, as the integrity and autonomy of the polis decreases, while at the same time there was a notable increase in alternative religious expressions.505 The rise of elective cults contributed to the possibility of a religious identity not merely defined by familial and ethnic identity.506 North describes the shift in the religious world of the Empire as one from monopoly to marketplace, where choices could be made which shaped a religious identity.507 Where earlier elective religious groups, such as burial societies, had operated entirely within the religious framework of the city, social changes and mobility led to greater religious options. Simon Price has critiqued some forms of this marketplace metaphor, pointing out that the idea of individual consumers is anachronistic, emphasising instead the group-based nature of ancient societies.508 Despite these critiques, there was scope in this new religious world for individual choices, as seen in the turn to Isis of Lucius (Apuleius, Metam. 11) or in those responding to Paul in Athens (Acts 17:32–34), neither of which involve family or social group contexts.509 Religious and civic identity are less entwined, although the new religious

(δεισιδαιμονία functioned similarly in Greek, see Plutarch, Superst.). M. Kahlos, "Religio and Superstitio: Retortions and Phases of a Binary Opposition in Late Antiquity," Athenaeum 95, no. 1 (2007): 392–93; A. Petsalis-Diomidis, Truly Beyond Wonders: Aelius Aristides and the Cult of Asklepios (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 60–66; H. A. Moellering, Plutarch on Superstition (Boston: Christopher, 1962), 88–92. 505 Woolf, "Polis-Religion," 73, 77. 506 Eidinow points to Plutarch’s story of Thyiads, which indicates that cult ties could trump polis loyalties, and hence why accusations of cult involvement could be used as a character attack in trials (Plutarch, Mulierum Virtutes, 13 [Mor. 249e]). Eidinow, "Networks": 30. North suggests that the Bacchae in Italy associated with the suppression of 186 BC were an early step in the emergence of independent religious groups and the possibility of effective religious choice. North, "Religious Toleration," 216–18. Rüpke also traces the idea of religion as an individual option to the Hellenistic/Roman period. J. Rüpke, "Hellenistic and Roman Empires and Euro- Mediterranean Religion," Journal of Religion in Europe 3 (2010): 198. Cf. G. Woolf, "Ritual and the Individual in Roman Religion," in The Individual in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean (ed. J. Rüpke; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). 507 J. A. North, "The Development of Religious Pluralism," in The Jews among Pagans and Christians: In the Roman Empire (eds. J. Lieu, et al.; New York: Routledge, 1994), 176–77. Rüpke, "Antike," 25. 508 S. R. F. Price, "Religious Mobility in the Roman Empire," JRS 102 (2012): 9; Eidinow, "Networks": 11, 32. 509 Livy also relates an account of a religious choice at odds with family ties (Hist. rom. 39.9-19)

131

identities are not competitive identities as it is only with Christianity that exclusive claims are made, and associating with an elective cult was not a rejection of the old gods.510 The investigation of several elective cults (§8) for the possibility that they might involve a different shape of devotion is not suggesting that they formed a discreet system unconnected to traditional religious forms. Rather, the voluntary nature of these groups, along with influences from beyond the Greek world, may have placed different demands or expectations upon adherents.

7.1.5 Greek and Roman Religion

This chapter proposes to investigate Graeco-Roman religion, but the validity of approaching this as a unit must be questioned. By the first century AD, the Greek and Roman religious systems had several centuries of interaction and cross-pollination. Their pantheons are equated by writers ancient and modern, and there was significant visual similarity, despite some ongoing distinctions.511 Many key practices were similar, and the central elements of sacrifice and ritual were analogous. While in the Latin West, Roman religious forms were widely adopted, in the Greek East, Roman religious and cultural forms were far less readily adopted.512 The Greek East had already had several centuries of Hellenistic dominance, and Greeks often saw their culture as superior to that of the Romans, a fact that some Romans acceded to.513 Provincial administration had a predominantly laissez-faire attitude, enforced by limited resources.514 Even in Roman colonies, the Greek culture of the region remained significant, thus Corinth was seen as very Greek despite its colonial past (Dio Chrysostom,

510 Judaism was similarly exclusive, but there were not large numbers of converts, and those who did convert effectively took on a new ethnic, as well as religious, identity. Woolf critiques the idea of religious competition as a zero-sum game. G. Woolf, "Isis and the Evolution of Religions," in Power, Politics, and the Cult of Isis (eds. L. Bricault, et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 68. 511 S. R. F. Price, Religions of the Ancient Greeks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 143–48; Feeney, Literature 26. Religio-cultural links are evident in Roman attempts to link their history to Greek mythology via Aeneas. Moore points to the aniconic origins of Roman religion, arguing that the Romans adopted the visual style of the Greeks, in both temples and images of the gods, but also that Greek concepts of the gods overshadowed the Roman originals. C. H. Moore, The Religious Thought of the Greeks: From Homer to the Triumph of Christianity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916), 225–36. 512 Thus Beard et al. note that religious life in Greece and Asia Minor appears to have changed little under Roman rule, with traditional cults retaining their prestige and central role, and aside from Isis and Sarapis, other cults made little impact in Athens. Beard, North and Price, Religions of Rome, 342. Grijalvo echoes the conviction that Athens was religiously conservative with only small changes. E. M. Grijalvo, "Elites and Religious Change in Roman Athens," Numen 52, no. 2 (2005): 256. At the same time, the spread of Roman cults was restricted due to their often localised nature. C. Ando, "Exporting Roman Religion," in A Companion to Roman Religion (ed. J. Rüpke; Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007), 441. 513 Cicero, Quint. frat. 1.1.9 reflects the view that the Greeks were the originators of civilisation, although Pliny, Ep. 8.24 suggests that the Greeks had fallen from their former glory. 514 A. Bendlin, "Peripheral Centres – Central Peripheries: Religious Communication in the Roman Empire," in Römische Reichsreligion und Provinzialreligion (eds. H. Cancik, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 41.

132

Or. 37.26).515 While Greeks could adopt Roman cultural features, this was chosen rather than imposed, and functioned to maintain their Greekness, rather than undermine it.516 Even worship of the Roman emperor was based more on Hellenistic patterns than Roman (see §8.3), although it was often accompanied by the introduction of Roman-style gladiatorial games.517 Therefore, a city like Ephesus would have reflected primarily Greek patterns of devotion, while allowing that examples of more Roman religious expressions may have been encountered. These Roman forms of religion were broadly analogous to the Greek forms, and thus only at points where they diverged will distinctively Roman features be noted.

7.2 The Pattern of Devotion in Graeco-Roman Religion

7.2.1 Introduction

The first area of the Graeco-Roman religious world to analyse is devotion that centred upon the Olympian gods. These gods and goddesses were the objects of devotion throughout the Greek East, and while there were local variations, the focus here is upon the common pattern of devotion. Evidence for domestic and public religious activity will be considered together, as the domestic sphere was largely an extension of the public sphere, with the same gods as objects of devotion.518 While devotion to the traditional gods has been depicted as declining in the early imperial period, there is strong evidence for ongoing religious flourishing in the first and second centuries.519 The evidence for the nature of devotion will be assessed in sections parallel to what was found in the Gospel of John (see §6), with the

515 Bendlin, "Peripheral," 50; C. B. Welles, "Romanization of the Greek East," BASP 2, no. 2 (1965): 42. 516 Woolf observes that the changes that did take place involved a concentration of power in the hands of the elites, moving from democracy towards oligarchy. G. Woolf, "Becoming Roman, Staying Greek: Culture, Identity and the Civilizing Process in the Roman East," Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 40 (1994): 117–24. 517 Gordon also notes that Roman influence resulted in a shift from hereditary towards elected priesthoods, which would have had minimal impact on those outside elite circles. R. Gordon, "Religion in the Roman Empire: The Civic Compromise and its Limits," in Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World (eds. M. Beard, et al.; Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990), 241. 518 Bendlin, "Religion," 210. 519 The narrative of decline has influenced New Testament studies, such as H. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 1:170. Evidence for religious flourishing includes public interest in reviving sites that had been encroached upon in Athens during the reign of Augustus (IG II2 1035). Fox, Pagans, 74–75. There was increased spending on public religion in the second century, an attempt to bolster public cult against rival attractions. Woolf, "Polis-Religion," 80. Later writers may have minimised the religious commitment of the late Republic in order to highlight the role of Augustus. Bendlin, "Religion," 200; Bendlin, "Looking," 134–35; Rives, "Graeco-Roman": 249. Observing the religious flourishing in later Republic and early empire include: Beard, North and Price, Religions of Rome, 1:117–34; W. J. Tatum, "Roman Religion: Fragments and Further Questions," in Veritatis Amicitiaeque Causa: Essays in Honor of Anna Lydia Motto and John R. Clark (eds. S. N. Byrne, et al.; Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci, 1999), 280–81; van den Heever, "Redescribing": 216.

133

addition of a section examining the role of the ritual aspect of devotion.

7.2.2 The Cognitive Aspect of Devotion to the Gods

The place of a cognitive aspect within devotion to the gods in the Graeco-Roman religious world is a complex issue, not least on account of the contentious role of propositional belief (see §7.1.2). The cognitive aspect appears to be less central than in Christianity, as there are no formulaic expressions of doctrine comparable to documents such as the Apostles’ Creed.520 Nevertheless, there does seem to be a role for propositional belief about the gods, for the functioning of a system such as that in the Graeco-Roman world requires some belief or understanding regarding not only the existence of the gods, but also their identity. In order to explore the role which such propositional belief and understanding play, the range of expressions and language that might convey such belief or knowledge will be assessed. While in the Gospel of John πιστεύω was a key vehicle for conveying propositional belief, in the Graeco-Roman world πίστις is primarily a relational term (see §7.2.3).521 However, there are indications that πίστις could convey some form of propositional belief.522 Additionally, a wider vocabulary of belief must be considered, along with expressions of knowledge about the gods. Alongside these literary expressions, the role of divine epithets, and of religious experts will be investigated for their contribution to the cognitive aspect of devotion.

There are several expressions used to indicate belief in the gods, in the sense of believing they exist. This can be conveyed with θεοὺς πιστεύειν εἶναι (Lucian, Philops. 10; Porphyry, Marc. 22).523 More common are θεοὺς νομίζειν εἶναι (Plutarch, Superst. 2, 10;

520 W. Burkert, Greek Religion (trans. J. Raffan; Oxford: Blackwell, 1985), 275; R. Garland, Religion and the Greeks (London: Bristol Classical, 1994), ix. 521 In what follows, reference will be made to πίστις rather than πιστεύω, as the noun is the predominant form in wider Greek usage. Infrequent use of πίστις does not imply that it is an insignificant concept. Morgan, Roman, 2,123; Schliesser, "Faith." 522 Bultmann claimed that πίστις was a favoured term of religious groups engaging in propaganda and missionary activity, including most elective cults. Bultmann, TDNT 6:181–82. However, while πίστις is less frequent outside of Christian sources, it is not uncommon, nor is it particularly linked with elective cults or evangelism. Morgan, Roman, 259. Neither does πίστις have missionary connotations in Hellenistic Judaism or the LXX. W. Schenk, "Glaube im lukanischen Doppelwerk," in Der Glaube im Neuen Testament: Studien zu Ehren von Hermann Binder anläßlich seines 70. Geburtstags (eds. F. Hahn, et al.; Düsseldorf: Neukirchner, 1982), 72–73. 523 When πίστις is used in the sense of trust, there is an implied belief in the existence of the gods, in order to be able to trust them. For examples of πίστις in this sense, see §7.2.3. Lindsay, Josephus, 18. In some instances, it

134

Quaest. rom. 15; Lucian, Jupp. trag. 42; Xenophon, Apol. 10; Mem. 1.1) and θεοὺς ἡγεῖσθαι εἶναι (Plutarch, Quaest. rom. 11; Apoph. lac. 2.53.26; Plato, Leg 885b).524 While some have argued that νομίζω refers to worshipping the gods through cult acts, a cognitive aspect is also evident.525 These expressions denote not only existence of the gods, but also the recognition of the divine status of a hero who is believed to have become a god (Pausanias, Descr. 1.15.3; 1.32.4 [Herakles]; 1.34.2 [Amphiaraus]).526 In the case of Leucothea (Plutarch, Apoph. lac. 2.53.26) the question of recognising divine status is linked to performing cult acts.527 Thus these expressions convey a cognitive aspect of devotion, indicating an acceptance of the existence or divine status of the gods. Yet this is a limited cognitive aspect, and one that is tied closely to participation in ritual.

That believing in the existence of the gods was a category in Greek thought is confirmed by the presence of its negative, that is atheism. Plutarch defines ὁ ἄθεος as the one who Οὐκ οἴεται θεοὺς εἶναι (Superst. 11).528 Atheism was grounds for being charged with ἀσέβεια (impiety), as well as being viewed negatively even from a philosophical viewpoint (Plutarch, Is. Os. 11; cf. Plato, Leg. 885B).529 Atheism appears uncommon even amongst

is unclear whether trust or belief in existence is the focus. Aristotle, Rhet 2.17, πιστεύοντες διὰ τὰ γιγνόμενα ἀπὸ τῆς τύχης could indicate trusting the gods on account of good fortune, or believing they exist; Dodd understands the latter. C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935), 67. 524 These expressions are effectively synonymous. Morgan, Roman, 127; Lindsay, Josephus, 8. Despite its prominence in the Graeco-Roman context, νομίζω is not adopted by the translators of the LXX (except perhaps Sir 29.4), only appearing in the later writings (2, 4 Macc; Wis). It appears once in the NT in connection to the divine, in a condemnation of idolatry in the very Greek context of Paul’s Areopagus speech (Acts 17:29; cf. Wis .אמז Lindsay suggests the term was unable to express the relationship conveyed in the OT through .(13:2 Lindsay, Josephus, 2. 525 Lindsay, Josephus, 8. The combination of use with regard to status and paying honours leads Pirenne- Delforge to suggest the expression conveys “to consider and honour as a god”, while Versnel suggests “acknowledge”. V. Pirenne-Delforge, "Reading Pausanias: Cults of the Gods and Representations of the Divine," in The Gods of Ancient Greece: Identities and Transformations (eds. J. N. Bremmer, et al.; Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010), 378–79; Versnel, Coping, 544. Fahr argues that both meanings are evident. W. Fahr, ΘΕΟΥΣ ΝΟΜΙΖΕΙΝ. Zum Problem der Anfänge des griechischen Atheismus (New York: Hildesheim, 1969), 158–62. Arguing for only the sense of intellectual belief is J. Tate, "Greek for 'Atheism'," The Classical Review 50, no. 1 (1936). 526 In such cases there is a sense of change in status. Pirenne-Delforge, "Reading Pausanias," 385. 527 Lindsay argues intellectual belief and subsequent action are both implied in Sophocles, Oedipus Rex 1445 σὺ νῦν τἂν τῷ θεῷ πίστιν φέροις. Lindsay, Josephus, 7. 528 A more complex definition with three categories of atheism is given by Philodemus, Piet. (P.Herc. 1428 cols. 14,32-15,8). J. Bremmer, "Atheism in Antiquity," in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (ed. M. Martin; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 12; N. P. Roubekas, "Ancient Greek Atheism? A Note on the Terminological Anachronisms in the Study of Ancient Greek 'Religion'," Ciências da Religião: história e sociedade 12, no. 2 (2014); D. Obbink, Philodemus: On Piety (vol. 1; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 1–11. 529 While Plutarch favours atheists over those who are overly superstitious, he does not endorse such a view. He castigates the superstitious for desiring to be atheists but not having the courage (Superst. 11).

135

philosophers, although it is difficult to know whether those below elite levels of society held such views.530 More significantly, while Socrates was tried for atheism, such trials were a feature of the Classical period, and in the Roman period accusations of atheism were made but rarely taken literally, at least when directed at philosophers.531 However, even if the seriousness of a charge of atheism was diminished, it is evident that belief in the gods was a thought category, indicating at least a minor cognitive aspect entailed in devotion to the gods.

In addition to believing in the existence of the gods, the language of belief can convey a broader cognitive aspect through believing facts about the gods. Plutarch demonstrates this use of πίστις, indicating belief that Kronos is an underworld god (Quaest. rom. 11) or that the gods do not want to sleep with humans (Num. 4.3–4). Plutarch also makes the call πάτριον μὴ προΐεσθαι πίστιν (Pyth. orac. 18). Τὰ πάτρια can often refer to traditional practices (see §7.2.7) but the combination with πίστις primarily reflects an attitude. While it entails ongoing trust, the context within an explanation for why the Pythian oracle no longer speaks in verse points to a cognitive element, a belief that the god retains his ability to foretell.532 Lucian also presents a belief about the gods, that they hear requests on one day more than others (Pseudol. 8). In Amatorius 13, Plutarch writes of ἡ πάτριος καὶ παλαιὰ πίστις, which is presented as something not subject to the demand for proof (ἀπόδειξις). The reference to the epistemological basis of such πίστις implies that it has a cognitive element.533 Lucian implies that some stories about the gods may well be the object of such πίστις (Philop. 13, 30), as

530 The limited nature of atheism is reflected in the index atheorum, a list of those understood to be atheists, replicated by several writers including Cicero (Nat. d. 1.63) and Sextus Empiricus (Math. 9.50-8). Bremmer, "Atheism," 20. Meijer observes that atheism, while primarily found among intellectuals, was rare among the philosophers proper. P. A. Meijer, "Philosophers, Intellectuals and Religion in Hellas," in Faith, Hope, and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World (ed. H. S. Versnel; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 218–19. 531 Bremmer notes that where the accusation was directed at Christians there was greater seriousness and it was linked to martyrdoms. Bremmer, "Atheism," 12, 20–21. The case of Socrates points to the complexity of the issue, for he was not merely accused of wrong beliefs, but of leading the youth astray (Xenophon, Apol. 10; Mem. 1.1.1). Additionally, a political dimension could be involved given Socrates’ links to Critias, one of the Thirty Tyrants. Thus, while the trials may suggest a limit to acceptable beliefs about the gods, the issue is complex. Zaidman and Pantel, Religion, 12. 532 Momigliano, On Pagans, 77. Plutarch has a religious perspective that values tradition as a source of truth. R. Hirsch-Luipold, "Religiöse Tradition und individueller Glaube: Πίστις und πιστεύειν bei Plutarch als Hintergrund zum neutestamentlichen Glaubensverständnis," in Glaube (eds. J. Frey, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 258–59. 533 van Kooten argues that πίστις in Plutarch is not fideistic but connected to persuasion and proof, although noting that the example in Amatorius can be read as fideistic by a modern interpreter. G. van Kooten, "A Non- Fideistic Interpretation of Πίστις in Plutarch's Writings: The Harmony between Πίστις and Knowledge," in Plutarch in the Religious and Philosophical Discourse of Late Antiquity (eds. L. R. Lanzillotta, et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 219–20, 224. Cf. Hirsch-Luipold, "Religiöse," 255–56; Barth, "Pistis," 115–18.

136

well as reflecting the challenge of believing a certain conception of the gods while also seeking the truth (Icar. 10).534 Strabo reflects a broader cognitive element to belief, when he writes of belief based on myths (Geogr. 15.1.59). Several Latin sources also reflect the possibility of propositional belief, whether belief in the power of Jupiter (Horace, Carm. 3.5.1) or that a statue is in fact the goddess herself (Valerius Maximus, Fact. dict. 1.8.3). Thus, the cognitive aspect of devotion cannot be limited to belief in the existence of the gods but includes cognitive beliefs about the gods.

A cognitive aspect of devotion can be expressed through language of thinking and knowing as well as that of belief.535 As with the language of belief, the language of knowing can reflect the identity and actions of the gods (Pausanias, Descr. 8.33.1; 8.44.6).536 Varro presents the importance of knowledge of the gods with regard to their powers so that one might know which god to call upon (Ant. div. fr.3 Cardauns).537 Similarly, θεολογία reflects the cognitive aspect of devotion, as it conveys understandings of the gods (Diodorus Siculus, Hist. 4.25.3; Strabo, Geogr. 1.2.8) including distinctive regional understandings (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.20.2 [Roman]; Plutarch, Is. Os. 9, 48 [Egyptian]).538 Strabo directly connects θεολογία with participation in active devotion, thus it is not merely philosophical speculation (Geogr. 10.3.9). Further evidence of the cognitive aspect of devotion is seen in the range of conceptions of the gods that are evident. At the popular level, a Homeric concept of the gods appears common (Pausanias, Descr. 8.2.4; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.20.2; cf Strabo, Geogr. 15.1.59) whereas the philosophers often advocated a more distant god (Xenophanes, Fr. 11; Plato, Rep. 377-378), although within the Platonic tradition their concept of the gods did not entail abandoning popular forms of devotion (Plato, Leg. 905 D; Porphyry, Marc. 23). The cognitive aspect of devotion involves knowledge about the gods, their identity and actions, although with no single understanding

534 Morgan notes that those sources which reflect propositional belief often present that belief as problematic. Morgan, Roman, 145. 535 Morgan, Roman, 143; Versnel, Coping, 539–59. 536 While the philosophers could distinguish belief from knowledge (Apollonius of Tyana, Ep. 52), this was often done placing belief along a continuum from ignorance to certainty (Plato, Tim. 27–29). Thus, it entails a similar cognitive aspect, albeit with a different epistemological basis. It is not clear that the distinction between believing and knowing was clear outside philosophical circles, and the potential for them to overlap is seen in the Gospel (§6.1). Ando overlooks this overlap in contrasting Roman religious knowledge and Christian belief. Ando, Matter, 17. 537 Ando, Matter, 56. 538 A. Henrichs, "What is a Greek God?," in The Gods of Ancient Greece: Identities and Transformations (eds. R. N. Bremmer, et al.; Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010), 20–22.

137

holding an exclusive position.

Aside from these explicit indications of a cognitive aspect to Greek devotion, there are several features of the religious world that suggest that knowledge about the gods played a part, the first being the system of cult names, epithets and attributes of the gods.539 While there were debates as to how vital cult epithets were (Plutarch, Adv. col. 22), they are ubiquitous in prayers and inscriptions. These epithets were deeply rooted in tradition and social understanding (Herodotus, Hist. 2.53), thus there was no need for an authoritative record of the names and attributes of the gods.540 The traditional roots are also revealed in the consistency across Greece of particular names and epithets associated with particular gods, despite local variations (Pausanias, Descr. 7.21.7). The knowledge of these names and attributes was not abstract information to be believed, but directly practical, for it indicated the appropriate god to whom one might sacrifice.541 The importance of such knowledge is reflected in requests to oracles regarding the god to whom a supplicant should sacrifice (Xenophon, Anab. 3.1.5).542 The importance of the cult epithets and attributes of the gods reflects another element of the cognitive aspect of devotion, an element which, based upon its ubiquity in inscriptions, extends to the common person.

The role of religious experts within the Graeco-Roman religious world reinforces the limited role of propositional belief and knowledge within devotion. Priests were not primarily religious experts, unlike in later Christian contexts.543 The lack of need for religious expertise is reflected in that priesthoods could be auctioned off to the highest bidder, with the financial

539 These names and epithets define a god’s function. F. Graf, "Gods in Greek Inscriptions: Some Methodological Questions," in The Gods of Ancient Greece: Identities and Transformations (eds. J. N. Bremmer, et al.; Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010), 67. Aelian describes atheists as robbing the gods of their names and functions (Nat. an. 6.40). 540 R. Parker, "Epigraphy and Greek Religion," in Epigraphy and the Historical Sciences (eds. J. Davies, et al.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 19. 541 While the Greeks were less concerned about precision in invocation than the Romans, they valued the right name for the power they sought to address. Only in magical contexts was the name of a god seen as inherently powerful. S. Pulleyn, "The Power of Names in Classical Greek Religion," ClQ 44, no. 1 (1994): 20, 22–23. Epithets also had a role in individuating cult sites. R. Parker, "The Problem of the Greek Cult Epithet," Opuscula Atheniensia 28 (2003): 173. 542 It was possible to make a request and trust that a god would act, but most prayers have a clear recipient. H. S. Versnel, "Religious Mentality in Ancient Prayer," in Faith, Hope, and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World (ed. H. S. Versnel; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 10–15; Fox, Pagans, 172. 543 J. Kindt, "Religion," in The Oxford Handbook of Hellenic Studies (eds. G. Boys-Stones, et al.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 364–65; M. Horster, "Priests, Priesthoods, Cult Personnel - Traditional and New Approaches," in Civic Priests: Cult Personnel in Athens from the Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity (eds. M. Horster, et al.; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), 10.

138

ability to underwrite festivals more important than knowledge (IEph 1a.18b; LSAM 52; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.21.3).544 Sacrifices could be performed by anyone with the means to provide the requisite offering, and rites could be learnt through imitation and participation.545 While some indicate a need to know the right way to honour the gods through ritual (Porphyry, Marc. 23), this was a matter of tradition (τὰ πάτρια) rather than codified knowledge.546 It was the ritual act which was the intermediary between people and the god, not the priest.547 In the Greek world, religious specialists were the μάντεις (seers), who often operated independently, reliant upon their knowledge and ability.548 In Rome, the records of the Arval Brothers and the role of the quindecimviri in interpreting the Sibylline Oracles suggest a greater role for knowledge held by religious experts, but they functioned within Rome rather than in the provinces.549 In the Greek East, priestly roles reflect a place for religious knowledge, but primarily a communal and traditional knowledge of how to interact with the gods.

Graeco-Roman devotion involves a cognitive aspect, one that encompasses the belief or knowledge that makes basic sense of the Graeco-Roman pantheon, to believe not only that the gods exist, but to know who the gods are, and to which one a supplicant should appeal in a time of need. Without such belief, the Graeco-Roman system of religion would not

544 Fox, Pagans, 76–77; Parker, "Epigraphy," 17; G. H. R. Horsley, "The Inscriptions of Ephesus and the New Testament," NovT 34, no. 2 (1992): 147–48. 545 J.-M. Carbon and V. Pirenne-Delforge, "Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families," in Cities and Priests: Cult personnel in Asia Minor and the Aegean islands from the Hellenistic to the Imperial period (eds. M. Horster, et al.; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013), 65. The freedom to sacrifice did not extend to some elective cults (LSAM 36). V. Pirenne-Delforge, "Greek Priests and 'Cult Statues': In How Far Are They Unnecessary," in Divine Images and Human Imaginations in Ancient Greece and Rome (ed. Mylonopolous; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 121; Burkert, Greek Religion, 95. 546 D. S. Potter, "Roman Religion: Ideas and Actions," in Life, Death, and Entertainment in the Roman Empire (eds. D. S. Potter, et al.; Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999), 120; J. D. Mikalson, Religion in Hellenistic Athens (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 4–5; Larson, Ancient Greek Cults: A Guide, 5. 547 A. Henrichs, "What is a Greek Priest?," in Practitioners of the Divine: Greek Priests and Religious Figures from Homer to Heliodorus (eds. B. Dignas, et al.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008), 8. 548 R. Parker, "Mantis." DNP 7:834–836; Flower, The Seer, 22; Horster, "Priests," 12. The exception is those diviners associated with oracular sanctuaries. Belayche argues that the roles of priest and diviner should not be taken as completely separate, as both are involved with human-divine communication, and there is some evidence for the same individual fulfilling both roles. N. Belayche, "Priests as Diviners: An Impact on Religious Changes in Imperial Anatolia?," in Priests and Prophets among Pagans, Jews and Christians (eds. B. Dignas, et al.; Leuven: Peeters, 2013), 114. On Roman divination, which focused on ascertaining divine approval for action, rather than obtaining guidance, see J. A. North, "Diviners and Divination at Rome," in Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World (eds. M. Beard, et al.; Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990). 549 Even in Rome, such expert roles were the minority. R. Stark, "Religious Competition and Roman Piety," Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion 2 (2006): 6.

139

function.550 This belief does not take the form of doctrine that must be believed in order to be accepted either at a human or divine level. Rather it provides the basis for religious praxis, a knowledge that enables interaction with the gods.

7.2.3 The Relational Aspect of Devotion to the Gods

In Greek mythology the gods are depicted much like humans, albeit with greater power. But would a potential audience of the Gospel of John in the first century have experienced devotion to the gods as akin to an interpersonal relationship? The Homeric conception of the gods was rejected by many within the philosophical traditions (Xenophanes, Fr. 11; Plato, Rep. 377–378), whose understanding of the gods (or god) as impersonal forces necessarily precluded the possibility of relationship. However, beyond the philosophical traditions we find accounts of direct encounters with the gods (see below), or the suggestion that such encounters occurred in a previous era (Pausanias, Descr. 8.2.4). Scholars have suggested that while there was a sense of relationship, it was one of distant respect unlike the closer personal relationship of the mystery cults, a view that may be influenced by a focus on elite sources.551 In order to determine the nature of any relationship with the gods, first the language of relationship will be considered, including terms such as trust, love, and friendship which may indicate the quality of the relationship. Second will be an exploration of the way a relationship may have been enacted, whether through activities such as prayer and sacrifice, or experiences such as dreams and visions. These will give an insight into the nature of any relationship that was part of devotion to the gods.

An initial point of investigation is the relational dimension of πίστις, a term which was significant in conveying the relational aspect of belief in John’s Gospel (§6.2). The primary use of πίστις and the Latin cognate fides in the Graeco-Roman world is to convey trust, which can reflect a disposition of confidence, but also entails acting out loyalty or trustworthiness in politics, business or personal relationships.552 This is seen in contexts of

550 Naiden, "Recent Study": 407. 551 Zaidman and Pantel, Religion, 14. Pleket suggests that there are traces of “a close affective relationship between deity and worshipper” present before the Hellenistic/Roman period, but that such a relationship becomes more prominent in the oriental cults. H. W. Pleket, "Religious History as the History of Mentality: The 'Believer' as Servant of the Deity in the Greek World," in Faith, Hope, and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World (ed. H. S. Versnel; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 155. However, Pleket’s focus on asymmetric relationships between gods and people is problematic, see Alvar Ezquerra, Romanising, 319–20. 552 On the equivalence of πίστις and fides, see E. S. Gruen, "Greek Πίστις and Roman Fides," Athenaeum 60 (1982); Morgan, Roman, 7. Morgan notes that there are more specialised uses of the term in philosophical, legal and rhetorical contexts. Morgan, Roman, 7–8.

140

friendship (Diodorus Siculus, Hist. 14.26.3; 18.58.2–3), the two-way relationship of trust and loyalty between soldiers and their generals (Plutarch, Cat. Min. 56.2; Diodorus Siculus, Hist. 13.112.5 on loyalty to generals; Plutarch, Sull. 27.7; Appian, Bell. civ. 2.73 on trust in troops), and with political leaders (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 4.85.1; Dio Chrysostom, 3 Regn. 129).553 The use of πίστις in religious contexts follows a similar pattern in conveying trust. The gods are ultimately trustworthy, thus Artemidorus can describe them as ἀξιοπίστοι (Onir. 2.69), and only Tyche/Fortuna is said not to be trustworthy (Virgil, Aen. 5.604).554 Therefore, the gods are models of πίστις, which humans are to emulate (Epictetus, Diatr. 2.14.11-13; 2.8.23).555 However, as models, and even the originators and givers of πίστις (Epictetus, Diatr. 2.8.23), the gods primarily enable πίστις between humans, rather than πίστις being directed towards the gods. Yet there are calls for πίστις to be directed to the gods (Apollonius of Tyana, Ep. 33; Aelian, Nat. an. 13.21; NDL 84).556 An inscription that relates a previous failure to trust the god (μὴ πιστεύουσα τῶι θεῶι) in the context of punishment suggests that such trust was expected towards the gods.557 The importance of trusting in the gods reflects a form of devotion which had features of a personal relationship.558

The characterisation of the connection between humans and gods as a personal relationship is strengthened by using terms of love and friendship. Plutarch can say φίλοι τοῖς θεοῖς οἱ ἀγαθοί (Suav. viv. 22), while Dio Chrysostom can describe someone as φίλους ὄντας τοῖς θεοῖς (Virt. 4). Both these passages speak of the outworking of such a friendship in terms of the actions of the person (wise, just) and receiving benefits from the gods (happiness, favoured by fortune), indicating a degree of mutuality to the relationship. A similar picture is conveyed by the terms φιλόθεος and θεοφιλής. Φιλόθεος primarily characterises a human

553 Plutarch Cat. Min. 44.8 pairs πιστεύω with φιλέω to indicate a stronger relational idea than merely honouring or admiring someone. On the use of πίστις in non-religious contexts, see Morgan, Roman, 36–122. 554 The embodiment of the trustworthiness of the gods is seen in the worship of Fides, the personification of fides. While the worship of Fides in Rome was a well-established cult by the first century, in the east worship of Pistis only emerges in the second century. Morgan, Roman, 132; Momigliano, On Pagans, 77. 555 Plutarch talks more broadly of the gods as a pattern of virtue in Sera 5. Morgan, Roman, 133. 556 Morgan, Roman, 138. NDL 84 refers to punishment for δυσαπιστῶν τῷ θεῷ which Ricl suggests could be failure to trust or to obey the god. M. Ricl, "Observations on a New Corpus of Inscriptions from Lydia," Epigraphica Anatolica 44 (2011): 150. See also the call to pray with trust (πείθω) in an inscription from Egypt (c200 AD). H. Cuvigny, "The Shrine in the praesidium of Dios (Eastern Desert of Egypt): Graffiti and Oracles in Context," Chiron 40 (2010): 263, no. 20. 557 BIWK 12, cf. Morgan, Roman, 140. 558 Thus Morgan, “a primary relationship of (overwhelmingly justified) trust.” Morgan, Roman, 142.

141

attitude to the gods, as loving the god(s) or pious, connected to εὐσεβής and opposed to being ἄθεος (Lucian, Cal. 14; Aristotle, Rhet 2.17; Philo, Cher. 7). Θεοφιλής more often characterises the god(s) attitude to a human, in the sense of favoured by the gods (Plutarch, Sol. 12.4; Tim. 35.3; Aelius Aristides, Or. 8; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 3.70.1; 4.40.7; 6.13.5). Divine favour is experienced through receiving something from the gods, such as wisdom (Plutarch, Sol. 12.4; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 3.70.1) or through a positive disposition on behalf of the gods (Aelius Aristides, Or. 8). However, θεοφιλής can also be used in a similar sense to φιλόθεος to indicate the human disposition towards the gods (Diodorus Siculus, Hist. 1.70.7; 4.51.4; Lucian, Jupp. trag. 47; Dio Chrysostom, 1 Regn. 43; 3 Regn. 45). The idea of a θεοφιλῆ βίος (Diodorus Siculus, Hist. 1.70.7) is suggestive of right action that pleases the gods, although the connection to being blessed (μακάριος Diodorus Siculus, Hist. 4.51.4) implies receiving from the gods as well. Evidently, a relationship with the gods cannot be abstracted from action on both parts, but alongside those actions there is evidence for a relationship that includes an affective dimension which can be reciprocal between gods and humans.

The prominent place for ritual in Graeco-Roman religion means that we must go beyond literary sources to consider how the relationship between gods and humans is enacted. Thus F. T. van Straten describes prayer, sacrifice and votive offerings as the three means for the ancient Greek “to enter into and sustain a good personal relationship with his gods.”559 However, there are other elements which may contribute to the picture, including the role of oracles as an opportunity for two-way communication, dreams and visions of the gods, and other experiences of the presence of the gods. An analysis of these elements will contribute to understanding the nature of the relational aspect of devotion to the gods.

The obvious place to begin in terms of Graeco-Roman interaction with the gods is sacrifice, which formed the centre of festivals and other rituals. The sacrifices could be made to honour or thank the gods, or as part of a request (Theophrastus, Peri euseb. fr.12 Pötscher, 42–44). Van Straten, referring to Polyaenus, Strat. 8.43, suggests that eating the sacrificed meat would have been considered as concrete participation in the divine sphere.560 However,

559 F. T. van Straten, "Gifts for the Gods," in Faith, Hope, and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World (ed. H. S. Versnel; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 65. 560 ὡς δαιμονίου καὶ θείας ἱερουργίας μεταλαγξάνοντες. van Straten, "Gifts," 67.

142

it is not clear that such an idea was widely held, and the date of composition allows that it could have been influenced by Christian ideas. More commonly, the Graeco-Roman sacrificial system is characterised by some scholars as do ut des, that the worshipper gives so that the god will give in return.561 This characterisation is suggestive of a transactional relationship rather than a personal affective relationship. However, in practice not all the interactions were so mechanical, and the relationship may be analogous to Graeco-Roman friendship or patronage with its expectation of reciprocal gifts.562 Not every participant experienced sacrifice as part of a divine relationship, as implied by Plutarch’s admonition to not merely find joy in the food and wine of the festival (Suav. viv. 21). Nevertheless, for some the exchange of gifts represented in sacrifices was an enacting of a personal relationship with the gods. A counterpart to sacrifices were votive offerings, which rather than asking the gods to act were a response to their action.563 As tangible evidence of gratitude towards the gods, these votive offerings represent an element of relationship with the gods, affirming that the giver believes that the gods hear and respond to requests, and are thereby involved in the lives of petitioners.

Verbal communication between people and the gods took the form of prayer, along with oracular consultation. The simple act of praying presumes that the gods will hear, and an important part of the Greek conception of a god was as one who hears and responds. Prayers could be depicted as part of a scene of intimacy (Seneca, Ep. 41.1).564 The speaking of requests and thanks represents at least one half of the communication which would indicate a relationship between man and gods.565 While prayer assumes that the gods hear and respond, oracles and divination constitute a manifestation of a divine response. Unlike Roman augury which focuses on ascertaining divine approval for an undertaking, Greek μαντική is about

561 Harrison, Prolegomena, viii–ix. Scholars use this characterisation of common ritual practice as a basis for comparison or contrast with other religious expressions, including the cult of Isis and emperor worship. A. Chaniotis, "The Divinity of Hellenistic Rulers," in A Companion to the Hellenistic World (ed. A. Erskine; Oxford: Blackwell, 2003), 440; K. Bradley, "Contending with Conversion: Reflections on the Reformation of Lucius the Ass," Phoenix 52, no. 3/4 (1998): 325; S. R. F. Price, "Gods and Emperors: The Greek Language of the Roman Imperial Cult," JHS 104 (1984): 91. 562 S. Pulleyn, Prayer in Greek Religion (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 4–13, 17; Z. A. Crook, Reconceptualising Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004), 76–79, 92. This ideally formed a continual cycle of gift exchange. T. S. F. Jim, "On Greek Dedicatory Practices: The Problem of hyper," GRBS 54 (2014): 635. 563 van Straten, "Gifts," 70–71; F. T. Van Straten, "Votives and Votaries in Greek Sanctuaries," in Le Sanctuaire Grec (eds. A. Schachter, et al.; Geneva: Fondation Hardt, 1992). 564 Versnel, "Religious Mentality," 27. 565 Pulleyn, Prayer, 4.

143

knowledge regarding the future.566 The stereotypical image is of an individual presenting their question at an oracular sanctuary such as Delphi.567 However, Esther Eidinow argues that rather than primarily a matter of individual information, oracle consultations formed part of group deliberation, where those involved perceived themselves as involved in working out how to act together with the divine.568 She points to the oracle questions at Dodona which typically begin ‘is it better and/or more good’, which call more for an objective judgement of future potential than mere information, a perspective that sees a relationship of interdependence with the divine.569 The spoken oracles at the major cult sites were not the only form of oracles, as μάντεις could provide more accessible options.570 These often involved vague standardised answers that could be applied to many situations, but even these were not merely a matter of personal direction, nor only for the uneducated.571 Longus of Kremna, a wealthy member of the elites, had a dice oracle inscribed and placed in the forum, where all could read it and benefit from it.572 As with the verbal oracles, this also suggests a context of communal discussion, whereby the gods were involved in the relationships and activity of the people.

A more intense relationship with the gods is seen in the experience of dreams, visions, and other encounters with the gods. While appearances of the gods were rejected by some (Plato, Rep. 381d–383), others present them as a real possibility (Plutarch, Them. 30).573 Appearances of Artemis are recorded at Ephesus, in a 2nd Century inscription referring to τὰς

566 Cicero, Div. 1.1.1. Beard, "Cicero": 41. The future knowledge was often how to act, rather than what would happen. R. Stoneman, The Ancient Oracles: Making Gods Speak (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011), 89; Flower, The Seer, 75; K. Beerden, Worlds Full of Signs: Ancient Greek Divination in Context (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 212–15. As with belief in the gods, elite scepticism of divination (e.g. Cicero, Div. 2.83) should not be read as the predominant attitude. 567 Despite Plutarch’s complaints around the decline of the Delphic oracle (Pyth. orac), “oracular sanctuaries still displayed a vibrant activity during the first three centuries AD.” A. Busine, "Oracles and Civic Identity in Roman Asia Minor," in Cults, Creeds and Identities in the Greek City after the Classical Age (eds. R. Alston, et al.; Leuven: Peeters, 2013), 177. For more on oracular activity, see A. Busine, Paroles d'Apollon: Pratiques et traditions oraculaires dans l’Antiquité tardive (IIe–VIe siècle) (Leiden: Brill, 2005). 568 Enquiries could involve a series of questions, and even multiple divine interlocutors (Xenophon Hell. 4.7.2). E. Eidinow, "Oracular Consultation, Fate, And the Concept of the Individual," in Divination in the Ancient World: Religious Options and the Individual (ed. V. Rosenberger; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2013), 32. 569 Eidinow, "Oracular Consultation," 33–36. 570 In addition to the more well-known oracular centres, IEph 4.1024 records the establishment of an oracle in Ephesus. Horsley, "Inscriptions of Ephesus": 146. 571 A. Chaniotis, "Negotiating Religion in the Cities of the Eastern Roman Empire," Kernos 16 (2003): 177–78. 572 G. H. R. Horsley and S. Mitchell, The Inscriptions of Central Pisidia: Including Texts from Kremna, Ariassos, Keraia, Hyia, Panemoteichos, the Sanctuary of Apollo of the Perminoundeis, Sia, Kocaaliler, and the Döşeme Boǧazı (Bonn: Habelt, 2000), 13–21, no. 4. 573 Fox argues that “convinced disbelievers” were few. Fox, Pagans, 115, 119.

144

ὑπ' αὐτῆς γενομένας ἐναργεῖς ἐπι[φανείας] (SIG 867.35; cf. 1169.34).574 However, such dreams and visions were unusual, and more frequent occurrences were a cause for concern (IDidyma 496).575 The presence of the gods could be experienced as audible rather than visual (Iamblichus, De Myst. 3.2).576 Others describe an emotional experience (Ovid, Fasti 6.249–252), or an internal one (Plutarch, Quaest. rom. 25). An experience of the gods was desired by some, and cult statues and images played a role in such an experience (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 12.60–61; cf. Plutarch, Cor. 38). The fact that divine encounters through statues could be faked (Lucian, Alex. 26) presupposes a belief that such experiences of divine presence were possible.577 Dreams and other forms of encounter with the gods could be dangerous (Pausanias, Descr. 10.32.18; quoting Homer, Il. 20.131), and thus there are requests for the gods to come εὐάντητος.578 These sources show that both the desire for, and the experience of encounters with the gods were part of Graeco-Roman devotion, reflecting at least the possibility of direct personal relationship with the gods.579 However, it does not appear that experiencing the presence of the gods was common or predictable.

Graeco-Roman devotion involved a relationship between the devotee and the gods. The language of trust, love and friendship is used to characterise this relationship. The relationship was enacted through rituals that parallel human gift exchanges in sacrifice and offerings. There could be verbal communication in both directions through prayer and oracles. The relationship could be a close one experienced through encounters with the divine, although these close encounters appear less common. Thus, devotion to the gods involved a relationship that would have been analogous to a human interpersonal relationship, albeit usually retaining greater distance between those involved.

574 Chaniotis suggests the use of ἐναργεῖα indicates a vivid and perhaps emotional experience of the deity. A. Chaniotis, "Staging and Feeling the Presence of God," in Panthée: Religious Transformations in the Roman Empire (eds. L. Bricault, et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 176–77. For a comprehensive assessment of Greek divine epiphany, see G. Petridou, Divine Epiphany in Greek Literature and Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). 575 Fox, Pagans, 102–3. Erskine writes that a divine epiphany was always possible but unlikely. A. Erskine, "Epilogue," in The Gods of Ancient Greece (eds. A. Erskine, et al.; Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, 2010), 510. Dreams appear more commonly in healing contexts, see §8.1.3. 576 Other claims of divine presence are unclear as to whether the presence is visible or is experienced in another form, see for example Pausanias, Descr. 6.26. 577 Petsalis-Diomidis, Truly, 48–51. On faking activity in statues, see F. Poulson, "Talking, Weeping and Bleeding Sculptures: A Chapter of the History of Teligious Fraud," Acta Archeologica 16 (1945). 578 For example, an inscription in Aphrodisias, see R. Noll, Die griechischen und lateinischen Inschriften der wiener Antikensammlung (Vienna: Kunsthistorisches Museum, 1962), 37, n. 67. Cf. L. Roberts, "Amulettes Grecques," Journal des Savants 1 (1981): 20–25. 579 Rüpke connects such encounters with a physical image of the deity. J. Rüpke, "Representation or Presence? Picturing the Divine in Ancient Rome," ARG 12 (2010): 181, 188–89.

145

7.2.4 The Ethical Aspect of Devotion to the Gods

It has been a common assertion that Graeco-Roman religion is not concerned with personal morality.580 The centrality of ritual in Graeco-Roman religion contributes to the view that in terms of human actions, the only real concern of the gods was that rituals were performed correctly. Some even go so far as to claim that the gods were a negative influence on morality (Dionysus of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.20.2).581 At the same time, Diodorus Siculus suggests that religious participation has the potential for improving one’s ethical character (Bib. hist. 5.49.6). The philosophers display more evident concern for ethics (Aristotle, Eth. nic.; Eth. eud.), while also distancing the gods from any concern for human affairs (Plato, Rep. 379e–380b).582 However, the works of the philosophers only reflect part of the culture, and it is necessary to investigate a broader range of sources, some of which suggest that the gods not only took an interest in human affairs, but required from their devotees some form of ethical action.

Graeco-Roman literary sources, in expressing scepticism about the gods’ involvement in human affairs, can also reflect popular beliefs that the gods were concerned for human morality. Thus we find the explanation that the gods were created in order to promote morality, as they were said to see the unseen crimes (Critias, Sisyphus in Sextus Empiricus, Math 9.54; Livy, Hist. rom. 1.19.4–5; Polybius, Hist. 6.56.12).583 As Polybius expresses it, belief in divine punishment is needed for the masses, and it is only the philosophers who rise above that need (6.56.10). There are others who lose their belief in the gods precisely because the gods do not punish wrongdoers (Babrius, Fab. 2).584 This latter view, even as it

580 Versnel is representative as he writes “it was never a central objective of Greek and Athenian religion to promote morality, since, as a rule, morality was not judged to be revealed through religion.” H. S. Versnel, "Writing Mortals and Reading Gods: Appeal to the Gods as a Dual Strategy in Social Control," in Demokratie, Recht und soziale Kontrolle im klassischen Athen (eds. D. Cohen, et al.; Munich: Oldenbourg, 2002), 42. This was a standard view amongst earlier scholars, such as Warde Fowler, who stated that for Rome, “Religion was effectively divorced from morality.” W. Warde Fowler, The Religious Experience of the Roman People (London: MacMillan, 1911), 288. 581 Dionysus highlights the misbehaviour of the gods in much of Greek mythology, with the possibility that some might imitate such behaviour. On the place of myth in Greek religion, see Pirenne-Delforge, "Under." 582 Because of the lack of connection between devotion and ethics in the philosophical context, the ethical instructions put forward by the philosophers will not be considered here. 583 On the Critias fragment see M. Davies, "Sisyphus and the Invention of Religion (‘Critias' TrGF 1 (43) F 19 = B 25 DK)," Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 36 (1989); C. H. Kahn, "Greek Religion and Philosophy in the Sisyphus Fragment," Phronesis 42, no. 3 (1997). Bremmer notes that the view expressed in Sisyphus would not have been included in a play unless the audience was familiar with it. Bremmer, "Atheism," 17. 584 This appears to be the experience of Diagoras of Melos, one of the most well-known ancient atheists.

146

represents a rejection of the gods, indicates that there was an expectation of divine justice. A range of sources also depict the gods with a role in giving laws (Plato, Leg. 624; Pausanias, Descr. 3.2.4; Plutarch, Lyc. 29.1).585 These sources suggest that while the elite may have been sceptical of the gods’ role in human affairs, there may have been greater acceptance at a popular level that the gods cared about human morality.586

Outside of the philosophical tradition, other literary sources reflect a view of the gods as much more concerned with human affairs. The gods could be seen as establishing laws (Hesiod, Erga 276; Homer, Il. 2.205), and the idea that they watched over human affairs can be traced from Hesiod (Erga 252–55) through both Classical drama (Euripides, Bacch. 393– 94) and law-court oratory (Lycurgus, c. Leoc. 94), even if it appears relatively rarely.587 The view continues into the Roman period, as Dionysus of Halicarnassus rejects atheistic philosophies that the gods are uninterested in human affairs (Ant. rom. 2.68.2). A view that saw the gods as concerned with ethical action is also reflected in frequent appeals to divinities whose names and epithets connect to justice. This includes not only Nemesis, but also Dikaiosyne (TAM 2.731), Dikes Opthalmos (SEG 37.1036; SEG 18.561), and Hosios kai Dikaios.588 Further connections between devotion to the gods and ethical action are seen in sources that link piety with moral education (LSAM 69), or with obedience to the laws of the polis (Xenophon, Mem 1.3.1).589 However, the focus on the polis conveys an element of upholding the political status quo, as in Dio Cassius, Hist. rom. 52.36.1–2 where adhering to τὰ πάτρια is linked to political stability. These sources reflect views that the gods were concerned with human actions and with justice. However, they do not tell us how important ethics was within devotion to the gods, so we must look for evidence that reflects greater

“Διαγόρας” Suda, Δ523. See also A. Chaniotis, "Under the Watchful Eyes of the Gods: Divine Justice in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor," in The Greco-Roman East: Politics, Culture, Society (ed. S. Colvin; Yale Classical Studies 31; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 1. 585 However, these accounts have a role for human agency alongside the divine. H. Willey, "Gods and Men in Ancient Greek Conceptions of Lawgiving," in Theologies of Ancient Greek Religion (eds. J. Kindt, et al.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 177–78; W. den Boer, Private Morality in Greece and Rome: Some Historical Aspects (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 17. 586 J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, Continuity and Change in Roman Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), 53; H.-F. Mueller, Roman Religion in Valerius Maximus (London: Routledge, 2002), 5. 587 Versnel, "Writing," 42; Mikalson, Religion in Hellenistic Athens, 12. Morgan also argues that the gods played a foundational role for popular morality, reflected in proverbs and fables. T. Morgan, Popular Morality in the Early Roman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 207–11. 588 On the latter, see the collection of inscriptions in M. Ricl, "Hosios kai Dikaios. Première partie: Catalogue des inscriptions," Epigraphica Anatolica 18 (1991). Ricl argues that “la fonction principale est de rappeler aux hommes le respect des lois divines et humaines” M. Ricl, "Hosios kai Dikaios. Seconde partie: Analyse," Epigraphica Anatolica 19 (1992): 77. 589 Chaniotis, "Negotiating": 186–90.

147

detail about what actions concerned the gods, and how significant was that concern.

The primary area in which the gods take an interest in human affairs is those activities which are explicitly related to the gods, such as ritual acts. The dichotomy of philosophy as concerned with ethics, and religion with ritual, finds exceptions as several philosophers are critical of the idea that the gods’ displeasure at wrongdoing can be overcome through sacrifice (Plato, Leg. 905 D; Xenophon, Anab. 5.7.32), arguing that the gods care more for the disposition (ἔθος) of the person than how much (πλέθος) is sacrificed (Theophrastus, Peri Euseb. fr 7.52–54; fr 8.8–10 Pötscher).590 Similar concerns are reflected in inscriptions at sanctuaries that call for purity of mind for those entering (LSCG 130; LSS 82; SEG 43.710), while others call for outward actions of ritual purity including dietary and sexual restrictions (LSS 54).591 These reflect a narrow focus as the ethical obligations are tied only to participation in ritual acts, and impurity is often connected with morally neutral actions such as contact with birth or death.592 A similar narrow focus is seen in the sacred laws, which establish various aspects of religious behaviour, including conduct associated with festivals (LSCG 65; SEG 30.61), sacrifices (LSCG 12; 28; LSS 10), and sanctuaries (LSCG 30; 150 A).593 While violation of these laws may entail punishment (LSA 45), such punishments are enacted by people rather than the gods, despite phrases such as ἀπαγοεύει ὁ θεός which present the god as the one prohibiting the behaviour (SEG 36.267).594 The limited scope of these laws, pertaining only to explicitly religious activities and locations, suggests that while the gods were seen to have concerns for human ethical action, that concern did not extend

590 van Straten, "Gifts," 68. 591 J.-M. Carbon and V. Pirenne-Delforge, "Beyond Greek 'Sacred Laws'," Kernos 25 (2012): 175–76; A. Chaniotis, "Constructing Fear of Gods: Epigraphic Evidence from Sanctuaries of Greece and Asia Minor," in Unveiling Emotions: Sources and Methods for the Study of Emotions in the Greek World (ed. A. Chaniotis; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2012), 214; F. S. Naiden, Smoke Signals for the Gods: Ancient Greek Sacrifice from the Archaic through Roman Periods (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 33, 105. Lucian reflects a related idea of the gods differentiating between righteous and unholy requests (Icar. 25). While Lucian’s works are predominantly satire, by virtue of satirizing certain views he provides evidence that others must have held to such views. 592 Chaniotis argues that such external concerns are evident from the Archaic to Roman periods, while the concern for purity of mind only develops in the Hellenistic era. A. Chaniotis, "Greek Ritual Purity From Automatisms to Moral Distinctions," in How Purity is Made (eds. P. Rösch, et al.; Weisbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012), 126, 133. 593 Parker observes that ‘sacred laws’ is a difficult to define category but does not see a more helpful alternative. He also notes that the divide between sacred and non-sacred occurs within the affairs of the city, not between the affairs of the city and something beyond it. Parker, "What are Sacred Laws?," 57. Carbon and Pirenne- Delforge suggest separating regulations concerning rituals from those concerning sanctuaries or cult personnel. Carbon and Pirenne-Delforge, "Beyond Greek 'Sacred Laws'": 163–64. 594 Parker, "What are Sacred Laws?," 62. E. Lupu, Greek Sacred Law: A Collection of New Documents (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 171–75.

148

beyond those places and actions that were focused upon the gods.

An important consideration with regard to whether the gods expected ethical conduct is the degree to which they were thought to punish misdeeds.595 Divine punishment is most often linked to misdeeds connected to the gods, as in Diodorus Siculus’ story of the consequences for robbing a temple (Bib. hist. 16.61). Ovid tells of an appearance of Jupiter and Mercury on earth where only one poor couple received them (Metam. 8.611–724). The couple were rewarded while those who rejected the gods were destroyed; this sort of story may have informed the actions of the Lycaonians in Acts 14:11–13. Silius Italicus encourages loyalty to one’s city and gods, saying that no breach of fides goes unpunished (Pun. 2.457– 525), while even Cicero allows for divine judgement for perjury, a religious offence as oaths were made to the gods (De leg. 2.22).596 The evidence is that the gods “seem to be interested in their own rights rather than in what is right.”597

There are some exceptions to the general pattern that divine punishment relates to divine affairs and not merely human affairs. A distinctive regional expression is found in the confession inscriptions of Lydia and Phrygia.598 These inscriptions record the confessions of those who believed they were being punished by a god for wrongdoing.599 In most cases, these reflect religious breaches as in the sacred laws (TAM 1.179, 238, 261, 264, 501), but

595 While misfortune such as disease could be attributed to the gods, often this is recorded without a reason for the gods to afflict the person. R. Parker, Miasma: Pollution and Purification in early Greek Religion (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983), 244–46. 596 Morgan, Roman, 135–36; J. D. Mikalson, Ancient Greek Religion (2nd ed.; Chichester: Wiley, 2011), 394. 597 Versnel, "Writing," 44. 598 While this appears to reflect unique regional features, the proximity of these areas to Ephesus makes it plausible that an early audience of the Gospel may have been familiar with these practices. Scholars may see morality as marginal to Greek religion because evidence such as this post-dates the Classical period and comes from a more peripheral part of the Greek world. Versnel, "Writing," 44–46. Such ideas may find their origins not in Greek tradition, but in Hittite influences. M. Ricl, "Continuity and Change in Anatolian Cults: The Case of Lydian Confession-Inscriptions," Belgrade Historical Review V (2014). Schnabel argues the practices were motivated by competition with Christianity, but that does not account for their geographical limitations. E. J. Schnabel, "Divine Tyranny and Public Humiliation: A Suggestion for the Interpretation of the Lydian and Phrygian Confession Inscriptions," NovT 45, no. 2 (2003): 162, 182–88. 599 These inscriptions usually include acknowledgement of the power of the god, and de Hoz argues the inscriptions have an aretalogical function. For the inscriptions to work this way would require them to present stories that would be widely accepted, and therefore they must reflect a common understanding of the actions of the gods (cf. Belayche’s definition as ‘stèles d’exaltation’). M. P. de Hoz, "The Aretalogical Character of the Maionian 'Confession' Inscriptions," in Estudios de Epigrafía Griega (ed. Á. M. Fernández; La Laguna: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de La Laguna, 2009), 358; N. Belayche, "Les stèles dites de confession: une religiosité originale dans l‘Anatolie impériale?," in The Impact of Imperial Rome on Religions, Ritual and Religious Life in the Roman Empire (eds. L. d. Blois, et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2006).

149

they extend to include crimes such as theft and fraud (TAM 1.159, 231, 251).600 However, there appears to be a distinction in that whereas the gods are seen to automatically punish for breaches of religious conduct, for human affairs the attention of the gods must be gained, through a declaration seeking justice.601 These inscriptions were not merely personal, but served as public witnesses to divine justice, as well as to what constituted unacceptable conduct.602 There are similarities with curse tablets (defixiones) from Knidos. These tablets, written in the second or first century BC for public display in the sanctuary, record those seeking justice handing over the accused to the gods in the hope of a confession and/or restitution.603 Both the tablets and the confession inscriptions reflect something akin to judicial proceedings, casting the gods as upholding justice, and thereby encouraging ethical action amongst their devotees.604 However, the apparent need for people to take the initiative in bringing misdemeanours before the gods implies that ethical action was not central to devotion to the gods.

A final form of divine punishment which may reflect a broader concern for ethical conduct is post-mortem punishment.605 Polybius values the idea of ἐν ᾅδου διαλήψεις as a means of controlling lawlessness (Hist. 6.56.11–12). Pliny the Elder shows the range of views that existed, from those seeing a delayed punishment of crimes by the gods, to those who flaunt their immorality before the gods (Nat. 2.5), while Cicero, rejecting the idea personally, indicates that ordinary people believe in punishment after death (Tusc. 1.10–11).

600 See also the inscription in G. Petzl and H. Malay, "A New Confession-Inscription from the Katakekaumene," GRBS 28, no. 4 (1987). Along with NDL 66, see Ricl, "Observations": 148. On the inscriptions see A. Chaniotis, "Illness and Cures in the Greek Propitiary Inscriptions and Dedications," in Ancient Medicine in its Socio-Cultural Context (eds. H. F. J. Horstmanshoff, et al.; Leiden: Brill, 1995); Chaniotis, "Under."; M. Ricl, "The Appeal to Divine Justice in the Lydian Confession-Inscriptions," in Forschungen in Lydien (ed. E. Schwertheim; Bonn: Habelt, 1995). 601 Ricl, "Appeal," 69. 602 The inscriptions use language of ‘example’ (ἐξεμπλάριον: BIWK 106, 111, 112, 120, 121) and ‘witness’ (μαρτύριον: BIWK 9 and 17; μαρτυρεῖν: BIWK 8, 17, 68). Chaniotis, "Constructing Fear of Gods: Epigraphic Evidence from Sanctuaries of Greece and Asia Minor."; C. E. Arnold, "‘I Am Astonished That You Are So Quickly Turning Away!’ (Gal 1.6): Paul and Anatolian Folk Belief," NTS 51 (2005): 442. 603 Texts published in A. Audollent, Defixionum Tabellae (Paris: Fontemoing, 1904). On the tablets, see Ricl, "Appeal," 70; Versnel, "Writing," 50–54; Chaniotis, "Under," 6–7. Examples of similar prayers for justice can be found in C. Dunant, "Sus aux voleurs! Une tablette en bronze à inscription grecque du musée de Genève," MH 35, no. 4 (1978); R. S. Stroud, "The Sanctuary of Demeter on Acrocorinth in the Roman Period," in The Corinthia in the Roman Period. Including the Papers Given at a Symposium Held at the Ohio State University on 7-9 March 1991 (ed. T. E. Gregory; Ann Arbor, MI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1993). 604 Versnel, "Writing," 65. 605 Graeco-Roman beliefs about the afterlife are neither central nor clearly presented, with much more attention given to the possibility of the gods intervening in the present. Fox, Pagans, 97–98. Cf. P. Bolt, "Life, Death, and the Afterlife in the Greco-Roman World," in Life in the Face of Death (ed. R. N. Longenecker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).

150

Pausanias compares his time unfavourably to the past golden age, observing how evil appears to go unchecked, and declares καὶ ἀδίκοις τὸ μήνιμα τὸ ἐκ τῶν θεῶν ὀψέ τε καὶἀπελθοῦσιν ἐνθένδε ἀπόκειται (Descr. 8.2.5).606 While some rejected the idea of post-mortem punishment, others were motivated towards ethical behaviour on account of the potential for future punishment from the gods. The statements about such punishment are broad in their identification of crimes or evils that may be punished, and thus convey a general concern for ethical action associated with devotion to the gods.

The evidence related to religious morality has demonstrated a variety of views. While literary sources, particularly from philosophical contexts, deny or downplay a role for the gods in morality, there is considerable evidence for the view that the gods took an interest in morality. At least some saw the gods as punishing people for ethical breaches, primarily those affairs most connected to the gods, but in some cases extending to cover intra-human ethical concerns such as theft. Such punishment was primarily envisaged as misfortune in this life, although some had an expectation of divine justice enacted after death. Applying this evidence to the question of an ethical aspect to devotion, there is good evidence that devotion entailed ethical concerns at least to the extent of abiding by regulations about purity when entering a sanctuary. The general concern attributed to the gods around justice suggests that devotion to the gods entailed some care for ethical action. However, aside from the specific rules around sanctuaries and rituals, there is no definitive code conveying what ethical action entails, nor clear principles, aside from the occasional indication that the law of the polis reflects divine standards. Ethical actions are not presented as determinative for allegiance towards any deities, as breaches of obligations may be punished, but confession and restitution resolve the matter.

7.2.5 The Ongoing Aspect of Devotion to the Gods

The matter of ongoing devotion must be construed differently with regard to Graeco- Roman religion when compared to the Gospel of John. There is no comparable call to continue to believe any doctrine, likewise there is no call to go on in relationship or love. As Fox notes, no pagans ever referred to themselves as ‘the faithful’, rather this term was limited

606 There is also a 1st –2nd century AD Athenian curse tablet that calls for post-mortem justice (DT 41). However, Versnel suggests it may be influenced by Jewish thought. H. S. Versnel, "Beyond Cursing: The Appeal to Justice in Judicial Prayers," in Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion (eds. C. A. Faraone, et al.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 65.

151

to Jews and Christians.607 There was, however, an expectation of ongoing commitment to the gods through ritual. At the civic level, this is seen in the sacred calendars, where each city would have a set of festivals that would be conducted annually, paralleled by regular acts of devotion in the domestic sphere.608 Attempts to revive neglected rituals suggest that the key factor was that the gods continued to be honoured, rather than perpetuating a specific rite.609 Behind the maintenance of appropriate ritual activity was an understanding that the gods must receive adequate devotion lest they be displeased, and the community suffer the consequences (Cicero, Nat. d. 2.3.7–8). Some responsibility fell upon the individual, so Christians who ceased participating in the devotional life of the city could be punished, with the concern for maintaining devotion reflected in Pliny’s words that the shrines were more popular after his suppression of Christianity (Ep. 10.96).610 However, the responsibility was also on the community, and those leading people away from traditional devotion could be suppressed (Xenophon, Apol. 10), while cities also sought to teach the youth proper piety (ἄνδρες εὐσεβέστεροι γένοιτο LSCG 8, l.31–33).611 The ongoing devotion connected to the civic religion of the Graeco-Roman world is rarely exhorted (although see Dio Cassius, Hist. rom. 52.36.1–2), rather the expectation is that ancestral customs are upheld (τὰ πάτρια/mos maiorum).612 It is only in the context of deviations from this expectation that the concern for

607 Fox, Pagans, 31. 608 Ephesus had a whole month dedicated to Artemis, with associated festivals (LSAM 31). 609 For an attempt to revive an ancient festival, see LSAM 53; see discussion in Chaniotis, "Negotiating": 179– 84. 610 We must be careful about generalising what is seen in these letters, as both Barnes and Corke-Webster observe, these letters relate to a specific situation. T. D. Barnes, "Legislation against the Christians," JRS 58 (1968): 36; J. Corke-Webster, "Trouble in Pontus: The Pliny-Trajan Correspondence on the Christians Reconsidered," TAPA 147, no. 2 (2017): 371–4; contra G. E. M. de Ste Croix, "Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?," Past & Present 26 (1963): 14. However, they do reflect something of the religious attitudes of those writing, attitudes that are likely to have been more widely held, and thus it is reasonable to identify in them an attitude that expects religious participation. It runs counter to the religious themes to argue that the offence of the Christians was primarily failure to comply with an official order (contumacia), as does A. N. Sherwin-White, "The Early Persecutions and Roman Law Again," JTS 3, no. 2 (1952): 210–11. de Ste Croix connects the persecution to Christian refusal to participate in traditional devotion. de Ste Croix, "Why": 18–19. Cf. B. M. Peper and M. DelCogliano, "The Pliny and Trajan Correspondence," in The Historical Jesus in Context (eds. A.-J. Levine, et al.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 367; Cassidy, John, 17–26. It may be that the suppression of foreign cults in Rome reflects a concern to maintain ongoing devotion to the traditional gods. Thus North highlights the way the Bacchanalia are contrasted with mos maiorum (cf. Livy Hist. rom. 39.15.2). North, "Religious Toleration," 201. However, such suppression also appears entangled with political concerns, along with some degree of xenophobia. H. R. Moehring, "The Persecution of the Jews and the Adherents of the Isis Cult at Rome A.D. 19," NovT 3, no. 4 (1959). 611 Chaniotis, "Negotiating": 189. Participation in public cult was a collective responsibility. J. B. Rives, "The Decree of Decius and the Religion of Empire," JRS 89 (1999): 145. 612 E. Harris, "Toward a Typology of Greek Regulations about Religious Matters: A Legal Approach," Kernos 28 (2015): 69–70. Unfortunately for modern scholarship, such tradition was essentially oral. J.-M. Carbon and V. Pirenne-Delforge, "Codifying ‘Sacred Laws’ in Ancient Greece," in Writing Laws in Antiquity/L’écriture du droit dans l’Antiquité (eds. D. Jaillard, et al.; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2017), 143.

152

ongoing devotion is brought to the surface.

7.2.6 The Public Aspect of Devotion to the Gods

In the Graeco-Roman religious system, a public declaration of devotion to the gods was effectively equivalent to participation in the religious rituals. Aside from the context of a trial for atheism (see §7.2.2), there was little call to verbally declare devotion to the gods as an act in itself.613 Verbal expressions of devotion are often implicit, recorded in the form of requests and thanksgiving directed towards the gods. Publicly recording thanksgiving to the gods served to honour the gods as with a human benefactor.614 Non-verbal public displays of devotion included participation in both the great civic events and also the activities of smaller religious associations and kin groups.615 There was no reason not to display devotion to the gods publicly, although the expectation of doing so only becomes prominent in light of later Christian refusal to do so (cf. Pliny the Younger, Ep. 10.96–97).616 Thus it can be argued that public declaration was an expected aspect of devotion, but this expectation remained implicit because it was rarely abrogated.

7.2.7 The Ritual Aspect of Devotion to the Gods

Investigating the pattern of devotion in the Graeco-Roman world, one category stands out that was not a feature in the Gospel of John, that of ritual. Zaidman and Pantel define ritual as “a complex of actions…[which] serve to organize space and time, to define relations between men and gods, and to set in their proper place the different categories of mankind and the links which bind them together.”617 Also referred to as ‘cult’, ritual encompasses the outward actions that are entailed by devotion to the gods.618 Sacrifice is one of the central acts of ritual, but also included are processions, hymns, prayers, offerings and other symbolic acts.619 Ritual was predominantly public, either as part of a festival which would encompass

613 As noted in §7.2.2 outright atheism was rare, and philosophical views more often distanced the gods rather than denying their existence. 614 Crook, Reconceptualising, 109–112. 615 Zaidman and Pantel, Religion, 86–90. 616 Refusal to participate in the civic cults could be construed not as a crime against the gods but against the state. D. Winslow, "Religion and the Early Roman Empire," in Early Church History: The Roman Empire as the Setting of Primitive Christianity (eds. S. Benko, et al.; London: Oliphants, 1971), 240. 617 Zaidman and Pantel, Religion, 27. Lipka emphasises the repetitive character of actions that categorised as ritual. M. Lipka, Roman Gods: A Conceptual Approach (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 103; J. Goody, "Religion and Ritual: The Definitional Problem," The British Journal of Sociology 12, no. 2 (1961): 159. 618 The term ‘cult’ can be problematic given varied uses in different contexts. See Christensen, "Cult." 619 Descriptions of rituals are often fragmentary, in large part as the details of rituals were part of the common knowledge of a community. Parker, "Epigraphy," 19. One of the most extensive descriptions can be found in Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. rom. 7.72). On sacrifice, see J. N. Bremmer, "Greek Normative Animal

153

all of these elements of ritual, or smaller personal or communal acts of devotion.620 The public display could be mirrored on the domestic level by similar but simplified forms (cf. Porphyry, Abst. 2.16).621 Some of the ritual elements have been considered as evidence for a relational aspect of devotion (§7.2.3), but here we consider the role of ritual itself within the overall pattern of devotion to the gods. It is important not to import narrow or pejorative concepts of ritual which have been influenced by later historical developments.622 In particular, this means not prejudging ritual acts to be done either unthinkingly, or that they are merely performative, enacted for socio-political reasons rather than religious reasons.

None of the other aspects of devotion considered so far have the ubiquity within the Graeco-Roman religious world that ritual has.623 Ritual is accorded a key place in the accounts of Roman religion by both Varro and Cicero (Cicero, Nat. d. 3.5; Varro, Ant. div. fr.3,4 Cardauns), and the Romans particularly emphasised the need for enacting rituals in precisely the right way (Livy, Hist. rom. 5.52.5–12; Pliny Nat. 28.10).624 Contemporary historians also saw ritual as central, and to be vigorously maintained (Dio Cassius, Hist. rom. 52.36.1–2), a form of worship attacked by later Christian sources (Lactantius, Inst. 1.20.26 [ANF 7:33]).625 Some saw the gods as needing sacrifice, to the extent they would sacrifice to

Sacrifice," in A Companion to Greek Religion (ed. D. Ogden; Oxford: Blackwell, 2007); S. Georgoudi, "Sacrificing to the Gods: Ancient Evidence and Modern Interpretations," in The Gods of Ancient Greece (eds. J. N. Bremmer, et al.; Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010). Recently, there has been greater recognition that sacrifice is not limited to animal sacrifice and can include other physical offerings as well as symbolic sacrifices. D. Ullucci, "Sacrifice in the Ancient Mediterranean: Recent and Current Research," CBR 13, no. 3 (2015): 401, 423; Naiden, Smoke, 79. 620 A festival (ἑορτά) can be referred to instead as ‘procession, sacrifice, and contest’ (πομπά καὶ θυσία καὶ ἀγών), indicating the key components of a festival. A. Chaniotis, "Processions in Hellenistic Cities: Contemporary Discourses and Ritual Dynamics," in Cults, Creeds and Identities in the Greek City after the Classical Age (eds. R. Alston, et al.; Leuven: Peeters, 2013), 25. 621 Domestic rituals are still communal rather than individual, and Faraone describes households as religious communities nested within the wider community. C. A. Faraone, "Household Religion in Ancient Greece," in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity (eds. J. Bodel, et al.; Oxford: Blackwell, 2008), 222; Potter, "Roman," 158; D. Boedeker, "Family Matters: Domestic Religion in Classical Greece," in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity (eds. J. Bodel, et al.; Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008), 243. 622 Bremmer outlines historical developments in attitudes towards religious ritual. Bremmer, "Religion," 15. 623 The majority of scholars accept this centrality. The focus on ritual, and orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy, dates back to at least the work of Robertson Smith. W. R. Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites, First Series: The Fundamental Institutions (New ed.; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1894), 17–18. The centrality of ritual is also evident in Harrison, Prolegomena; M. P. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion (2 vols.; C. H. Beck: Munich, 1955–61); Burkert, Greek Religion; S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984). Some have suggested recently that the focus on ritual has led to neglect of other aspects of Greek religion. Henrichs, "What is a Greek God?," 24–25; Versnel, Coping, 541. 624 See further Ando, Matter, 104–6. 625 See §7.2.5 on upholding traditional rites.

154

each other in the absence of human sacrifices (Artemidorus, Onir. 2.33).626 Physical evidence show that the ritual centres of temples and altars were in the most prominent positions within the city, their imposing edifices dominating public spaces.627 The calendars of cities and regions were shaped by the rhythm of religious festivals conducted in honour of a particular deity.628 The necessity of ritual acts is also reflected in the curse that someone be unable to sacrifice, which thus prevented participation in religious life.629 Conflict with early Christianity centred around participation in the ritual life of the community (Pliny the Younger, Ep. 10.96–97), while similar concerns are evident in the context of philosophers and allegations of atheism (Xenophon, Apol. 11; Philodemus, Piet. [P.Herc. 1428 cols. 14,32–15,8]). The virtue of εὐσέβεια, or the Latin equivalent pietas, involved rightly participating in religious ritual; to uphold εὐσέβεια/pietas as a virtue further indicates the importance of ritual within the Graeco-Roman world.630 The majority of Greeks and Romans could conceive of no religion without ritual.631

Despite the centrality of ritual, scholars have often portrayed the ritual of this period as empty or meaningless.632 The characterisation of Greek and Roman religion as empty formalism reflects the assessment of some Roman elite writers who dismissed popular understandings of ritual (Seneca, in Augustine Civ. 6.11 [NPNF 2:121]; Cicero, Tusc. 1.10– 11; Div. 2.86–87; cf. Minucius Felix, Oct. 12.7 [ANF 4:179]). While these sources reflect the perspectives of the authors, the competence of elite sources to convey the meaning of

626 The idea of the gods needing or desiring sacrifices also appears in Aristophanes, Birds 1515–1525; Plato, Euthphr. 14. Cf. Morgan, Roman, 158–59. 627 Greek temples were primarily places for ritual, not for teaching and learning in the way that Christian communities were. M. V. Hubbard, "Greek Religion," in The World of the New Testament (eds. J. B. Green, et al.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017), 111; Larson, Ancient Greek Cults: A Guide, 8. 628 See for example the Calendar of Cumae (CIL X 8375), and from Cos LSCG 151. B. W. Winter, Divine Honours for the Caesars: The First Christians’ Responses (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 26–27. 629 H. S. Versnel, "‘May He Not Be Able to Sacrifice…’ concerning a Curious Formula in Greek and Latin Curses," ZPE 58 (1985). 630 While εὐσέβεια/pietas included an attitude as well as action (LSAM 53) and extended beyond the gods to include honouring familial expectations (Plato, Rep. 615c; cf. LXX Prov 1:7), the active ritual component was significant. See V. Ehrenberg and A. H. M. Jones, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus & Tiberius (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), no. 98. (cf. 4 Macc 7:18–22). On εὐσέβεια see Zaidman and Pantel, Religion, 15. On pietas see Potter, "Roman," 125–26. See also W. Barclay, New Testament Words (London: SCM, 1964), 106- 116. 631 Those who rejected or simply ignored ritual were limited to a small minority. L. T. Johnson, Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity (New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 2009), 45. 632 Such an attitude may reflect Protestant influences with a prioritisation of the internal dimension of religion while viewing outward acts with suspicion. See Cumont, Oriental; Warde Fowler, Religious, 353; Harrison, Prolegomena; Vermaseren, Orientalischen; Turcan, Cults, 18; K. Latte, Römische Religionsgeschichte (Munich: Beck, 1960), 287. Others are more moderate, suggesting rituals were enacted without full understanding. Zaidman and Pantel, Religion, 13.

155

religious matters for ordinary people must be questioned, as it is unlikely that people participated in ritual without finding meaning in it.633 Graeco-Roman ritual life was both vibrant and popular, with visitors flocking to festivals, and events held in theatres that would have seated thousands. The distances travelled are suggestive of the degree of significance these events held for many people.634 The meaningfulness of ritual is also reflected in concern, particularly in Roman contexts, for ritual correctness that was essential for a sacrifice to be accepted by the gods.635 Not only was ritual ubiquitous, but it was meaningful to those participating in it.

To assert that ritual was meaningful does not, however, explain the meaning it encapsulated.636 Graeco-Roman ritual does not appear to have been a vehicle for doctrine, for while rituals tended to be standardised, individuals could attribute different meanings to them.637 Yet ritual does not need an explicit cognitive explanation to be a meaningful aspect of devotion to the gods.638 Instead, ritual primarily serves a communicative function, whether that be communicating honour and respect to the gods (thereby appeasing them, Cicero, Nat. d. 3.2.5), or conveying requests to them.639 At times such ritual can be characterised as transactional, but it could also parallel the reciprocity of relationships between humans (§7.2.3). In addition, ritual was an event that could be a powerful occasion through which people could experience a relationship with the divine.640 This dual role of experiencing the

633 Tatum, "Roman Religion," 278. 634 MacMullen, Paganism, 27–28. 635 Potter, "Roman," 154–56. Tatum notes this concern had to be moderated to avoid superstitio (see Cicero, Dom. 103–5). Tatum, "Roman Religion," 278. The concern for ritual correctness does not imply that right action could predetermine the response of the gods. Bendlin, "Religion," 195. 636 There has been considerable work done in ritual theory seeking the meaning of ritual, with the primary approaches to ritual are genealogical (looking for the original form of the ritual, and seeking meaning there); functionalist (looking at the function of a ritual for a group, especially in terms of internal coherence); and symbolist (more varied, considering motifs such as pollution and cleansing; separation, liminality and reintegration; mirroring and maintaining social equilibrium). However, it is beyond the scope of this thesis to engage with this field, as much of it deals with levels of interpretation that would not have shaped the repertoire of an early audience of the Gospel. For more on theoretical approaches see R. Uro, "Ritual and Christian Origins," in Understanding the social world of the New Testament (eds. D. Neufeld, et al.; London: Routledge, 2010), 221–24; Bendlin, "Rituals or Beliefs?": 192–93; C. Bell, Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). 637 Bendlin, "Looking," 128–29; Bendlin, "Rituals or Beliefs?": 195. Cf. R. Osborne, "Sacrificial Theologies," in Theologies of Ancient Greek Religion (eds. J. Kindt, et al.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016). 638 J. Scheid, An Introduction to Roman Religion (trans. J. Lloyd; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003), 32–35. 639 Bendlin, "Religion," 195; A. Chaniotis, "Ritual Dynamics in the Eastern Mediterranean: Case Studies in Ancient Greece and Asia Minor," in Rethinking the Mediterranean (ed. W. V. Harris; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 144; R. Parker, On Greek Religion (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2011), 132. 640 Tatum, "Roman Religion," 274. Scheid also connects ritual to the bond between mortals and gods. Scheid, Quand faire, 279.

156

gods and communicating with them encapsulates the main elements of the conscious understanding of ritual, and thus the elements that could have been present in the thinking of an early audience as they encounter the Gospel of John.

7.2.8 Summary

Despite the characterisation by some scholars that Graeco-Roman religion is all a matter of ritual, the evidence conveys a more multi-faceted shape of devotion to the divine. There was a cognitive aspect, a form of belief reflected in the common names and attributes of the gods, a shared knowledge that was essential for the system to function. There was a sense of relationship with the divine, which was enacted and experienced through prayer, sacrifice, offerings, dreams and oracles. The gods were believed to hear and interact with people. A concern for religious morality was a feature for at least some of those who worshipped the traditional gods. Ethical action was not regularly required, and the extent of ethical concerns could vary by region as well as social class, but it ought not to be minimised based upon a lack of support among the elites. Devotion to the gods was to be ongoing and public, indeed the idea of secret worship is at odds with the system, as even the ‘mystery’ cults only kept the details of initiation secret, not the fact of one’s participation in the cult. However, the need for ongoing and public devotion was assumed rather than stated, at least until religious developments, most notably the rise of Christianity, brought these issues to the surface. Finally, the ritual aspect of devotion was at the centre of all religious activity. While the importance of ritual should not be emphasised to the exclusion of the other elements described here, it remains true that the religious world revolved around the sacrifices and festivals that involved all levels of society.

157

8 Further Expressions of Graeco-Roman Devotion to the Gods The diversity of the Graeco-Roman religious world means that there may have been variations in patterns of devotion amongst the different religious expressions. In order to compile a sufficiently broad picture of the religious repertoire of an early audience of the Gospel, other religious expressions that were prominent for the early audience must be considered. This chapter will consider three of these religious expressions in turn. First, the cult of Asclepius (§8.1); second, the cult of Isis (§8.2); and third, the devotion to the emperor (§8.3). As will be demonstrated, each of these had a significant profile in Greece and Asia Minor, and they also display patterns of devotion that are not entirely aligned with some of the more traditional patterns (§7.2).

8.1 The Pattern of Devotion in the Cult of Asclepius

8.1.1 Introduction

The cult of Asclepius was popular in Greece and Asia Minor, and offers the possibility of a distinctive pattern of devotion. Asclepius, a god of health and healing, is associated with the traditional Greek pantheon as the son of Apollo. Yet his identity as a ‘new god’, accounted as a hero in the Homeric age and only worshipped as a god later, means there is the possibility of distinctive features associated with his worship.641 Growing in popularity from the fifth century BC, the key centre and place of pilgrimage was Epidauros; other sanctuaries which were centres for pilgrimage include Cos, Lebena and Pergamum (IG IV2 1.121–122 [Epidauros]; Oribasius, Coll. med. 45.30.10–14 [Pergamum]; IKret I xvii, no. 9 [Lebena]).642 Inscriptions from second century Ephesus record medical competitions in honour of Asclepius (IEph 4.1161–1169).643 Thus the cult of Asclepius was prominent

641 While there are other theories as to the nature of Asclepius, his heroic origins are commonly accepted. Martin, Hellenistic Religions, 50; Edelstein and Edelstein, Asclepius, 2–55. 642 Edelstein and Edelstein, Asclepius, 234. There was an Asklepion in Athens established in the fifth century, with many more sanctuaries established through the Hellenistic and Roman periods. A. Verbanck–Piérard, "Les héros guérisseurs: des dieux comme les autres! À propos des cultes médicaux dans l’Attique classique," in Héros et héroïnes dans les mythes et les cultes grecs (eds. V. Pirenne-Delforge, et al.; Liège: Presses universitaires de Liège, 2000), 318; Edelstein and Edelstein, Asclepius, xxv. On the sanctuary in Athens see S. Walker, "A Sanctuary of Isis on the South Slope of the Athenian Acropolis," ABSA 74 (1979). Asclepius was introduced to Rome in 293 BC. G. H. Renberg, "Public and Private Places of Worship in the Cult of Asclepius at Rome," MAAR 51/52 (2006/2007): 88. 643 Á. Zimonyi, "The Context of Medical Competitions in Ephesus," Acta Antiqua Hungarica 54 (2014); H. Engelmann, "Ephesische Inschriften," ZPE 84 (1990); J. Keil, "Ärtzeinschriften aus Ephesos," in Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes (Vienna: Hölder, 1905).

158

throughout the time and region most relevant to the present study. The cult of Asclepius has also been identified as a strong competitor of early Christianity, which may indicate a shape of devotion that was both distinct from that involved in worship of the broader Graeco- Roman pantheon, and more analogous to that seen in early Christianity.644 In the following analysis, particular attention will be given to any ways in which the pattern of devotion diverges from the broad picture seen in §7.2.

8.1.2 The Cognitive Aspect of Devotion to Asclepius

As with the Olympian gods (§7.2.2), devotion to Asclepius displays a cognitive aspect relating to the divine identity and role of the god. Asclepius’ divine identity is affirmed (Pausanias, Descr. 2.26.8, 10), while his clearly defined role as a god of health and healing is seen in the Asclepian temple inscriptions (IG IV2 1.121–124),645 along with affirmations from the notable physicians of the age (Galen, Morb. dif. 6.869 K; Rufus, in Oribasius, Coll. med. 45.30.10–14). Varro indicates the necessity of knowing that Asclepius is a healing god in order to seek his aid (Varro, Ant. div. fr.3 Cardauns). While such knowledge comprises a form of propositional belief, it requires no more than with any other god. A broader extent of beliefs about Asclepius may be reflected in a hymn, the longevity of which suggests it acquired something like canonical status. This hymn, written by Sophocles in the fifth century, is referred to by Plutarch in the first century AD (Numa 4.9; cf. Suav. viv. 22), and according to Philostratus was still sung at the close of the second century AD (Vit. Apoll. 3.17). However, the surviving text is too fragmentary to ascertain the extent to which it conveyed propositions about Asclepius (IG II2 4510). In the absence of further evidence, we must conclude that in terms of a cognitive aspect, devotion to Asclepius appears analogous to devotion towards the broader Olympian pantheon.

644 Edelstein states “Christianity had to fight against Asclepius more than against any other ancient god”. Edelstein and Edelstein, Asclepius, 109. 645 While the Epidauran inscriptions date to the 4th century BC, they were still on prominent display in the second century AD (Pausanias, Descr. 2.36.1). Thus, they would have continued to play a role in shaping devotion. P. Martzavou, "Dream, Narrative, and the Construction of Hope in the ‘Healing Miracles’ of Epidauros," in Unveiling Emotions: Sources and Methods for the Study of Emotions in the Greek World (ed. A. Chaniotis; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2012), 178–80; M. P. J. Dillon, "The Didactic Nature of the Epidaurian Iamata," ZPE 101 (1994): 240. Edelstein suggests that these inscriptions were essentially an official record of the god’s merits, while Dillon goes further to say they reflect beliefs about the power of the god. Edelstein and Edelstein, Asclepius, 146–47; Dillon, "Didactic": 259. On the composition of these inscriptions see L. R. LiDonnici, "Compositional Background of the Epidaurian 'Iamata," AJP 113, no. 1 (1992).

159

8.1.3 The Relational Aspect of Devotion to Asclepius

The relational aspect of devotion to Asclepius takes a broadly similar form to that in the wider religious context, albeit with a greater role for dreams through which a devotee might relate to the god. A relationship of trust is expected, as shown through two examples of mistrust (IG IV2 1.121.3, 4). In the first, a man with paralysed fingers is ἀπίστει τοῖς ἰάμασιν καὶ ὑποδιέσυρε τὰ ἐπιγράμμα[τ]α. His failure to trust Asclepius is criticised, yet despite his lack of trust he is healed.646 The second records a woman who thought the cures recorded in the temple were ἀπιθανα καὶ ἀδύνα[τα], yet she too is healed. Thus, it appears trust in Asclepius is desirable but not essential.647 The relationship between people and Asclepius is enacted as with other gods, through sacrifice (see §8.1.7), prayers (Fronto, Ep. 3.9.1–2), and domestic honours (Theocritus, Epig. 7). Thus, the relational aspect can be characterised as involving trust, communication, and gift exchange, much as with the other gods. The absence of oracles removes one form of divine communication, but this is counterbalanced by the greater emphasis on dreams (see below).

Devotion to Asclepius includes a greater frequency of encounters with the god in the form of dreams and visions.648 Healing accounts usually include a dream of Asclepius, which either enacts the healing (IG IV2 1.121–2) or conveys the remedy for the ailment (IG IV2 1.126; AvP VIII 3.75–77, 91, 116–7).649 These dreams are not merely functional, as participants can communicate with the god (IG IV2 1.121–2).650 In addition to accounts where Asclepius challenges a lack of trust (IG IV2 1.121.3), supplicants may appeal for speedy recovery (IG IV2 1.126), or even argue with the god, asking for a different prescription (“Δομνῖνος” Suda, Δ1355 Adler). For his part, Asclepius may call for courage to follow through on his instructions (IG IV2 1.122.35, 37). In addition, Asclepius is seen to act

646 Asclepius names the man Ἄπιστος, suggestive of parallels with Thomas in the Gospel. Martzavou, "Dream," 185. 647 Martzavou characterises this trust as like that between a father and a child. Martzavou, "Dream," 190. 648 Edelstein sees a greater experience of intimacy in the cult of Asclepius based on the incorrect perception of state cults as formalistic ritualism (see §7.1.2). Edelstein and Edelstein, Asclepius, 112. 649 Merely healing a supplicant is not evidence for a relational form of devotion, as healing is attributed to most Graeco-Roman deities. G. B. Ferngren, "Introduction," in Asclepius: collection and interpretation of the testimonies (eds. E. J. L. Edelstein, et al.; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), xx. These dreams come in the context of incubation, where supplicants would sleep within the sanctuary. On the practice of incubation, see G. H. Renberg, Where Dreams May Come: Incubation Sanctuaries in the Greco-Roman World (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2017), 1:238–268. 650 Dillon, "Didactic": 250. The interaction can be characterised as human-like. O. Panagiotidou, "Asclepius’ Myths and Healing Narratives: Counter-Intuitive Concepts and Cultural Expectations," Open Library of Humanities 2, no. 1 (2016): 13.

160

like a human physician as he heals his patients (IG IV2 1.121.27; IKret I, xvii, no 9, 17, 18, 19).651 The relationship with Asclepius can extend prior to the healing, as some patients are summoned by the god, an expression of active care (IG IV2 1, 126; Galen, Subfig. emp. 10).652 Asclepius is seen as a personal figure with whom one can relate, having two-way interaction in a context of care for those who come for healing.

A special case with regard to devotion to Asclepius is that of Aelius Aristides, who relates the story of his ongoing interactions with Asclepius in his Hieroi Logoi.653 Plagued by recurrent ill-health, Aristides speaks of a god who is visibly present, narrating several dreams with communication from Asclepius that leads to healing (1.71; 2.18; 2.31–33).654 While Aristides occasionally problematises these dreams, questioning if they are divine dreams or symptomatic (1.6-8), this does not impair his relationship with Asclepius.655 His interactions with Asclepius are wide ranging, as Asclepius helps Aristides not only with his health, but also with his professional activities (Legal advice: 1.51–52; 4.63–108; Literary career: 1.36– 40, 46–49; 4.14–21 5.36–48, 57–67).656 Aristides presents the intervention of Asclepius as frequent (2.25, 55; cf. 1.64).657 There is an emotional dimension, whether in passionate appeals to the god (1.71–72) or an encounter with the god resulting in joy and then anguish at his departure (2.32–33).658 Thus Aristides is often described as having a long-term, close and personal relationship with Asclepius.659 The uniqueness of Aristides’ account, however, requires the conclusion that while such an intimate ongoing relationship with Asclepius was possible, it is unlikely to have been common.

651 Edelstein and Edelstein, Asclepius, 101, 111–12; Panagiotidou, "Asclepius": 20. 652 Panagiotidou describes Asclepius as eager and willing to heal. Panagiotidou, "Asclepius": 23; Edelstein and Edelstein, Asclepius, 112. While Crook suggests the call of clients is a feature of divine patronage, she only provides examples involving Asclepius. Crook, Reconceptualising, 97–99. 653 The six sections comprising the Hieroi Logoi have also been labelled as Orations 47–52. 654 Petsalis-Diomidis, Truly, 134–35. Israelowich counts over 130 divine-sent dreams in the Sacred Tales. I. Israelowich, Society, Medecine and Religion in the Sacred Tales of Aelius Aristides (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 162. 655 J. Downie, "Dream Hermeneutics in Aelius Aristides' Hieroi Logoi," in Dreams, Healing, and Medicine in Greece: From Antiquity to the Present (ed. S. M. Oberhelman; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2013), 120–21; J. Downie, "Narrative and Divination: Artemidorus and Aelius Aristides," ARG 15, no. 1 (2014): 108. 656 L. T. Pearcy, "Theme, Dream, and Narrative: Reading the Sacred Tales of Aelius Aristides," TAPA 118 (1988): 377, 385; Petsalis-Diomidis, Truly, 141. The focus on the broad involvement of Asclepius in the life of Aristides suggests an aretalogical function for the work. Israelowich, Society, 22. 657 A. Tagliabue, "Aelius Aristides’ Sacred Tales: A Study of the Creation of the 'Narrative about Asclepius'," ClAnt 35, no. 1 (2016): 138–39. 658 Tagliabue, "Aelius": 140; G. Petridou, "Aelius Aristides as Informed Patient and Physician," in Homo Patiens - Approaches to the Patient in the Ancient World (eds. G. Petridou, et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2015), 454–55. Tagliabue describes the encounters with Asclepius as vivid, multi-sensory experiences. A. Tagliabue, "An Embodied Reading of Ephiphanies in Aelius Aristides' Sacred Tales," Ramus 45, no. 2 (2016): 213–20. 659 Dillon, "Didactic": 255; Downie, "Dream," 109; Festugière, Personal, 98.

161

8.1.4 The Ethical Aspect of Devotion to Asclepius

A degree of ethical concern is associated with Asclepian sanctuaries and rituals. Sacrifices and ritual bathing as a form of purification prior to incubation suggest concern for moral cleanliness (Aristophanes, Plut. 657–59; Pausanias, Descr. 5.13.3; IG IV2 1.121.5; AvP II 264). The sanctuary at Oropos enforced segregation of men and women in incubation (LSCG 69.43-47) while at Pergamum abstention from sex and certain foods was required (AvP VIII 3.161.11–14).660 In addition to actions, a need for moral uprightness is conveyed in an Epidauran inscription: ἁγνὸν χρὴ ναοῖο θυώδεος ἐντος ἰόντα ἔμμεναι. ἁγνεία δʼ ἐστὶ φρονεῖν ὅσια (Porphyry, Abst. 2.19; cf. Clement, Strom. 5.1.13 [ANF 2:447]).661 Thus, devotion to Asclepius entails ethical obligations in thought and deed as far as purity for participation in religious acts.

A broader ethical concern is envisaged after one is healed. Besides the usual requirement to fulfil any vows made (IG IV2 1.122.22), there could be expectations that those healed would live a better life after encountering the god (CIL VIII 1.2584). This appears particularly in the form of a call to generosity, as when Aristides was told to distribute gifts to fellow pilgrims (Aelius Aristides, Or. 48.27), in contrast to the refusal of healing for a rich man on account of his ethical failings (Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 1.10–11).662 Asclepius himself could be seen as a model of such generosity, in his willingness to heal even the poor (Julian, Ep. 78.419B; Aelian, fr. 100).663 Asclepius did not require lavish gifts in order to heal, as illustrated by the child who nominated a set of knucklebones as a fitting offering (IG IV2 1.121.8).664 Asclepius does not appear to have played a role in punishing misdeeds, at least not beyond breaches of one’s duty to him (IG IV2 1.122.22; 1.123.36).665 Thus, while an encouragement to virtue, particularly in the form of charity, may reflect some ethical concern, it is not presented as central or essential in devotion to Asclepius.

660 Contra Edelstein, who claims there is no evidence for abstention. Edelstein and Edelstein, Asclepius, 149. AvP II no 264 may indicate abstention, referring to ten days which parallels ten-day abstentions in other cults (see §8.2.4), but it is too fragmentary to be certain. 661 The inscription itself is no longer extant, but these two sources record almost identical forms. 662 This could also be a refusal to heal those who harm themselves through a lavish lifestyle. G. Petridou, "Asclepius the Divine Healer, Asclepius the Divine Physician: Epiphanies as Diagnostic and Therapeutic Tools," in Medicine and Healing in the Ancient Mediterranean World (ed. D. Michaelides; Oxford: Oxbow, 2014), 296. 663 Edelstein and Edelstein, Asclepius, 176–78. 664 Martzavou, "Dream," 187–88. 665 Kudlien identifies two inscriptions that include confession related to Asclepius, but observes they are not typical. F. Kudlien, "Beichte und Heilung," Medizinhistorisches Journal 13, no. 1/2 (1978): 5–6.

162

8.1.5 The Ongoing Aspect of Devotion to Asclepius

Devotion to Asclepius appears in three patterns that might be described as episodic, recurring and continuous. Episodic devotion appears most often, for when people are sick, they enter an episode of devotion that may encompass preparations, incubation, a remedy, and thanksgiving, which can be expressed through offerings along with inscriptions recording the event. By virtue of his function as a healer, the healthy may not perceive an ongoing need to express devotion to Asclepius. However, some participated in recurring devotion that was conceived as prophylactic. Prayers were offered for continued good health, by both individuals (Fronto, Ep. 3.9.1–2) and by groups (IG II2 974). Sacrifices were made to avert sickness and injury (Artemidorus, Onir. 5.66), while Porphyry attributes an outbreak of disease in a city to the cessation of such recurring devotion (in Theodoretus, Graecarum Affectionum Curatio 12.96–97).666 Such recurrent prayers and sacrifices represent an ongoing aspect of devotion to Asclepius, akin to the ongoing need to appease the gods seen in §7.2.5. Aside from the priests who would have conducted daily rites at sanctuaries (Aelian, fr. 98; Aristides Or. 47.11; 51.28), a more continuous form of ongoing devotion appears rare. The exception is Aelius Aristides, who in his Hieroi Logoi records his ongoing connection with Asclepius that involved repeated dreams as well as sacrifices and travelling to sanctuaries. Aside from Aristides, the physicians, of whom Asclepius was the patron, may have engaged in more continuous devotion. However, while they met several times a year to honour Asclepius (IG II2 772), the role of devotion within their regular practice is unclear. Thus, we must conclude that ongoing devotion to Asclepius primarily took the form of occasional prayers and sacrifices seeking continued good health.

8.1.6 The Public Aspect of Devotion to Asclepius

The only evidence for public declaration as part of devotion to Asclepius is the expectation of a public acknowledgement of any healing from the god (IGUR 1.148). This is reflected in Aristides’ account which as well as being written for public consumption, includes scenes where Aristides retells his dreams to other characters (Hieroi Logoi 2.35; 4.16; cf. Or. 42.2–3).667 However, such public declaration of the acts of the god parallels the broader religious context (§7.2.6).

666 Thus Edelstein, “the deity demands continuous worship”. Edelstein and Edelstein, Asclepius, 181. 667 Petsalis-Diomidis, Truly, 125–27.

163

8.1.7 The Ritual Aspect of Devotion to Asclepius

Ritual forms an important component of devotion to Asclepius, as reflected in the festivals and sacrifices which fit within the wider context with only minor variations, such as the inclusion of a competition for physicians in Ephesus.668 Asclepian sanctuaries were the context for incubation rituals associated with healing (Aristophanes, Plut. 653-683). Sacrifice was a necessary part of these rites (AvP VIII 3.161.2–14), and Aristides records numerous calls to sacrifice to Asclepius (Hieroi Logoi 2.27; 4.11, 15, 30, 31, 41, 45).669 As in the wider context, sacrifices could have transactional and relational connotations. Ritual acts could also be part of a cure (IG XIV 966). Yet the rituals associated with incubation at Asclepian sanctuaries are simple when compared to those of other cults, and appear less like they are intended to create an overwhelming sensory or emotional experience (see §8.2.7).670 While ritual is applied to a particular practice in incubation, the role and nature of ritual within the cult of Asclepius is analogous to that in wider Graeco-Roman devotion.

8.1.8 Summary

While devotion to Asclepius displays some distinctive features, its overall shape is not significantly different from devotion to the gods of the Olympian pantheon. The cognitive aspect remains limited to basic facts around the identity and power of the god. The relational element is somewhat stronger, particularly as demonstrated in the dreams associated with healing, although this is tempered by the fact that trust in Asclepius is shown not to be essential. Ethical, ongoing, and public aspects of devotion appear to play a minor role, while ritual retains a central role. The small differences broaden slightly the repertoire of an early audience of the Gospel in terms of the nature of devotion to the gods, but the overall pattern remains what was seen in §7.2.

8.2 The Pattern of Devotion in the Cult of Isis

8.2.1 Introduction

The Cult of Isis provides an intriguing extension to the study of Graeco-Roman religion, as it integrated within the Graeco-Roman world yet has roots in Egyptian traditions.

668 Plato, Ion, 530A draws parallels between the Epidauran festival and the Panathenaea; similarly Aristotle, Ath. pol. 56.4 puts the Asclepian festival alongside the Great Dionysia, while Lucian, Icar. 24, does the same with festivals of Apollo at Delphi. 669 Dillon, "Didactic": 246; Petsalis-Diomidis, Truly, 222–238. 670 Edelstein and Edelstein, Asclepius, 149–50. Compare the more elaborate and evocative rites associated with Trophonius, another healing god, in Pausanias, Descr. 9.39.5–14.

164

The cult has its origins in Egyptian mythology, but the Hellenised form in which it spread through the Mediterranean is acquired in Ptolemaic Alexandria.671 Building upon the mythological background, the cult acquired new conceptions of Isis, as a goddess of wisdom and a mystic healer, as well as imitating Greek mystery initiations.672 While the new form was often far more Greek in form than Eastern, Egyptian imagery was still retained, and was particularly noticeable in the Roman temple.673 From the fourth century BC, the cult spread through Asia Minor and Greece, even gaining acceptance amongst the Athenian elites.674 In Rome, Isis was perceived as sufficiently foreign for the cult to face initial opposition (Dio Cassius, Hist. rom. 40.47.3; 42.26.2; 53.2.4).675 However, it still achieved popularity, and was later endorsed by the Flavians.676 The Cult of Isis is one of a group of religious expressions that self-represent as ‘mysteries’.677 The absence of any historical record of what the mystery comprised is not critical for the present study, for while the existence of a mystery may be relevant for knowing what was entailed in devotion to Isis, the precise content is less significant. In what follows, the nature of devotion in the Cult of Isis will be analysed, with a particular focus on whether the distinctive aspects of the cult result in a different pattern of devotion to that found in devotion to the traditional gods (§7.2).678

671 Alvar Ezquerra, Romanising, 56–58. Even in Egypt there was Hellenistic influence on the cult forms and structures. Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt, 39. Cf. Woolf, "Isis," 75–79. For an extensive survey of the development, extent, and evidence for the cult of Isis in Greece and Asia Minor, see F. Dunand, Le culte d'Isis dans le bassin oriental de la Méditerranée (3 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1973). 672 H. C. Kee, "Myth and Miracle: Isis, Wisdom, and the Logos of John," in Myth, Symbol, and Reality (ed. A. M. Olson; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980), 145; S. R. F. Price, "Homogeneity and Diversity in the Religions of Rome," in The Religious History of the Roman Empire (eds. S. R. F. Price, et al.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 257. 673 Brenk discusses the emphasis on Egyptian imagery in the temple of Isis Campense in Rome. F. Brenk, "An Imperial Heritage: The Religious Spirit of Plutarch of Chaeronea," ANRW 36.1:302; Turcan, Cults, 108. On the Greek nature of the cult see Rives, "Graeco-Roman": 259; Fox, Pagans, 36. 674 Grijalvo observes that some of this elite involvement may have been for socio-political advantages. Grijalvo, "Elites and Religious Change in Roman Athens": 277–78. Price observes a relative uniformity in the physical remains of the cult across the region, which is also reflected in standardised texts at numerous sites (see further §8.2.2). Price, "Homogeneity," 258. 675 E. M. Orlin, "Octavian and Egyptian Cults: Redrawing the Boundaries of Romanness," AJP 129, no. 2 (2008). 676 Vespasian is reported to have performed two miraculous healings in the temple of Serapis in Alexandria (Suetonius Vesp. 7.1–3; Tacitus, Ann. 4.81). Domitian not only disguised himself as a devotee to escape the violence of 69–70 AD in Rome (Suetonius Dom. 1.2), but also promoted the cult while emperor. T. S. Luke, "A Healing Touch for Empire: Vespasian's Wonders in Domitianic Rome," GR 57, no. 1 (2010): 77–84; Turcan, Cults, 90. 677 Alvar Ezquerra, Romanising, 11–12. To call the cult a ‘mystery’ does not mean that the mystery was central to the activity of the cult. Rives, "Graeco-Roman": 259. Cf. G. S. Gasparro, "Mysteries and Oriental Cults: A Problem in the History of Religions," in The Religious History of the Roman Empire (eds. S. R. F. Price, et al.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). 678 Horsley suggests that devotion to Isis “differs dramatically both from the uses of Isis in traditional Egyptian civilization and from previous Greco-Roman religion.” R. A. Horsley, "Religion and Other Products of Empire," JAAR 71, no. 1 (2003): 23. Fox has argued that the differences between the elective cults and traditional cults are a matter of degree rather than kind; this section will consider whether that claim is borne out in the evidence.

165

8.2.2 The Cognitive Aspect of Devotion to Isis

While there are similarities to devotion to the traditional gods in the need for knowledge of the role of Isis, conveyed similarly through divine epithets (e.g. πελαγία, Isis of the Sea, IG XII 2.113; Pausanias, Descr. 11.4.6), a distinctive feature of the cognitive aspect to devotion to Isis is a form of standardised belief.679 Five aretalogical inscriptions from sites around the Aegean present a similar set of propositional statements about Isis, suggestive of a common doctrine disseminated from a single source.680 Similar praises of Isis are found in Diodorus Siculus (Bib. hist. 1.27), Apuleius (Metam. 11), and P.Oxy. XI.1380, along with a set of hymns from Egypt known as the hymns of Isidorus.681 These similarities include presenting Isis with a key role in justice and establishing laws,682 the power to control nature,683 and a concern for marriage and family.684 These documents display an apparent standardisation of doctrine across both time and space, suggesting a common core of ideas about Isis which were held, and expected to be held, by adherents to the cult.685 Reinforcing this idea is the cultic function of these hymns and aretalogies, with repetition playing a

Fox, Pagans, 36. 679 While Plutarch wrote on Isis (Is. Os.), its relevance is limited as the treatise is primarily philosophical and considers Egyptian mythology rather than present cult practice. Brenk, "Imperial": 294–5, 300; Alvar Ezquerra, Romanising, 40; D. S. Richter, "Plutarch on Isis and Osiris: Text, Cult, and Cultural Appropriation," TAPA 131 (2001): 191–94; P. Van Nuffeln, Rethinking the Gods: Philosophical Readings of Religion in the Post- Hellenistic Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 55–60. 680 These inscriptions are those from: Maroneia (II/I BC) SEG 821, Andros (I BC) IG XII 5.739; Kyme (I/II AD) I.Kyme 41, Thessalonike (I/II AD) IG X 2.254, Ios (III AD) SEG 3.1267. Those at Maroneia and Kyme are the most well preserved. These inscriptions are widely understood to be based upon a common source. A. J. Festugière, "À Propos des Arétalogies d'Isis," HTR 42, no. 4 (1949); R. E. Witt, Isis in the Graeco-Roman World (London: Thames and Hudson, 1971); Y. Grandjean, Une nouvelle arétalogy d’Isis à Maronée (Leiden: Brill, 1975); G. H. R. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1976 (vol. 1; North Ryde, NSW: Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, 1981), 10–21; R. Harder, Karpokrates von Chalkis und die memphitische Isispropaganda (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1944). 681 V. F. Vanderlip, The Four Greek Hymns of Isidorus and the Cult of Isis (Toronto: Hakkert, 1972). On the use of Apuleius’ Metamorphoses 11 as evidence for the Cult of Isis despite being a novel, the author elsewhere writes of being initiated (Apol. 56). Thus, some identify this section as at least partly autobiographical. J. G. Griffiths, Apuleius of Madauros: The Isis Book (Metamorphoses, Book XI) (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 6. Others are more sceptical: Brenk sees the work more closely allied to that of Plutarch, similarly influenced by middle Platonism. Brenk, "Imperial": 303. In contrast, Walsh links the text to the rise of Christianity in North Africa, suggesting some elements may have been included in opposition to Christian ideas. P. G. Walsh, "Lucius Madaurensis," Phoenix 22, no. 2 (1968): 152–54. However, it contains no mention of Christianity, and only the priests of Dea Syria are portrayed negatively. A balanced approach to the text is provided by Alvar, who argues that Book 11 is fictional but plausible, and therefore reliable as historical evidence of practices. Alvar Ezquerra, Romanising, 336–37. 682 Maroneia 24, 29; Kyme 8, 29; P.Oxy. XI.1380 119–120; Bib. hist. 1.27.4; Metam. 11.5–6, 15; Isid. 1.5–6, 2.21–23. 683 Maroneia 36; Kyme 39–40; P.Oxy. XI.1380 235–39; Metam. 11.5, 25 Isid. 1.9–13; 2.11–12. 684 Maroneia 31–32; Kyme 20–22, 27–28, 31; P.Oxy. XI.1380 146–48; Bib. hist. 1.27.1–2; Isid. 2.15–16. 685 Walters, considering the aretalogies, Isidorus’ hymns and Apuleius states “There is striking conformity in the praise of the Egyptian goddess Isis in Egypt and beyond to the Mediterranean.” E. J. Walters, Attic Grave Reliefs That Represent Women in the Dress of Isis (Hesperia Supplements; Princeton, NJ: Hesperia, 1988), 1.

166

didactic role in conveying the value system of the cult.686 In addition, Frankfurter has pointed out the way that P.Oxy. XI.1380 seeks to erase local variations, relabelling the local expressions worship in terms of Graeco-Roman virtues and goddesses.687 The nature and function of these texts indicate a form of common doctrine with a formative role that entails a cognitive aspect to devotion.

Despite being written in stone, the common doctrine associated with Isis does not appear to be fixed, nor is it presented as either exclusive or essential to devotion. While these texts may have functioned in some sense as an authoritative text, they are not comprehensive, and there is evidence that beliefs changed over time. One example is that salvation was initially understood in terms of present saving power, where healing is described as σωτηρίας (Maroneia 11). The hymns of Isidorus potentially allude to salvation beyond the present life (1.29-34), while this idea is clearly seen in Apuleius, where Lucius is told that his devotion will continue in Elysian Fields (Metam. 11.6).688 Alongside the capacity for evolution in doctrine, there is no explicit indication that the propositions regarding Isis must be accepted. Additionally, a devotee may praise Isis along with a reference to ‘all the gods I adore’, making explicit their devotion to other divinities alongside Isis.689 While Isis may be identified with many other Greek divinities in a way that suggests they are mere manifestations of her (Metam. 11.5), there is no condemnation for those who do not worship her as Isis. Isiac devotion can be accorded a dominant role in the religious life of adherents, seen in the sole commitment symbolised by the shaved heads of priests, and the similar wholeheartedness of Lucius’ devotion (Metam. 11.30), or the fact that no other cult has so many funerary monuments.690 Yet devotion to Isis, even as a supreme divinity, was never monotheistic, but rather henotheistic, celebrating Isis as the greatest of the many gods.691 Thus it appears that the common doctrine reflected in the aretalogies may have served to give those in the cult a clear religious identity, but without rigid boundaries.

686 Alvar Ezquerra, Romanising, 188. Witt compares the role of the aretalogies with the role of creeds and liturgy in Christianity. Witt, Isis, 100. 687 Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt, 101. 688 J. G. Griffiths, "The Great Egyptian Cults of Oecumenical Spiritual Significance," in Classical Mediterranean Spirituality: Egyptian, Greek, Roman (ed. A. H. Armstrong; New York: Crossroad, 1986), 49– 50. Cf. Gasparro, "Mysteries," 298–99. 689 R. Merkelbach, "Der Eid der Isismysten," ZPE 1 (1967): 72–73. 690 Price, "Homogeneity," 268–69. Price notes that alongside this primacy there is no evidence of exclusive terminology. North indicates that while some were initiated into multiple cults (Apuleius, Apol. 55), some could be exclusively devoted to one cult. North, "Development," 184. 691 H. S. Versnel, Ter Unus: Isis, Dionysos, Hermes: Three Studies in Henotheism (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 35.

167

The role of priests within the cult of Isis also suggests a different role for doctrine as opposed to traditional forms. The priests of Isis were religious experts in a way that traditional priests were not. Whereas traditional priests did not require specialist knowledge (§7.2.2), Isiac priests has a role in leading the mystery, as well as teaching the initiate (Metam. 11.23). As the traditions of the cult were not shared by the community as a whole, but only by those initiated, there was a needed role in transferring the knowledge to new devotees.692 Some scholars have emphasised how initiation was a sensory experience which could be spontaneously interpreted, rather than a teaching occasion.693 However, while Apuleius vividly describes the surrounding ceremonies presenting an impressive experience (Metam. 11.24), he implies there was information that could be understood (Met 11.23), even referring to doctrine (doctrina, Metam. 11.30).694 The need for specialist knowledge is also reflected in laws forbidding sacrificing to Isis without the necessary expertise (LSAM 36).695 The function of the priest with regard to both providing ritual expertise and in teaching initiates reflects another important aspect of the cognitive aspect of devotion.

The role of the cognitive aspect of devotion to Isis is more pronounced than with the worship of the traditional gods. This is indicated both by the presence of a form of common doctrine, along with the role of expertise for priests. However, only the knowledge linked to rightly performing rituals is presented as essential, and only for the priests. While the common doctrine was formative, it was not prescriptive, nor was it required that devotees know or accept the information.

8.2.3 The Relational Aspect of Devotion to Isis

The mystery religions have been characterised as offering a personal relationship with the deity, especially in contrast to the mainstream Graeco-Roman religion.696 The relational aspect is enacted through dreams, which in Apuleius feature repeatedly both for Lucius

692 Bendlin, "Religion," 203. 693 L. H. Martin, "Aspects of Religious Experience and Hellenistic Mystery Religions," R&T 12, no. 3–4 (2005): 352, 359; Armstrong, Classical, 71. 694 Varro reflects the understanding that initiations involved conveying knowledge (Ant. div. fr.21 Cardauns). Van Nuffeln, Rethinking the Gods, 37–38. 695 Graf, "Gods," 66–67. 696 A. Tripolitis, Religions of the Hellenistic-Roman age (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 17. Kee speaks of a sense of belonging, along with concern and compassion, while Horsley describes “an intense personal relationship with this divine mother-lover-savior figure”. Kee, "Myth and Miracle," 153; Horsley, "Religion": 25.

168

(Metam. 11.3–6, 19, 22, 29), and for other characters (Metam. 11.14, 27). These dreams use relational language, as Isis declares in the initial encounter “Behold I am present” (en adsum) (Metam. 11.5).697 A dream calling for the founding of a sanctuary for Isis in Thessalonike is recorded in an inscription (IG X 2.1.255), and it appears that dreams were a more frequent occurrence in the cult of Isis than with the traditional gods, and in a wider range of contexts than with Asclepius (although there are more parallels with Aristides).698 Isiac dreams also have a greater role for Isis as the agent for acquiring devotees, as when she initiates the relationship with Lucius (Metam. 11.3–6), in contrast to traditional local cults where the expectation was that people would worship the god(s) of the city.699 Both the nature and frequency of these dreams present a picture of a greater relational aspect to devotion to Isis when compared to the broader Graeco-Roman context.

The relational aspect of devotion is also enacted through prayers. While Bradley has argued that the interactions with Isis (Metam. 11.6) take the same form of reciprocal transaction as other Graeco-Roman interactions with the gods, there are distinctive features.700 The response which Lucius is called upon to make is not the usual gift or votive offering, with Lucius’ prayer to Isis (Metam. 11.25) highlighting instead a relationship based upon the omnipotence of Isis and the humility of the supplicant.701 Other Isiac prayers reflect personal elements, and the Maroneian inscription reflects a confidence in the devotee’s relationship with Isis (πείθομαι δὲ πάντως σε παρέσεσθαι line 10).702 Similar confidence in being heard is reflected in the common use of the epithet ‘hearing’ for Isis, either written (ἐπήκοος) or symbolised by carved ears that accompany inscriptions.703 Reciprocal communication is reflected in the assertion that Isis was present, inspiring and directing the praises recorded (Maroneia, 13). The elements of hearing and reciprocal communication convey interactions that characterise a personal relationship, with a greater degree of interaction than seen with the traditional gods.

697 Witt writes that “Lucius enjoys what seems to him a personal intimacy” with both Isis and Osiris. Witt, Isis, 160. 698 R. Merkelbach, "Zwei Texte aus dem Sarapeum zu Thessalonike," ZPE 10 (1973): 49–50; F. Sokolowski, "Propogation of the Cult of Sarapis and Isis in Greece," GRBS 15, no. 4 (1974): 441–45. 699 Ando sees significance in her agency. Ando, Matter, 104. 700 Bradley, "Contending,": 324–25. 701 Alvar Ezquerra, Romanising, 318–19. 702 Kee translates this as “persuaded that you will be present with me in every way”, heightening the relational sense. Kee, "Myth and Miracle," 151; Horsley, New Docs 1, 12. 703 Horsley, New Docs 1, 15. Mikalson sees this hearing and appearing as demonstrating that Isis was more immanent in human life than the Olympian gods. Mikalson, Religion in Hellenistic Athens, 229.

169

The language of relationship with Isis broadly overlaps that seen with the traditional gods. The use of πείθω (Maroneia 10) indicates a similar relationship of trust to that seen with the traditional gods, as does the use of fides/fiducia in Apuleius.704 An affective relationship on the part of Isis is reflected in P.Oxy. 1380, referring to φιλία (line 94), φιλόστοργος (12, 131), and ἀγάπην θεῶν (109–110).705 Apuleius depicts the affective nature of a relationship with Isis through Lucius’ internal responses including fear and joy, although not using the language of love or friendship (Metam. 11.7, 12–14, 17, 19, 24–25).706 These features convey a relational aspect of devotion similar to that seen with the traditional gods.

The experience of a relationship between the devotee and Isis is linked to the mystery rite. Mysteries were intense sensory and emotional experiences, through which the initiate could experience a sense of encounter with the divine (Metam. 11.23; cf. Plutarch, Is. Os. 27 [Mor 361d]).707 Fox argues that encounter was central to the mystery rite, and while the idea of divine encounter was not new, in the context of mysteries it was more emphasised and systematised.708 In comparison to the rites discussed in the case of Asclepius (§8.1.7), the Isiac initiations were geared more to an intense sensory experience. The experience of encounter with the divine, facilitated by the initiation rite, contributes to a relational aspect of devotion to Isis.

Thus, we can argue that the cult of Isis presented a relationship with a divine figure as a central part of devotion. While some elements overlap with the nature of relationship with the gods in the wider Graeco-Roman experience, the dreams and prayers associated with the cult indicate a greater relational aspect. In addition, through the mystery rite the devotee is

704 Sandy suggests that fides indicates an unshakable belief in the supernatural, thus indicating Lucius as a prime candidate for conversion, but this invests too much meaning in a word that primarily conveys the idea of trust. G. N. Sandy, "Serviles Voluptates in Apuleius' Metamorphoses," Phoenix 28, no. 2 (1974): 241. 705 While the reading is debated, Griffiths presents a compelling argument that ἀγάπην is consistent with the description of Isis in the rest of the document. J. G. Griffiths, "Isis and 'The Love of the Gods'," JTS 29, no. 1 (1978). Cf. S. West, "A Further Note on 'Αγαπη' in P.Oxy 1380," JTS 20, no. 1 (1969); R. E. Witt, "The Use of Αγαπη in P.Oxy 1380: A Reply," JTS 19, no. 1 (1968); S. West, "An Alleged Pagan Use of Αγαπη in P.Oxy 1380," JTS 18, no. 1 (1967). 706 Festugière characterises Lucius as feeling loved by Isis. Festugière, Personal, 84. 707 Diodorus Siculus similarly links initiation and encounter in the mysteries on Samothrace (Bib. hist. 5.49.5; cf. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 12.33). Martin, "Aspects": 351–52; W. Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), 89–90. Martzavou highlights the emotional dimension. Martzavou, "Isis Aretalogies, Initiations, and Emotions: The Isis Aretalogies as a Source for the Study of Emotions," 286-87. 708 Fox, Pagans, 125.

170

enabled to have an experience of encounter with the goddess, an encounter that was rare outside the cult. Thus, the relational aspect appears as a heightened part of devotion to Isis.

8.2.4 The Ethical Aspect of Devotion to Isis

Several Roman sources suggest that the cult of Isis, far from requiring ethical conduct, was a venue for immorality and licentiousness (Ovid, Amores 2.2.25; Ars Amatoria 1.77–78; Juvenal, Sat. 6.488–89).709 However, the same authors extend their allegations to a broad range of religious settings (including the temple of Venus and Jewish synagogues), along with theatres, and even the law courts (Ovid, Ars Amatoria 1.60–99; Amores 2.2.26; Juvenal, Sat. 9.22–25). The breadth of their allegations casts doubt on whether they reflect the reality within the cult of Isis, and similar allegations against early Christian groups are usually dismissed as slander.710 Early Christian sources praise the devotees for their ethical conduct (Tertullian, Ad uxor. 1.6 [ANF 4:42]), and allegations of immorality directed towards the cult of Isis by early Christian sources, which might be expected if there were any grounds for such charges, are rare.711 Therefore we should not place much weight upon these allegations of immorality, instead considering the positive ethical aspects of the cult.

Isis is presented as having a general concern for ethical action through depictions of her as the upholder of justice and giver of laws, including specific ethical proscriptions such as cannibalism and murder (Kyme 8–9, 23–24, 27; Maroneia 29–31).712 While that parallels the role of the traditional gods, some Isiac texts give particular prominence to family relationships, including children honouring their parents, and husbands loving their wives (Maroneia 31–32; Kyme 20–22, 27–28, 31; cf. P.Oxy. XI.1380 146–148).713 Whilst these are all couched in terms of attributes of the goddess, it is likely that adherents would have been

709 See also Cattalus 10.26–27; Martial 2.14.7–8, 11.47.3–4 710 S. K. Heyob, The Cult of Isis among Women in the Graeco-Roman World (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 115–16. One more concrete allegation of sexual immorality comes in Josephus Ant. 18.65-80. Some have cast doubt on the account, but even if true, the extent of the reaction indicates this was not a regular occurrence. Heyob, Cult, 117–18; S. Takács, Isis and Sarapis in the Roman World (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 84; Moehring, "Persecution": 296–99. Cf. D. P. Harmon, "Religion in the Latin Elegists," ANRW 16.3:1909–1973. The allegations of Ovid and Juvenal have been accepted too uncritically by some scholars, including Cumont, Oriental, 90–92; Witt, Isis, 138. 711 Heyob is only able to point to two such allegations, in Epiphanius (Anc. 104), and Cyril of Alexandria (Ador. 9). Heyob, Cult, 124–25. 712 Morgan argues that the Kyme inscription is the clearest claim for the divine origin of laws in the ancient world. Morgan, Roman, 497. 713 A. Henrichs, "The Sophists and Hellenistic Religion: Prodicus as the Spiritual Father of the Isis Aretalogies," HSCP 88 (1985): 155.

171

encouraged to act in accordance with such values.714 The connection of Isis to ethical conduct is dramatized in Xenophon’s novel Ephesiaca, as Isis plays a role in preserving the chastity of the heroine (5.13).715 ‘Chaste’ is also a significant descriptor which features on inscriptions regarding devotees, while as will be seen below, sexual ethics feature prominently in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses.716 These sources present a coherent picture of a concern for sexual and relational ethics that goes beyond that of the traditional gods.

Another feature that reflects some ethical concern is the practice of abstention associated with some cult events. There was a requirement to abstain from meat and wine for ten days before initiation (Apuleius, Metam. 11.23, 30; Plutarch, Is. Os. 2 [Mor. 351f–352a]). This period of abstention may also have included sexual abstention, as several of the Latin elegiac poets refer to the absence of their lovers on account of Isis (Propertius 2.33.1–6; Tibullus 1.3.27–30), reinforcing the already noted focus on sexual ethics.717 Such abstention reflects an ethical aspect of devotion in that there are expectations around how devotees should behave. However, they are limited and episodic in form, rather than demonstrating a general concern for an ethical life.718

Several features in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses indicate an ethical concern in devotion to Isis, including contrasts between the cult and worldly immorality, along with the experience of the central character Lucius. There is a contrast between the only other named religious group, the priests of Dea Syria who are criticised for homosexuality (cinaedorum 8.26), theft (depraedabantur 8.29), as well as creating lies (conficto mendacio 8.28) to facilitate their begging, and the priests of Isis who speak against moral failings (11.15).719 A

714 Plutarch describes Isis as a model of piety (Is. Os. 27 [Mor. 361E]). Alvar Ezquerra, Romanising, 188. 715 Witt, Isis, 246; S. J. Harrison, "Apuleius' Metamorphoses," in The Novel in the Ancient World (ed. G. Schmeling; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 503. Heliodorus’ Aethiopica may exhibit similar ideas but is much later (c. 4th century AD). Beck suggests these novels may function as extended aretalogies, a story of the goddess’s extended favour. R. Beck, "Mystery Religions, Aretalogy and the Ancient Novel," in The Novel in the Ancient World (ed. G. Schmeling; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 138, 145. 716 Heyob, Cult, 120–23. 717 Propertius laments a ten-day period when his lover is absent. It is unclear whether this abstention is connected to initiation or one of the annual festivals, and Miller suggests it is linked to the Isia, and the lament over Osiris. J. F. Miller, "Propertius' Tirade against Isis (2.33a)," CJ 77, no. 2 (1981): 104–5. Alvar notes that sexual abstinence is a common injunction in the Cult. Alvar Ezquerra, Romanising, 178. 718 While Meeks suggests that Lucius’ worries about the rigours of abstention in Metam. 11.19 suggest more than temporary abstention, there is no explicit evidence for enduring abstention. Meeks, First Urban, 25. 719 J. G. Griffiths, "Isis in the Metamorphoses of Apuleius," in Aspects of Apuleius’ Golden Ass (eds. B. L. Hijmans, et al.; Groningen: Bouma’s Boekhuis B.V., 1978), 152; C. C. Schlam, The Metamorphoses of Apuleius: On Making an Ass of Oneself (London: Duckworth, 1992), 118.

172

second contrast is between the marriages presented in books 1–10, which are seen in an almost universally negative light, torn apart by lust, adultery, and even murder, and the Isiac promotion of fidelity, marriage, and fertility (11.2, 4–5, cf. Plutarch, Is. Os. 18–19 [Mor. 358]), while requiring priests to be celibate (11.19).720 As Apuleius has added those marriage accounts to the earlier story he adapts, there appears to be a deliberate intent to convey the value of sexual ethics in the cult of Isis.721 Turning to the experience of Lucius, his misadventures are interpreted by the priest of Isis (11.15) as based upon his personal failings— curiositas (curiosity) and serviles voluptates (servile desires).722 Considering the positive connection of knowledge with Isis, this curiositas is not simply a desire to know, but is linked to unwholesome knowledge and meddlesomeness.723 Both the curiosity and desire have been linked to Lucius’ desire for magical knowledge.724 However, set alongside the contrast between worldly lust and the fidelity championed by Isis, along with Lucius’ sexual desires in the early parts of the novel (2.16–17), the desire in question is more connected to lust than magic.725 The priestly rebuke conveys the key place for sexual ethics within the ethical stance of the cult. The use of language of obedience (obsequiis 11.6) and the yoke of service (ministerii iugum 11.15), and of being bound to Isis permanently (semper tenebis mihi reliqua vitae 11.6), reinforces the view that ethical action is a key part of devotion to Isis.726 Apuleius portrays a cult that has clear ethical concerns, particularly with regard to sexual ethics.

One further distinctive feature of the cult of Isis with regards to ethics is the presence of confessional and penitential features. The confessional element appears in Apuleius, as the priest enquires of Lucius in the fashion of spiritual examination and prays a prayer of forgiveness (11.23), while Lucius asks for forgiveness in 11.25.727 While André-Jean

720 This requirement for celibacy is unusual in Graeco-Roman religion, especially compared to Paphian Venus (mentioned in Metam. 11.5). D. Lateiner, "Marriage and the Return of Spouses in Apuleius' 'Metamorphoses'," The Classical Journal 95, no. 4 (2000): 313. 721 Lateiner, "Marriage and the Return of Spouses in Apuleius' 'Metamorphoses'": 313. 722 J. Tatum, Apuleius and the Golden Ass (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1979), 82. 723 C. C. Schlam, "The Curiosity of the Golden Ass," CJ 64, no. 3 (1968): 117, 125; J. G. DeFilippo, "Curiositas and the Platonism of Apuleius' Golden Ass," AJP 111, no. 4 (1990): 479. 724 Sandy, "Serviles Voluptates in Apuleius' Metamorphoses". 725 Griffiths, "Egyptian Cults," 53; Festugière, Personal, 75. Newbold suggests there is moral development within Lucius in book 11. R. Newbold, "Benefits and Moral Development in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses," Ancient Narrative 3 (2003): 102–3. 726 Alvar Ezquerra, Romanising, 179. 727 Griffiths, "Egyptian Cults," 53; Griffiths, "Isis in the Metamorphoses," 158; Griffiths, Apuleius, 53. Alvar similarly sees this indicating the need for Lucius to repent to gain grace. Alvar Ezquerra, Romanising, 181–82.

173

Festugière interprets these features in an overly Christianising fashion, an equally misleading counter-reaction can be seen in the minimisation of the moral element by Friedrich Solmsen.728 The confession of Isis devotees, and associated penitential acts that might include crawling on one’s knees and inflicting injuries on one’s self, could be conducted publicly (Ovid, ex Ponto 1.1.51–54; Seneca, De vita beata 26.8).729 Such concern expressed over misdeeds shows that devotees of the cult saw their ethical conduct as important, while the perception of those outside that such actions were excessive indicates that the ethical aspect of devotion to Isis was greater than what was involved with devotion to the traditional gods.

The ethical aspect of devotion plays a greater than usual role within the cult of Isis. Whilst it could include the usual concerns around sanctuaries (Pausanias, Descr. 10.32.18), and a general concern for justice, there is a particular concern with regard to sexual ethics and family concerns. This is reflected across the sources, in inscriptions and in literary sources. A broader concern for ethical action is also seen through the confessional and penitential behaviour of devotees, although the details of the behaviour that was expected are not recorded. Thus, an ethical aspect was a significant part of devotion to Isis.

8.2.5 The Ongoing Aspect of Devotion to Isis

Devotion to Isis can be characterised as ongoing in a similar sense to devotion to the traditional gods, as a cycle of giving and receiving from Isis (Maroneia 6–7). However, the account of Lucius in Apuleius suggests a more sustained form of ongoing devotion. This begins with an initial call for life-long service, with the promised rewards tied to his ongoing devotion (Metam. 11.6). What follows is a depiction of ongoing devotion, as Lucius finds himself unwilling to leave the temple after his encounter with Isis (11.17), experiencing frequent dreams and visions (11.19) and participating in daily prayers in Rome (11.26; cf. Martial, Epigrams 10.48.1).730 Metam. 11.19 is particularly telling, as Lucius hires a room in the temple so that he might express his devotion and be an inseparable worshipper of Isis. Solmsen suggests this daily worship was unknown otherwise in Roman religion.731 When the

728 Festugière, Personal, 77; F. Solmsen, Isis among the Greeks and Romans (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979), 101. 729 Heyob, Cult, 64–65; Alvar Ezquerra, Romanising, 180–81. 730 His actions convey loyalty. Crook, Reconceptualising, 123. 731 Solmsen, Isis, 92; Festugière, Personal, 80–83; Turcan, Cults, 113. Fox draws some comparisons between this daily devotion and that of devotees at healing shrines, but that is associated with a moment of need, rather than a regular practice. Fox, Pagans, 160.

174

priest first speaks to Lucius after his transformation, he refers to Lucius ‘beginning to serve the goddess’ (11.15), with the implication that such service will continue.732 In addition, the promises in Lucius’ first encounter with Isis point towards continued service of Isis in the next life (11.6).733 Thus the story of Lucius not only presents an example of ongoing, regular devotion beyond what was typical with devotion to the traditional gods, but also an ongoing devotion that may extend beyond this life. However, as with the account of Aristides (§8.1.5), it is difficult to know whether such ongoing devotion was a regular experience of devotees.

8.2.6 The Public Aspect of Devotion to Isis

The aspect of public declaration appears equivalent for the cult of Isis to that with devotion to the traditional gods. There are no explicit calls for public declaration of one’s adherence to Isis. While devotees would participate in public festivals associated with the cult, this is expected rather than required. While there were public signs of devotion such as public confession and penance (Ovid, ex Ponto 1.1.51–54; Seneca, Vit. beat. 26.8; see §8.2.4), these are neither essential aspects of devotion to Isis, nor are they primarily public affirmations of adherence to Isis. As with devotion to the traditional gods in §7.2.6, devotion to Isis was simply assumed to be publicly visible.

8.2.7 The Ritual Aspect of Devotion to Isis

Consistent with what has been observed in other aspects of Graeco-Roman religion, ritual is a key part of Isis devotion. The cult celebrated two major annual festivals (the navigium or ploiaphesia, as in Metam. 11.8–17, and the Isia), daily rites (Metam. 11.20), and the rituals associated with the induction of new devotees (Metam. 11.23–24).734 However, while these rituals incorporate elements of Egyptian mythology and imagery, the forms of ritual and the roles of sacrifice and processions appear comparable to the wider Graeco- Roman use of ritual. The prominence and frequency of rituals shows they were an integral part of devotion to Isis. Thus despite the heightened significance of the cognitive, relational, and ethical aspects, the ritual aspect appears no less central than in more traditional expressions of Graeco-Roman religion.

732 cum coeperis deae servire (11.15). Pleket, "Religious," 171. 733 While affirming the idea of salvation beyond this life in Apuleius, Alvar notes that there is no earlier evidence for other-worldly salvation in the Cult of Isis. Alvar Ezquerra, Romanising, 123. Morgan points out that it is not evident that Isis acts to bring her devotees to Elysian Fields, but for the present argument the concept of ongoing worship there is what is significant, not whether Isis works salvation. Morgan, Roman, 496. 734 Alvar Ezquerra, Romanising, 296–301; Martin, Hellenistic Religions, 76–81; Turcan, Cults, 114–19. On the evidence for Isiac rituals in Rome, see Lipka, Roman, 105–6.

175

8.2.8 Summary

The cult of Isis presents a pattern of devotion that is clearly distinct from that associated with the worship of the traditional gods. The cult accords a greater role to the cognitive aspect of devotion, as there appears to be something approaching standardised doctrine that was promulgated through multiple locations. While there remained some flexibility, this suggests a commonly accepted core doctrine that was accepted throughout the region. The relational aspect also appears more significant, with a greater role for direct encounter with the goddess, mutual communication, and direction for life. These features contributed to a sense that the goddess took an interest in the lives of her followers. This interest extends to the ethical aspect, as not only is Isis herself linked to laws and morality, but her adherents were known to publicly confess and do penance for their perceived misdeeds. The element of ongoing devotion appears to be more present than in the mainstream, with the indication not only of the goddess’s expectation of continued service, but that such service may extend beyond this life. As with all other expressions of Graeco- Roman religion, ritual played a central role in the cult. Participation in this ritual functioned implicitly as a public declaration of adherence, however in the context it was not emphasised as necessary but assumed. While incorporating similar elements, the pattern of devotion in the cult of Isis differs from the wider Graeco-Roman religious world, with the cognitive, relational, and ongoing aspects playing a more noticeable role

8.3 The Pattern of Devotion in Emperor Worship

8.3.1 Introduction

Devotion to the emperor was a new religious development in the Graeco-Roman world. Julius Caesar was the first to be voted divine honours (ἰσόθεοι τιμαί), while the establishment of shrines, priesthoods and festivals in honour of the emperor became widespread during the reign of Augustus.735 Such devotion has its origins primarily in the Hellenistic practice of ruler cults.736 The worship of the emperor was particularly popular in

735 Weinstock argues that the reign of Julius Caesar was the critical period, while the majority follow Price seeing the Augustan era as formative. S. Weinstock, Divus Julius (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971); Price, Rituals. 736 The background to the worship of the emperors is usually traced through the honours given to Hellenistic rulers, thus Momigliano, On Pagans, 96–99; G. W. Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965), 112; D. Cuss, Imperial Cult and Honorary Terms in the New Testament (Fribourg: Fribourg University Press, 1974), 23–28. Gradel also connects it to the state cult of Roma. I. Gradel, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion (Oxford: Clarendon, 2002), 27.

176

the Greek East, such that Tacitus could refer to it as Graeca adulatio (Ann. 6:18).737 The worship of the emperor rapidly became ubiquitous, as Philo conveys when he states πᾶσα ἡ οἰκουμένη τὰς ἰσολυμπίους αὐτῷ τιμὰς ἐψηφίσαντο (Legat. 149–150).738 It was prevalent in Asia Minor, where Augustus was accounted a god as early as 29 BC, with Ephesus becoming a key cult centre.739 Given both the ubiquity of emperor worship, and the links which have been drawn in previous scholarship between the Johannine writings and the Imperial Cult, it is essential to consider the pattern of devotion of this religious expression.740

Not all have seen emperor worship as truly religious, with the political dimension seen as dominant, and participation either coerced as a display of loyalty, or embraced as a means to political favours.741 This view has been challenged, pointing to features such as domestic worship of the emperor, as well as a lack of evidence for forced participation aside from Christians.742 Emperor worship must be understood in the context where all religious expressions had a connection with social and political life.743 While some sources indicate

737 Distinguishing between East and West is significant with regard to emperor worship, as there were differences between the two, arising from the earlier Hellenistic ruler cults having no parallel in the West. For example, Dio Cassius indicates a difference between the Greeks who would worship the living emperor, and the Roman citizens who would worship the deceased emperor (Hist. rom. 51.20.6–7). Cf. Cuss, Imperial, 31–33. Unlike the top-down structure in the West, the Eastern forms originate more with the worshippers. On the system in the West see especially D. Fishwick, The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire, (3 vols; Leiden: Brill, 1987–2004); Gradel, Emperor; M. Clauss, Kaiser und Gott: Herrscherkult im römischen Reich (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1999); those focussed on the Eastern form include Price, Rituals; S. J. Friesen, Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia, and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family (Leiden: Brill, 1993). Developments in scholarly approaches to emperor worship are outlined in M. Peppard, The Son of God in the Roman World: Divine Sonship in its Social and Political Context (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 32–44. 738 Richey states that in any plausible setting for the Gospel of John, one would have been confronted with “the images, practices and beliefs of the Augustan Ideology.” Richey, Roman, xv. 739 Friesen, Twice; A. J. S. Spawforth, "Corinth, Argos, and the Imperial Cult: Pseudo-Julian, Letters 198," Hesperia 63, no. 2 (1994): 227; G. Biguzzi, "Ephesus, Its Artemision, Its Temple to the Flavian Emperors, and Idolatry in Revelation," NovT 40, no. 3 (1998): 281. Price reports concentrations of material records related to emperor worship in Aphrodisias, Ephesus, Mytilene, Pergamum and Stratonicea, with over eighty temples and sanctuaries in Asia Minor alone. Price, Rituals, 5, 135–36. Corinth was also an important centre of emperor worship. B. W. Winter, "The Achaean Federal Imperial Cult II: The Corinthian Church," TynBul 46, no. 1 (1995): 171. For an overview of the development of the imperial cults in Asia Minor, see S. J. Friesen, Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John: Reading Revelation in the Ruins (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 25–76; B. Burrell, Neokoroi: Greek Cities and Roman Emperors (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 275–287. 740 Links are often made with Revelation, so Biguzzi, "Ephesus"; Cuss, Imperial. Drawing connections to the Gospel are Salier, "Jesus."; Richey, Roman; 741 Liebeschuetz sees emperor worship as involving “an appalling amount of hypocrisy”. Liebeschuetz, Continuity, 75. Others seeing emperor worship as primarily political include Potter, "Roman," 163–64. Loyalty to the emperor was often indicated through religious acts on behalf of the emperor. J. Moralee, For Salvation's Sake : Provincial Loyalty, Personal Religion, and Epigraphic Production in the Roman and Late Antique near East (London: Routledge, 2004), 93–94. 742 Price, Rituals; Gradel, Emperor, 198–212; Richey, Roman, 37–38. 743 J. Scheid, "Cults, Myths, and Politics at the Beginning of the Empire," in Roman Religion (ed. C. Ando; Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003), 118.

177

motives for participation that were social or political (Arrian, Epict. diss. 1.19.26–29), others point to sincerity in giving divine honours to a human (Plutarch, Flam. 17.1).744 Thus, the following investigation will proceed on the assumption that devotion to the emperor could be a genuine religious expression.

8.3.2 The Cognitive Aspect of Devotion to the Emperor

Whereas devotion to the traditional gods entailed propositional belief in the existence and divine identity of the gods, even such limited belief is questionable in the context of devotion to the emperor.745 While Graeco-Roman thought allowed that men might become gods (Cicero, Nat. d. 2.62; Horace, Carm. 3.3.9–12; Pausanias, Descr. 8.2.4–5), it is not clear that the emperor was conceived of as truly divine.746 Doubts about whether the emperor was thought to be a god are raised by the emperors themselves, who could reject devotion (Suetonius Tib. 26; Tacitus Ann. 4.37) and mock the idea of their divinity (Suetonius Vesp. 23).747 While the emperor may be referred to in divine terms, and divine honours for a ruler can be presented as genuine (IGRR 4.1302, l. 55–56; 4.1756, l. 75–76; Plutarch, Flam. 17.1), the language of believing or knowing that the emperor is a god does not appear.748 The absence of such evidence raises the possibility that the connection to the gods is an analogy of power, and thus according him divine honours may have been a statement of function rather than ontology.749 The written evidence leaves it unclear whether the emperor was thought to be a god by those who participated in devotion to the emperor.

Price makes the argument that the nature of the rites for the emperor reflect the way his divine identity was understood. He argues that the rites for the emperor differed from

744 Winter, Divine, 42; Horsley, "Religion": 30–31. 745 As seen in §5.1.2, some scholars dismiss belief as irrelevant to devotion to the emperor. Price, Rituals, 10– 11; Gradel, Emperor, 3–7. 746 Price, "Gods": 80–81; Cuss, Imperial, 23. 747 To see this as merely ‘sensible disbelief’ is to project our unbelief onto the question. Price, Rituals, 73. contra C. Habicht, "Die augusteische Zeit und das erste Jahrhundert nach Christi Geburt," in Le Culte des souverains dans l'Empire Romain (ed. W. den Boer; Geneva: Foundation Hardt, 1973), 76–85. 748 Friesen, Twice, 21–23; Winter, Divine, 68, 82. On issues around the terms used to refer to the emperor as god see D. Wardle, "Deus or Divus: The Genesis of Roman Terminology for Deified Emperors and a Philosopher's Contribution," in Philosophy and Power in the Graeco-Roman World (eds. G. Clark, et al.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); Price, "Gods". 749 Armstrong, Classical, 74; Price, "Gods": 95; Winter, Divine, 52. While Price formulates this in terms of “coming to terms with a new type of power”, Fox takes issue with the element of understanding, saying that there is no evidence for a lack of understanding the new political order. Price, Rituals, 29; Fox, Pagans, 686–87. Price’s idea is echoed by Momigliano, On Pagans, 94; Winter, Divine, 96. Versnel observes that to recognise a ruler as a god did not require attributing all possible divine attributes to them, and thus ideas such as immortality and other miraculous behaviour could be excluded. Versnel, Coping, 469.

178

those for the gods, indicating the emperor was on a lower level than the traditional gods.750 However, other sources speak of the emperor receiving Olympian honours (Philo, Legat. 149–50), suggesting that such a distinction was not perceived by all. In addition, several scholars have critiqued the focus on cult practices, arguing they were not intended to make ontological statements.751 As such, it seems tenuous to claim that there was a recognised distinction in status conveyed by the rituals, and thus that the rituals give an insight into any cognitive aspect of devotion to the emperor.

As seen with both the Gospel and the traditional gods, ascription of titles can be a means of conveying a cognitive aspect of devotion, and a similar feature can be observed with the emperor.752 The titles ascribed to the emperor include σωτήρ, ὁ κύριος, and ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεός (Dio Cassius, 67.5.7; Suetonius, Dom. 13.1–2). Cuss argues that the title ‘saviour’ acquired a divine sense on account of its association with Augustus and became a divine attribute of Roman emperors.753 In addition to these more obviously descriptive titles, emperors could be identified with named gods, such as Nero Zeus Eleutheros (SIG 3 814). As Price argues, this is not about equating the two persons but ascribing a certain kind of power to the emperor.754 The range of titles ascribed to the emperor convey his power and role, especially in terms of providing for the people as saviour or benefactor, and they are used in a range of contexts including inscriptions in cult contexts. Unless such titles are all argued to be merely formulaic, they must be taken as representing what could be believed or known regarding the status and identity of the emperor. They convey a cognitive aspect to devotion, albeit with the limitation that accepting the knowledge conveyed by these titles is not seen to be required.

The extent of a cognitive aspect of devotion to the emperor is minimal. There are no clear indicators that the emperor was believed to be divine, either in written sources or in

750 Price, "Gods": 88–94; S. R. F. Price, "Between Man and God: Sacrifice in the Roman Imperial Cult," JRS 70 (1980). While contemporary Greek sources distinguish between the traditional gods and men who became gods, they do not distinguish their present divine status on that basis. 751 Friesen, Twice, 146–52; Gradel, Emperor, 28. Pirenne-Delforge also points to the way that supra-human figures posed a theological problem, which resulted in philosophical solutions. Pirenne-Delforge, "Reading Pausanias," 383. The one example of seeking to define the divine status of a supra-human figure was motivated by economics, not theology (IOropos 308). 752 Indeed it has been argued by Richey that John deliberately takes the titles he uses from imperial contexts. Richey, Roman, 85–88. 753 Cuss, Imperial, 68, 134. 754 Price, "Gods": 86.

179

ritual acts. The titles ascribed to the emperor convey a minor cognitive aspect that encompasses the role of the emperor, but cognitive acceptance of such titles does not appear to have been required.

8.3.3 The Relational Aspect of Devotion to the Emperor

The question of a relationship with the divine is more problematic when it comes to emperor worship, as we must consider the way people related to the emperor through devotion, rather than interacting with him as a human. There is a relational aspect conveyed through communication, albeit more limited than with the traditional gods. Prayers were made not only for the emperor but also to him (Horace, Carm. 4.5; Ovid, ex Ponto 4.9; Aelius Aristides, Or. 16.32; IGRR 4.1756.7–10), although these are less common than with the traditional gods.755 Votives are rare, which suggests few thought that the emperor responded to prayers offered to him.756 Unlike other gods, there is an absence of reciprocal communication with the emperor, as the emperor is not recorded as communicating through dreams, visions or oracles.757 Instead, the idea of the emperor’s presence is conveyed through ἐπιφανής, as the emperor could be described as θεός ἐπιφανής, along with the superlative ἐπιφανέστατος θεῶν (TAM 2.760; IGRR 4.341, 986; SEG 16.758).758 This language was not associated primarily with the physical presence of the emperor but with his image.759 No emperor visited Asia Minor in the first century, and these images were a vehicle for participants to apprehend the presence of the emperor, and they were readily available (Fronto, Ad M. Caes. 4.12.4) and used not only in public settings but in private shrines (Pliny, Ep. 10.8, 70–71) and even burials.760 Thus, while there was some extent to which one might relate to the emperor, it is more limited than with the traditional gods.

The difficulty with separating the concepts of relating to the emperor as a person and relating to him as an object of devotion is more challenging with the use of language that may indicate the character of a relationship. While the emperor both gives and receives trust

755 Price, "Gods": 91. 756 Price, "Gods": 91–92; Fox, Pagans, 40; Momigliano, On Pagans, 105. 757 There is a similar absence in Hellenistic ruler cults. Chaniotis, "The Divinity of Hellenistic Rulers," 432. 758 Some inscriptions use ἐμφανής, which Price argues is equivalent. Price, "Gods": 86. Ando observes that the language of presence is associated with the emperor in similar ways to Isis (Apuleius Metam. 11.5). Ando, Matter, 119. 759 Price, "Gods": 86–87. Price observes that ἐπιφάνεια was an uncommon term for an imperial visit, which was more often ἐπιδημία, or παρουσία. 760 Price, Rituals, 1, 120.

180

(Marcus Aurelius, Med. 3.11.2; 9.42.4; Artemidorus, Onir. 2.69), these appear in the context of his role as a temporal ruler. Likewise, to be a ‘friend of Caesar’ is not linked to devotion but to political power. Questions of loyalty or allegiance to the emperor as emperor override the idea of trust and affection for him as an object of devotion. Suggesting a more transactional relationship, Lucian puts the interaction between devotee and the emperor in terms of pay and receiving benefits (Merc. cond. 13). This suggests a more remote relationship than the idea of gift exchange seen with the traditional gods.761 This remoteness is also implied through the trend to de-individualise emperor worship. While Augustus had numerous priesthoods dedicated to him alone, subsequent emperors had fewer, replaced with collective cults of the Sebastoi.762 These features reinforce the picture of a less significant relational aspect as part of devotion to the emperor.

The evidence thus presents a picture of emperor worship where there was only a limited sense of personal relationship with the emperor through the devotion offered to him.763 It is less extensive than in the worship of the traditional gods, as prayers are not matched with reciprocal communication, and nor is the relationship presented in terms of trust or affection. When combined with the transactional and de-personalising elements, this leads to the conclusion that a relational aspect was a minimal part of emperor worship.

8.3.4 The Ethical Aspect of Devotion to the Emperor

The connection between ethics and emperor worship appears minimal. There are no recorded behavioural obligations for those participating in the cult beyond the standard regulations around sanctuaries and proper conduct of rituals. There was some concept of the emperor as the guardian of virtue, with the emperors Augustus and Tiberius seen as having an exemplary role (Augustus, Res. gest. 2.8; Valerius Maximus, Fact. dict. mem. 1.pref.).764 However, only some of the emperors were seen in a positive ethical light, and the

761 Price understands emperor worship as a form of gift exchange. Price, Rituals, 65. 762 Price records 34 for Augustus, 11 for Tiberius and only 3–4 for most others. Price, Rituals, 58. On the Sebastoi, see F. Lozano, "Divi Augusti and Theoi Sebastoi: Roman Initiatives and Greek Answers," ClQ 57, no. 1 (2007): 141–47, 151. 763 One piece of evidence that might suggest a greater relational element is the existence of imperial mysteries, as mysteries have been seen to contribute to the relational aspect of devotion (§8.2.3). However, these mysteries are poorly attested, limited primarily to the 2nd century AD, and were only open to members of the upper class, and therefore of limited significance to establishing the patterns of devotion to the emperor. J. N. Bremmer, "Imperial Mysteries," Mètis 14 (2016): 28–29; Friesen, Imperial Cults, 113–116. 764 Cuss, Imperial, 34–35; Winter, Divine, 86; Mueller, Roman, 179–80; D. Wardle, "Valerius Maximus on the Domus Augusta, Augustus, and Tiberius," ClQ 50, no. 2 (2000): 492.

181

descriptions of the emperor as exemplar are not found in the context of devotion to the emperor. Similarly, the emperor could legislate morality, notably the Augustan moral reform agenda (Suetonius, Aug. 34, 89), but this was not connected to contexts of devotion, for at this stage only divine honours for Julius Caesar had been officially sanctioned.765 Devotion to the emperor did not entail an ethical aspect beyond abiding by cultic regulations.

8.3.5 The Ongoing Aspect of Devotion to the Emperor

As with the traditional gods, ongoing devotion to the emperor is not explicitly required, and where implied it is focused on ritual participation. The peace and stability of the empire was seen as dependent upon the emperor, and thus the prayers offered as part of the worship, for the emperor’s continued good health, were part of the maintenance of the current good order.766 Ovid describes himself as participating in daily ritual acts (ex Ponto 4.9.111– 12). Yet such continued devotion does not appear to be commanded, and participation in the cults often appears to be limited to the lifetime of the emperor, with cults being quietly abandoned soon after their death.767 A concern for ongoing devotion is reflected in Pliny’s attempt to have Christians return to participating in sacrifices to the emperor (Ep. 10.96–97). This suggests that while not commanded, ongoing participation was expected, and a failure to do so could provoke a coercive response.

8.3.6 The Public Aspect of Devotion to the Emperor

As with the traditional gods, devotion to the emperor was by default public, as well as focused on participation rather than verbal declaration. The expectation of public participation only manifests in the context of the refusal of monotheistic groups to participate. While the Jews were able to reach a compromise by offering sacrifices for the emperor but not to him, a refusal to publicly participate in the cult led to persecution of Christians (Mart. Pol. 8.2 [ANF 1:40]; Pliny, Ep. 10.96).768 The reaction to those who refused to participate indicates that public declaration by participation was an essential part of devotion to the emperor.

765 Marcus Aurelius includes ethical guidance in his Meditations, but unconnected to devotional contexts. 766 Pliny connects the emperor’s well-being and the public good in Ep. 10.35, 100. Regular prayers for the emperor’s well-being are also found in Plutarch, Cic. 2.1. 767 Price, "Gods"; Price, Rituals, 61–62. 768 Enforcing participation in emperor worship was not systematised, but rather was left to the initiative of provincial authorities, contra Winter, Divine, 2. When religious participation was systematically enforced under Decius in the mid-third century, the necessary sacrifices were to τοῖς θεοῖς rather than the emperor; see the examples in J. R. Knipfing, "The Libelli of the Decian Persecution," HTR 16, no. 4 (1923).

182

8.3.7 The Ritual Aspect of Devotion to the Emperor

The ritual aspect of emperor worship was broadly the same as that in other Graeco- Roman religious expressions. The central feature of devotion to the emperor, ἰσόθεοι τιμαί, indicates this similarity, for the emperor was to be given the same ritual honours as were given to the gods, and thus the forms of ritual tended to align with local customs.769 One of the few differences in ritual is the inclusion of gladiatorial games, which were uncommon in the East outside festivals for the emperor, but this was simply the addition of another form of contest alongside theatrical and athletic contests.770 Given the similarity in form, the significance of the ritual is likely to be similar to that in other contexts (§7.2.7), albeit with the social function more prominent as the ritual appears to play a role in recognising or even defining the position of the emperor.771 The centrality of ritual is indicated in the letters between Pliny and Trajan, where both put participation in rituals as decisive in determining whether those accused of being Christians are to be condemned (Ep. 10.96–97). The required act of supplicatio ture ac uino involved offering incense and wine, as well as prayer before the image of the emperor (cf. Ovid, ex Ponto 3.1.161-64).772 The ritual-focus of divine honours, along with the function of ritual participation as a litmus test, indicate that the ritual aspect of devotion to the emperor was central, a centrality highlighted all the more by the relatively minimal role for other aspects of devotion (§8.3.2–5).

8.3.8 Summary

Of all the areas considered, emperor worship appears to approach the characterisation of Graeco-Roman religion as primarily ritual. The preceding analysis has found that ritual, and participation in the ritual, is the central feature. Beyond that, the cognitive, relational, and ethical aspects are minimal. An ongoing participation in the ritual elements is important, and that participation functions implicitly as a public declaration. Thus, we are presented with another pattern of devotion which was possible within the Graeco-Roman religious world.

769 Grijalvo makes the case regarding emperor worship in Athens. Grijalvo, "Elites and Religious Change in Roman Athens": 258. Price talks of the forms being largely rooted in Greek tradition but expressed in ways that Romans would understand as well. More Roman practices were only found in Roman colonies. Price, Rituals, 77, 88; Lozano, "Divi": 148. 770 Winter, Divine, 25. On games and the Ephesian imperial cult, see Friesen, Twice, 114–41. 771 While an inscription from Mytilene states the honours will themselves deify the emperor, this could have the sense of ‘recognise as divine’. Price, Rituals, 8–9, 56. 772 D. Fishwick, "Pliny and the Christians: The Rites Ad Imaginem Principis," American Journal of Ancient History 9, no. 2 (1984): 123.

183

9 Graeco-Roman Devotion and Johannine Belief 9.1 Conclusions Regarding Graeco-Roman Devotion to the Gods In chapters seven and eight a cross-section of Graeco-Roman religious expressions were investigated to discover the various patterns that devotion might take. The five aspects uncovered in the analysis of the Gospel of John have all appeared to varying degrees, expressed in a range of written and enacted forms. In addition to those five, the ritual aspect has been seen to form an essential part of devotion to the gods.

A cognitive aspect is present in the form of knowledge or beliefs about the identity and role of the gods. The importance of such knowledge is primarily instrumental, to facilitate right ritual acts. Knowledge and belief are not given prominence, nor are they presented as necessary, for even priests are not expected to be religious experts. The role of the cognitive aspect appears similar in the cult of Asclepius, but it has an even more minor role in devotion to the emperor. The cult of Isis has a more pronounced role for the cognitive aspect, for not only is ritual knowledge necessary, there appears some form of common doctrine, along with the knowledge transferred in the instruction of initiates. However, it is still neither central nor explicitly required of the devotee.

A relational aspect of devotion is common, with most conceiving of the gods as personal and able to be communicated with. Such communication is enacted through prayers, offerings, dreams and visions, and oracles. In all the contexts examined, except for devotion to the emperor, trust and affection can characterise relationships with the gods. A relationship reflected in communication is limited with emperor worship, for while offerings are made and occasionally prayers said to the emperor, there is no evidence for experiences of reciprocal communication from the emperor in a religious context. A heightened relational aspect is reflected with both Asclepius and Isis, with accounts of more prevalent and extensive encounters in dreams. Both Apuleius and Aelius Aristides offer the prospect that such encounters could be recurring, and part of an ongoing, close interpersonal relationship. Yet while such a close relationship was possible, more common was a distant, although still positive, relationship.

While ethics has traditionally been distanced from Graeco-Roman religion, it has been shown to be evident in various ways. The gods are seen to generally uphold justice, although

184

the impact of such concern on daily life appears variable. Outside of certain areas of conduct, particularly anything associated with divine sanctuaries, the gods were often seen as uninvolved in ethical matters. However, the evidence of punishment and confession in some areas of Asia Minor reflect a greater need for ethical action as part of devotion to the gods. Asclepius encourages generosity in his beneficiaries, while the cult of Isis reflects a wider concern for ethical action in practices of confession and penance. Again, however, this is not presented as a required part of devotion and appears to characterise some of the more committed adherents. The only form of ethical action that Isis and Asclepius require of devotees are periods of abstention associated with events such as initiation or incubation. Devotion to the emperor displays no evident ethical obligations. Thus, while the ethical aspect is not as removed from the gods as some may suggest, it is nevertheless limited, with a more significant role only in a few contexts.

Ongoing devotion and public witness are primarily assumed in Graeco-Roman contexts. The one form of public witness that can be required is an acknowledgement of the deeds of the gods. It is primarily in the context of Christian refusal to participate in devotion to the gods that the need for ongoing devotion and public declaration are made explicit.

Finally, all forms of Graeco-Roman religion have demonstrated a central role for ritual. In devotion to the emperor, ritual most clearly overshadows all other aspects, on account of the minimal role for the other aspects. But even in those expressions which have a notable role for cognitive, relational, and ethical aspects, such as the cult of Isis, ritual has a central role. Throughout the Graeco-Roman religious world, ritual lies at the heart of devotion.

Having explored the shapes of devotion in the Graeco-Roman world, we now have an idea of the religious repertoire of an early audience of the Gospel of John. In the following section (§9.2), a detailed comparison will be made between this repertoire and the shape of devotion derived from the Gospel. This section will address the question of how the Johannine material may resonate with a Graeco-Roman audience, and where it may be dissonant. The following chapter (§10) will then analyse why the Johannine presentation may diverge from the contextual patterns.

185

9.2 A Comparison of the Patterns of Devotion The preceding chapters have set out the Johannine presentation of devotion to Jesus, and a series of patterns of devotion from the Graeco-Roman religious world. This section will identify the resonance and dissonance that might arise from the Johannine presentation when encountered by a Graeco-Roman audience of the Gospel.

9.2.1 Comparison of the Cognitive Aspect

The debate over the legitimacy of belief as a category for the Graeco-Roman religious world (see §7.1.1) gives an initial clue that there may be a marked difference in the cognitive aspect of devotion. However, by framing the discussion in broader terms of a cognitive aspect, rather than explicitly belief, the difference between the Johannine presentation and the Graeco-Roman context appears less stark. While the need to believe certain propositions is not emphasised in the Graeco-Roman context, there is nevertheless an expectation of belief in the existence of the gods. Alongside this, the Graeco-Roman system requires a certain degree of belief or knowledge regarding the names, identities, and roles of the various deities. While the Cult of Isis appears to have a greater role for knowledge, it is primarily associated with ritual performance, and knowledge or cognitive belief are not required of devotees.

The cognitive aspect is amplified in the Johannine presentation, as belief and knowledge about Jesus’ identity play a central role. The amplification begins from a parallel concern for belief regarding divine identity. The Graeco-Roman system not only included the Olympian gods, whose existence could be believed or occasionally rejected, but also humans who became gods, where belief in their divinity could be an issue. As Jesus is portrayed as a human, there is a comparable need to convince the audience that Jesus is divine and not merely human. However, in the Graeco-Roman context belief in the divine identity of a being was not essential in itself, but rather as a guide to what ritual acts would be appropriate. The need to believe Jesus’ divine identity in and of itself (see §6.1) is a novel feature.

Both the Gospel and the Graeco-Roman context include the ascription of powers and titles as part of what is to be known or believed regarding a deity. The ascription of powers to Jesus, such as life and judgement in John 5:24–29, plays a less prominent role in the Gospel. While the gods of the Graeco-Roman pantheon had specialised areas of responsibility, the power ascribed to Jesus functions primarily as an indicator of Jesus’ status and identity. In this, Jesus is more akin to the henotheistic deities such as Isis, although even she is ascribed

186

special areas of concern. Yet neither the Gospel nor the Graeco-Roman context place a requirement upon adherents to believe these powers or roles. As with ascriptions of power, the titles given to Jesus similarly differ from many of those given to the Greek gods in that they are not indicative of a specialised role. The primary identity of Jesus is in relation to the Father, while most other titles given to him are terms of power or authority (e.g. ὁ κύριος, ὁ σωτήρ, ὁ υἱός τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ), rather than specialised roles. The one exception might be the title Christ, but although this may be a unique role, it denotes the general representative of God, rather than indicating a narrow specialisation as may be found with the Graeco-Roman gods. Thus, the importance within a cognitive aspect of devotion for titles and powers is broadly similar, although Jesus is attributed a less narrowly specified role.

There are evident differences in the language used to convey the cognitive aspect of devotion. John places emphasis on the language of πιστεύω, in the sense of cognitive belief, when such use is rare in the Graeco-Roman context. The implication is that John has a greater concern for volitional acceptance of information, rather than merely awareness. In contrast, in the Graeco-Roman context the information associated with belief or knowledge is not valued for its own sake but is primarily functional—information that needs to be known in order to facilitate right ritual engagement. Thus, the cognitive aspect in the Graeco-Roman context is instrumental, whereas for John it is an intrinsic part of right devotion. This importance in John is made explicit in the determinative role that right knowledge and belief plays for one’s alignment with Jesus or against him. The critical knowledge here regards Jesus’ identity, as the role of Jesus, while important within the Gospel, is not similarly presented as essential to know or believe.

The early audience of the Gospel would have encountered in John a cognitive aspect to devotion that was at the same time familiar and yet not. A human being accounted as divine was nothing new, and the titles given to Jesus often echo those of the divine emperor. The broad claims to power would have been unusual but not unheard of.773 The prominence of the cognitive aspect in John was unusual, and as part of this what would have been confronting was the insistence on a volitional acceptance of the claims regarding Jesus. The

773 Thus, while Bultmann claimed Christian faith is unique because of its object, it does not appear that this would have been obvious to an early Graeco-Roman audience of the Gospel. Bultmann, Theology, 317–18. Cf. Morgan, Roman, 4.

187

requirement to believe in Jesus’ identity in order to be accepted by him, the need for knowledge and belief in themselves rather than as a guide to ritual praxis, would similarly have been strikingly novel.

9.2.2 Comparison of the Relational Aspect

In the relational aspect, the Gospel displays some elements of resonance with the Graeco-Roman context, but with the importance and intensity of the relationship amplified. The Graeco-Roman picture reflects an understanding of the relationship with the gods as akin to an interpersonal relationship. This involved trust in the gods, communication with them, and it could entail some degree of affection or intimacy, as conveyed through the language of love and friendship. This relationship was enacted through the communicative acts of ritual (prayer and votive offerings), along with other communicative events such as oracles, dreams, and visions. While the Gospel similarly presents an interpersonal relationship, the mode of relationship diverges from the Graeco-Roman pattern. The Gospel presents God walking the earth in the person of Jesus, with the implication of an unmediated relationship, as to encounter God does not require dreams or visions, nor communicative acts of ritual.774 Yet for the audience of the Gospel, the physical presence of Jesus is no longer a present reality, and thus while the depiction of Jesus may be evocative, it appears to set such an unmediated relationship in the past. Doing so would invite closer comparisons with the Greek myths that involved the gods walking the earth, actions seen as belonging to a past era with the gods no longer encountered in the flesh. Yet the Gospel does not allow the unmediated form of relationship to drift into the past, for the image of indwelling brings the relationship into the present for the audience. Jesus speaks of dwelling with those who believe, a mutual being in and remaining in (14:3, 19–20; 15:9–10). This unmediated connection is reflected in the absence of dreams or visions to encounter God, and even explicit teaching on prayer is minimal. The Gospel does not teach how to relate to Jesus but assumes that the unmediated relationship allows interaction as with any other person. The Johannine relational aspect is similarly interpersonal but amplified in that it is unmediated.

The difference in mode of relationship also leads to an intensification of relationship through greater proximity. In the Graeco-Roman world, the relationship to the gods was

774 This is not to advocate for the docetic picture of Jesus like Käsemann’s ‘a god striding on the earth’, merely an acknowledgement that while Jesus is presented as human, he is also presented as God. Käsemann, Testament, 73.

188

experienced with varying degrees of proximity, from the remoteness of the Emperor, through to deities that were perceived as more present, more frequently appearing and communicating with their devotees (such as Asclepius or Isis). Yet even these do not approach the immediacy indicated in the Johannine language of indwelling, which is emphasised even further with the image of oneness (17:21–23). The promise of the continued presence of the Spirit (14:16– 17), and the more intensive use of language of love and friendship adds to the depiction of a close, intimate relationship, much closer than what is envisaged in the Graeco-Roman religious world.

For the early audience, the idea that one could have a relationship with the gods was not new. What the Gospel challenges is the expectation of both how that relationship is experienced, presenting a direct relationship rather than one mediated through dreams and ritual communication, and the intensity of the relationship, with the idea of Jesus dwelling with his followers, rather than being encountered at best periodically.

9.2.3 Comparison of the Ethical Aspect

The ethical aspect displays notable amplification in the Johannine presentation, for the role of the ethical aspect within the Graeco-Roman religious system was limited. The gods were understood as broadly concerned with ethical action and justice, although in practice their concern seems limited primarily to offences against themselves or their sanctuaries. While the gods could take a broader interest in human ethical action, for the most part there needed to be action by the aggrieved party for the gods to act for justice. Only the Cult of Isis reflects more concern for an ethical life, through practices of confession, or the example of the moral transformation of Lucius in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses, although even here it does not appear to be a central issue. The broad concern of the gods for ethical matters is reflected in the language of the Gospel, such as the use of the love command rather than specific ethical injunctions, along with general statements regarding those who do good or do evil (3:20–21; 5:29). However, the Gospel gives no indication that active concern for ethical matters is limited in the way that it is in the Graeco-Roman context, and the lack of a sanctuary or rituals associated with Jesus precludes many of the infractions that the gods were seen to particularly concern themselves with. Instead, there is a clear amplification of the ethical aspect in the way that Jesus is seen to be actively concerned regarding all areas of ethical action.

189

A greater contrast is seen in the consequences connected to ethical failures. While there was some idea that the gods would punish wrongdoing, this punishment was most often understood as experiencing misfortune in this life, with expectations of post-mortem punishment marginal. Even those Graeco-Roman religious expressions that suggest some form of reward in the next life connected to devotion (such as Isis) do not connect ethical action to that post-mortem experience. In the Gospel, the idea of temporal punishment for wrongdoing is absent, with punishment conceived much more starkly in the binary of life or death. Reflecting the emphasis on character of life rather than specific deeds, the Gospel does not present misfortune accompanying certain misdeeds, even casting doubt upon such a connection (9:2). Instead, it is the ethical character of one’s life that is presented as determinative for one’s eternal fate. The ethical imperative for John is thus given far greater weight through the connection not to present consequences, but eternal ones.

One further difference lies in the nature of the ethical standards to which a devotee might be held. In the Graeco-Roman realm, while the regulations around right conduct in sanctuaries can be clearly delineated, what entails ethical action in daily life is not codified in a religious context.775 Despite some connections to a codified system reflected in John, there is similarly no exposition of the specifics of ethical action.776 Instead, under the framework of the command to love one another, Johannine ethics are based upon the imitation of Jesus.777 While the concept of ethical imitation was used in biography (such as Plutarch’s Lives), it only appears in contexts of the character and conduct of humans, not of the gods.778 The role of the gods as models of virtue is ambiguous, for they could be seen as embodying virtues while their portrayal in mythology at times undermines such a view.779 Even in those

775 While there is some indication of divine endorsement of the laws of the polis (Xenophon, Mem 1.3.1), they are not the laws of the gods, but of the polis. 776 Although some see an implicit connection to a codified system, for example Kanagaraj, "Implied". Cf. van der Watt, "Ethics in Community," 375–76. 777 Bennema, "Moral Transformation": 191. 778 The parallels between the ethical function of such biographies and the Gospel of John are explored by Shin, Ethics, 32–53; Trozzo, Johannine Ethics, 54–59; Gorman, "Implicit Ethic," 137; Burridge, Imitating, 31. Capes sets the Gospels in a broader context of imitation in both the Graeco-Roman and Jewish traditions. D. B. Capes, "Imitatio Christi and the Gospel Genre," BBR 13, no. 1 (2003). Trozzo denies that imitation of Jesus is central in John, on account of him being divine and not human. But that ignores both the explicit calls to imitation, and the clear comparison to other ancient works such as Plutarch. Instead, similarities to Plutarch would encourage the audience to see the Gospel presenting a model for imitation, even if this model is in fact God. Trozzo, Johannine Ethics, 80. Contra Burridge, Imitating, 343–45. 779 Shin, following Morgan, points to a significant role for the gods in Graeco-Roman ethics. As has been demonstrated, while the gods may be foundational to ethics, their connection to practical ethics is variable and often limited. Shin, Ethics, 27–28. Cf. Morgan, Popular Morality, 161, 207–11.

190

examples where there may be some exemplary role, such as with the generosity of Asclepius, imitation is not explicit in the sources. Therefore, there is a striking contrast with the Johannine ethical framework that is primarily mimetic and anchored on a divine figure.

Once more, the early audience would have been struck by something familiar that has been significantly transformed. The general concern of the gods for ethical action is made more all-encompassing, and at the same time need for such ethical action is made a vital part of devotion. Alongside this, the exemplary model of Jesus takes something that may have been implicit with some gods and makes it a central part of identifying right action.

9.2.4 Comparison of the Ongoing Aspect

While the need for ongoing devotion is predominantly implicit in the Graeco-Roman system, where it comes to the fore the focus is on the ongoing need to appease the gods through regular celebration of rituals. This is an episodic form of ongoing devotion, and it is also primarily conceived communally, although the participation of all the members of the community is important. The distinctions between this and the Johannine form of the ongoing aspect of devotion reflect some of the differences in the three aspects of devotion already considered. Thus, ongoing devotion in John takes the form first of ongoing propositional belief, as the belief and knowledge conveyed is essential to hold on to for itself, rather than being merely the means to right ritual participation as it is in the Graeco-Roman context. Second, devotion entails an ongoing relationship, for where the more distant relationship of the Graeco-Roman world might be sustained through periodic communication, the Johannine picture of relationship with Jesus involves a constant connection. Third, there is an ongoing ethical element, as ethical demands are not merely linked to preparations for ritual events as they often are in the Graeco-Roman context but a life characterised by ethical action is required. As a result of the greater extent of the ongoing aspect, the need for ongoing devotion is given greater prominence in the Gospel. In addition, the different form that ongoing devotion takes may account for the fact that the Graeco-Roman context primarily assumes ongoing devotion, only making the need explicit in contexts of disaster or deliberate refusal to participate, in contrast to the Johannine presentation where ongoing devotion is a central feature of the required response. The extent of ongoing devotion, and its nature as constant rather than periodic would both have appeared as a novel aspect of devotion for the early audience of the Gospel.

191

9.2.5 Comparison of the Public Aspect

The idea of publicly displaying one’s allegiance to the gods was present but largely implicit within the Graeco-Roman religious world. It was expected that everyone would participate in the public worship of the gods, thereby effectively declaring their devotion to the gods. Such participation was not costly for those involved, and because of the largely civic nature of religion, there was no need to command participation as it was what one did as part of civic life. The Johannine presentation contrasts with this firstly by making the need for public allegiance more explicit, and secondly by emphasising a verbal form of public declaration, set within the broader idea of bearing witness to Jesus. While there are indications that public actions are effectively equivalent (such as with Nicodemus), the primary call is for a confession of faith in Jesus, which is both a declaration of allegiance and a confession of specific beliefs. The early audience of the Gospel would not have found the idea of publicly displaying one’s allegiance to a god as a new idea. However, the necessity of such a public alignment with Jesus, and the key role of verbal declaration, would have been dissonant. It reflects the way that Jesus did not fit into the existing pantheon of gods, and in turn his followers were not simply to align themselves with traditional forms of devotion.

The motif of bearing witness, as Jesus testifies to his identity and the disciples are in turn to witness to Jesus (17:20), is distinct from the context. While Graeco-Roman devotees would publicly praise the gods, declaring their identity in inscriptions and in festivals, these actions are primarily oriented towards the gods. Such a ritual context for public declaration is not found in the Johannine account. Johannine witness has a shifted focus, for rather than being primarily directed towards Jesus, it has an explicit purpose of evoking belief in those who hear (1:7; 17:20). Declaring one’s own faith is also presenting Jesus and his identity to others, so that they in turn might believe; these concerns are not evident in Graeco-Roman devotion.

9.2.6 Comparison of the Ritual Aspect

The area of ritual displays the most dramatic differences between the Johannine presentation and the repertoire of the Graeco-Roman audience. Ritual is central to all the Graeco-Roman religious expressions considered, vital for both communicating with the gods and experiencing the gods. It is linked to the other aspects, as the cognitive aspect functions primarily as the necessary information for right ritual action, while the relational aspect is

192

enacted in large part through ritual acts. Even ethical actions are commonly linked to preparation for participation in ritual events. Yet in John we find that any elements of ritual are downplayed. The Last Supper is not narrated but serves merely as the circumstances for Jesus’ final teaching (13:2). Jesus’ baptism is similarly not narrated, instead being related indirectly by John the Baptist (1:32–34). While there is the suggestion that Jesus was baptising (3:22; 4:1), the narrator clarifies that it was Jesus’ disciples baptising rather than Jesus himself (4:2), downplaying the prominence of baptism. There are no commands such as in the Synoptics either to celebrate the last supper (cf. Matt 26:26–28; Luke 22:17–19) or to baptise others (cf. Matt 28:19). Nor is Jesus seen participating in the ritual aspects of the Temple, or discussing questions or themes related to Temple-based ritual, with the only direct interaction with the Temple being the cleansing in 2:13–22.780 In light of the Graeco-Roman context and the importance of ritual in their devotion, the abrogation of ritual-based worship in John 4:19–24 takes on greater significance. It appears that John has deliberately minimised the role of ritual within his account, with only this aspect of devotion playing less of a role in John than in the Graeco-Roman context. For a Graeco-Roman audience, the idea that devotion to the gods might be enacted entirely apart from a ritual aspect would have been the most confronting and dissonant aspect of the Johannine presentation of devotion.

9.2.7 Summary

Setting the Johannine presentation of devotion to Jesus in the context of Graeco- Roman devotion reveals that while many of the same aspects feature, they display significant shifts in nature and importance within devotion. The role of the cognitive, relational, ethical, ongoing and public aspects are all amplified relative to the context, being presented as broader in scope and more explicitly required as part of right devotion. Knowledge and belief about the identity of the gods becomes central in the case of Jesus’ identity. A distant interpersonal relationship enacted through ritual and dreams becomes an intimate relationship of indwelling. A vague ethical concern that only rarely impacts actions is juxtaposed with a requirement for a life characterised by right action and love. Periodic participation in the ritual life of the city becomes a need for continuous believing, abiding in relationship, and acting ethically. Public participation is no longer the focus, but a public verbal declaration of

780 Contrast the Synoptic accounts which include ritual and Temple-related activity such as Jesus’ dedication at the Temple (Luke 2:22–24), paying the Temple tax (Matt 17:24–27), a command to offer a sacrifice (Matt 8:4; Mark 1:44; Luke 5:14), the instruction to reconcile before bringing an offering (Matt 5:23–4), and the offering given in the Temple (Mark 12:41–44; Luke 21:1–4).

193

allegiance is key. The Johannine presentation also shows each of these aspects to be more explicitly necessary for right devotion to Jesus. The reverse is true of the ritual aspect, which is so minimised in the Johannine material as to be virtually excluded. For the early audience of the Gospel, the aspects of devotion in John may have struck some notes of familiarity, yet all the aspects of devotion are transformed. The extent of the differences between the Johannine pattern of devotion and the Graeco-Roman context into which the Gospel is written raises the question of the motivation for such differences, which the following chapter will address.

194

10 Johannine Belief in Light of Graeco-Roman Devotion The dissonance between the Johannine concept of belief and Graceo-Roman concepts of devotion to the gods calls for an explanation. Why does John present such a divergent pattern of devotion? The search for reasons for the radically different pattern of devotion that John presents will be focused upon the Gospel itself, on account of the context of a Graeco- Roman audience. Whilst it is possible that the Johannine shape of devotion rests on Jewish foundations, reflecting the form of devotion given to the God of Israel, there are no explicit connections drawn between Old Testament forms of devotion and the way people ought to respond to Jesus according to the Gospel. John knows the Jewish Scriptures, and uses them to convey the identity of Jesus, and if Old Testament practices were the basis for the form of devotion to Jesus, we might expect to see similar connections made. However, John does not indicate that Jewish devotional practices or patterns should be adopted, and when such practices appear there can be a sense of fulfilment or replacement.781 The implications in a Graeco-Roman context are that the audience could not be assumed to know Old Testament models for the right response to God, and therefore we need to consider what the Gospel itself reflects of an explanation for the necessary response to Jesus.

10.1 The Johannine Motivation for Reshaping Devotion The primary focus for investigating the motivation for the Johannine pattern of devotion will be Johannine Christology. The attention of much previous Johannine scholarship to the identity of Jesus highlights the centrality of Christology in John.782 That centrality prompts a consideration of how Christology might motivate the Johannine pattern of devotion.783 Additionally, the broader principle that the nature of one’s response to a person is closely connected to their identity suggests a connection between the matter of who to believe and how to believe according to the Johannine presentation. In what follows, each of the aspects of devotion will be examined in order to uncover what features of Christology might motivate, or even require, the pattern of devotion that the Gospel of John teaches. The

781 Thus, Jesus has been seen as replacing the purification rites reflected in John 2:6, while there is a fulfilment motif connected to the Jewish festivals. Carson, John, 173; G. A. Yee, Jewish Feasts and the Gospel of John (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1989); Hoskins, Jesus, 145–72. This suggests that the Gospel may play a similar role in reshaping devotion for a Jewish audience as with a Graeco-Roman audience. However, to investigate this possibility is beyond the scope of this thesis. 782 John has been called narrative Christology. Stibbe, John as Storyteller, 17. Stibbe draws this idea from R. C. Tannehill, "The Gospel of Mark as Narrative Christology," Semeia 16 (1979). Others pointing to the centrality of Christology in John include Williams, "Faith," 352; T. Thatcher, Greater Than Caesar: Christology and Empire in the Fourth Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 4. 783 Morgan links believing and Christology. Morgan, Roman, 402.

195

investigation of the connection between Christology and the pattern of devotion will lead toward the conclusion that John functions to reshape the devotion of an early Graeco-Roman audience in order that it might take an appropriate form to be directed towards Jesus.

10.1.1 Motivation for Reshaping the Cognitive Aspect

The primary differences in the cognitive aspect are the prominence of this aspect within the pattern of Johannine devotion, and the significance and implications of the belief and knowledge that comprise the cognitive aspect. The greater prominence of the cognitive aspect in John is a direct result of the centrality of grasping the identity of Jesus. While believing and knowing the gods in the Graeco-Roman world was not insignificant, it was primarily linked to right ritual practice. Knowledge is not critical, for tradition (τὰ πάτρια/mos maiorum) functioned as a guard against a lack of knowledge or belief, for one could simply do what had always been done. In addition, the consequences for either a lack of knowledge or mistaken belief were minor. If one sacrificed to the ‘wrong’ god, they may still act on behalf of the devotee, and at worst the supplicant would remain unheard. Yet in the Gospel of John, right belief and knowledge regarding Jesus’ identity is essential to receive life (20:31).784 Therefore, the cognitive aspect requires greater prominence, to ensure the audience is led into such right belief.

Right knowledge and belief are necessitated by the uniqueness of Jesus.785 The Gospel presents Jesus as the one true revealer of God (1:18). As the Son, he is the only one who has seen the Father, and therefore his witness is not merely true but also definitive, and the central strand of his witness conveys his identity. That identity is not only as the revealer of God, he is God himself (1:1; 20:28).786 The identification of Jesus as the one by whom and through whom all things were made (1:3) indicates that Jesus is not merely one god among many. The alternative to accepting Jesus is not presented in terms of other gods, but rather a human-focused existence (5:43–44; 8:15; 12:43). Jesus’ designation as the Messiah also ascribes a unique identity to Jesus as the one true representative promised by God. As such,

784 It is insufficient, as Thatcher does, to limit Johannine Christology to the presentation that Jesus is greater than Caesar. Thatcher, Greater, 129. 785 While J. Z. Smith has raised issues around the use of ‘unique’ in the comparison of religions, ‘unique’ is used here to refer to the way the Gospel presents Jesus as the only one fulfilling a particular role or task. J. Z. Smith, Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 36–53. 786 Contra Bultmann, Theology, 66.

196

Jesus is the culmination of a particular story, indicated by numerous references to the Old Testament with Jesus as their fulfilment. Whilst it cannot be assumed that a Graeco-Roman audience would be familiar with the details of the Old Testament story, the motif of fulfilment would still serve to present Jesus as taking on a unique promised role in a larger story. These strands together present Jesus as unique, and the uniqueness of Jesus is the reason for the dramatic consequences for belief or the lack thereof, the binary of life or judgement. In order to offer Jesus the exclusive devotion that befits his identity as the one true Son of God and the Messiah, the audience must know who he is and accept his claimed identity. Therefore, the Gospel conveys to the audience that such a cognitive aspect of belief is an essential component of responding rightly to Jesus.

10.1.2 Motivation for Reshaping the Relational Aspect

In a Graeco-Roman context, the distinctive feature of the Johannine relational aspect of devotion is the intensity and proximity of the relationship that is portrayed. The immediacy of the relationship with Jesus is a result of the christological ideas of incarnation and indwelling. The incarnation brings a direct, unmediated presence of God on earth, with such a presence continuing through the Spirit (14:16–19). The absence of a clear ascension scene contributes to this sense of continuity, as the audience is left with the image of Jesus risen and present with his disciples.787 The Gospel’s Christology necessitates a form of devotion that includes a close relational aspect.788

The immediacy of the relationship affects how the relationship is enacted, for it would be inappropriate to seek external means by which one might relate to Jesus. The means by which a Graeco-Roman relationship with the gods is enacted are predominantly absent from the Johannine narrative, with no dreams, visions, oracles or offerings. Even prayer is presented differently, as Jesus does not teach his disciples how to pray (cf. Matt 6:9–13; Luke

787 Koester notes the necessity of a living Jesus for the Gospel’s presentation of trust as an essential response. C. R. Koester, "Jesus' Resurrection, the Signs, and the Dynamics of Faith in the Gospel of John," in The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of John (eds. C. R. Koester, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 48. 788 While the Gospel's familial language may contribute to a relational aspect, notably as Moloney indicates the relationship of Father and Son into which the audience is invited, several points argue against this being central. While familial language is applied to believers (1:12-13), when that is developed later it is in an ethical rather than relational sense (8:31-59; see §10.1.3). For a Graeco-Roman audience, positing familial connections at a divine level would not convey anything distinctive, as such familial connections are common amongst the Graeco-Roman deities, while the language of sonship also had imperial connotations. F. J. Moloney, "The Love Theme in the Gospel of John," in Johannine Studies 1975-2017 (ed F. J. Moloney; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 125.

197

11:1–4), but merely tells them to ask for what they need (14:13–14; 16:23–24). The implication is that the proximity of Jesus enables prayer in a way indistinguishable from a personal conversation, just as the disciples could speak to their master while he walked with them. The incarnation and indwelling of Jesus shape the nature of relationship such that the Graeco-Roman form of relating to the gods would be inappropriate to direct towards Jesus. The intimacy of relationship that John presents not only shapes how the relational aspect of devotion is enacted, but it also proves foundational for the way some other aspects of devotion are reshaped, as will be seen below.

10.1.3 Motivation for Reshaping the Ethical Aspect

The ethical aspect in the Gospel of John is amplified with respect to the Graeco- Roman religious world, which while not devoid of ethics, has a less significant role for ethical action than the Gospel of John. One motivation for the greater role of ethics in John is the greater significance of the relational aspect. Jesus is not a distant deity whose attention needs to be gained in order to bring ethical infractions to his attention. Rather, through the ideas of incarnation and indwelling that are central to the transformed relational aspect, Jesus is present with his followers, and thus involved in and attentive to their actions.789 Therefore, Jesus’ active concern for ethical actions is not limited to the narrow scope of many Greek gods, to breaches of regulations around sanctuaries, ritual acts, and oaths, but extends to the whole of life.

Indeed, where the Graeco-Roman model may have focused upon regulations, whether the sanctuary regulations or the broader idea that the gods endorsed the law of the polis, John centres his ethical model upon imitation.790 Jesus repeatedly calls on people to keep his commands (14:21; 15:10), yet the details of those commands are not conveyed to the audience of the Gospel. While obedience to the breadth of Jesus’ ethical teaching is the intent of these calls, such teaching would have to be obtained from a source beyond the Gospel.791 Instead, the command given within the Gospel is to love one another in imitation of Jesus (13:34; 15:12). The theme of imitation is repeated (13:15; 14:12), and imitation in action is

789 van der Watt argues that the Johannine ethical system is based upon Christology and relationship with Jesus. van der Watt, "Ethical Behaviour": 444. 790 Bennema, "Moral Transformation": 191. 791 Lund suggests that these details may come from a combination of communal memory of Jesus along with Torah. G. Lund, "The Joys and Dangers of Ethics in John's Gospel," in Rethinking the Ethics of John (eds. J. G. van der Watt, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 278–80.

198

modelled by Jesus himself (5:19; 10:37–38; 14:10).792 This imitation is enabled not only through the example depicted in the Gospel, but also through the work of the Holy Spirit.793 The Spirit will remind the believer of Jesus’ words (14:26) and guide them into all truth by relaying the message of Jesus (16:12–15). This ongoing reminding and representing of Jesus facilitates living in imitation of Jesus. The immediacy of Jesus’ presence enables imitation where the more distant Graeco-Roman gods were insufficiently present to model right behaviour. Furthermore, while it would be inappropriate to emulate the morally questionable behaviour of the Greek gods (Dionysus of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.20.2), Jesus was a model of obedience to his Father, while his role as creator (1:3) privileges him to know how humans were made to live.794 In the incarnation he shows how to truly live, and to emulate him reflects an acceptance of his identity. Thus, Jesus’ identity gives both the means and motivation for imitation of Jesus as a necessary aspect of devotion.

The relational aspect gives an additional motivation for the ethical action required. Jesus works are based upon his relationship with the Father, specifically the Father’s indwelling (14:10). This can be extrapolated to include the believer in whom Jesus dwells, with their works to be similarly based upon a relationship with Jesus and the Father.795 The actions which Jesus commands of Peter (21:15–17) are to flow out of love, out of his relationship with Jesus. Jesus is the embodiment of God’s love (3:16), demonstrates love (13:1–10), and commands imitation of such love (13:15, 34–35). The relational connection continues using familial imagery. As the Son of God, Jesus shows us what it means to live as children of God (1:12), in contrast to the Jews, whom Jesus labels as children of the devil on account of their ethical failings (8:44), indicating that one’s familial connection with God will be displayed in ethical action.796 Inclusion within God’s family is linked to both love and obedience in 14:18–21, while obedience can be cast as a basis for the continuation of the relationship with Jesus (15:9–10). The closeness of relationship entailed in the christological ideas of incarnation and indwelling motivates the breadth of ethical concern evident in

792 Bennema, "Moral Transformation": 192. 793 Bennema points to both text and Spirit as the main hermeneutical aids in mimesis. Bennema, "Moral Transformation": 203. 794 Contra Morgan, Roman, 402. 795 The connection between the relationship of indwelling and ethics is further explored by C. C. Caragounis, "‘Abide in Me’: The New Mode of Relationship between Jesus and His Followers as a Basis for Christian Ethics (John 15)," in Rethinking the Ethics of John (eds. J. G. van der Watt, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012). 796 Bennema, "Moral Transformation": 185, 189; Motyer, Your Father, 148–49, 185, 212; A. J. Akala, The Son- Father Relationship and Christological Symbolism in the Gospel of John (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 222.

199

Johannine devotion, while that relationship, as conveyed through ideas of love and family, is also the basis for acting ethically and in obedience to Jesus. These, combined with Jesus’ exemplary life providing the form of ethical action required in imitation, point to the christological necessity for the ethical aspect of devotion in John.

10.1.4 Motivation for Reshaping the Ongoing Aspect

The Johannine presentation of ongoing aspect is linked to the preceding aspects of devotion (cognitive, relational, and ethical). The changed nature of those aspects is the primary driver of the different shape of ongoing devotion. The shift in the cognitive aspect from a relatively minor functional role to an essential and central role for knowing and believing the identity of Jesus lends importance to a continuation of such cognition. Notably, the emphasis on the volitional element of the cognitive aspect requires a continuing acceptance of Jesus’ claims regarding his identity, as such acceptance continues to be determinative for one’s eternal fate. A closer and more intimate relationship leads to the need to continue in that relationship. Where the distance from the gods in the Graeco-Roman world allowed for periodic interaction, the proximity of relationship conveyed through the indwelling presence of Jesus necessitates a continuous relationship. As a human analogy, while a distant friendship may be maintained through occasional letters, a friend who is present cannot be ignored without harm to the relationship. Indeed, the way that the Gospel concludes, not with an absent God but with a risen, living, and present Jesus emphasises to the audience the ongoing relational closeness that devotion to Jesus entails. The distinctions in the ethical aspect likewise require a more ongoing form of devotion. While Graeco-Roman religious ethics could focus upon religious places and activities, Johannine ethics are presented as a way of life, entailing an ongoing pattern of ethical action as part of devotion, rather than occasional obedience. As the demands of Johannine devotion are greater across these aspects, a more all-encompassing form of devotion, so too the chronological demands are greater, necessitating ongoing devotion.

10.1.5 Motivation for Reshaping the Public Aspect

The principal shift between the Graeco-Roman and Johannine presentations of the public aspect of devotion is from being assumed and entailed in public devotional acts, to an essential component of devotion with an emphasis on a verbal confession of faith. One reason for the relative lack of emphasis on public declaration in the Graeco-Roman system is that there was no sense of exclusive allegiance to any single deity. In contrast, believing in Jesus

200

entails an acceptance of his unique identity, one that implicitly excludes all other gods. At the same time, John makes clear that to confess faith in Jesus is likely to entail a cost, as seen both in the fear of some would-be believers (9:22; 12:42) and in Jesus’ warnings to his disciples (15:18; 16:2–3). While these are set in the context of Jewish opposition, devotion to Jesus similarly provoked hostility in the Graeco-Roman world (Pliny, Ep. 10.96–97). Whilst the threat of death may have rarely become reality, in a Graeco-Roman context other lesser hostility was likely. Fear and resentment were provoked by the refusal of followers of Jesus to participate in civic rituals that were seen as necessary for the safety and well-being of a city. Devotional practices that diverged from the norm could be the object of ridicule, as seen in the responses to some practices associated with the cult of Isis (§8.2.4). As demonstrated in §9.2, the form of devotion promoted by John would be visibly distinct from traditional practices. The unique identity of Jesus requires publicly declared exclusive devotion, and yet in the context of potential persecution, those who sought to follow Jesus may have been tempted to keep their faith quiet. John makes clear that silent faith is not compatible with the form of devotion Jesus requires, and instead emphasises the need to make one’s allegiance to Jesus clear.

The public aspect of devotion to Jesus is not merely focused on one’s own allegiance, but on bearing witness so that others might believe. The Gospel refers to those beyond Jesus’ initial disciples who will come to faith (10:16; 11:52; 17:20; 20:31). Genuine belief requires knowledge and acceptance of Jesus’ identity (§6.1), and such knowledge comes through witness. Jesus’ mission is for the whole world (3:16), and he sends his followers as he himself was sent (20:21). Any geographical and ethical limitations are overcome (cf. 4:19– 24) and thus the whole world needs to know that Jesus is the one through whom life is received. Public confession of Jesus’ identity comprises not only an acknowledgement of one’s acceptance of Jesus’ identity, but forms the essential witness through which others might come to believe. Followers of Jesus are called to imitate him, and as Jesus boldly bore witness to his identity, even when the price was execution, so his followers are to do likewise. The centrality of Jesus’ identity, along with his mission to the world which his followers are called to join, therefore entail a necessary response of public witness.

10.1.6 Motivation for Reshaping the Ritual Aspect

As was established in §7.2.7, the primary functions of ritual in the Graeco-Roman world were communication with the gods, and as an occasion to experience the gods. The

201

Johannine rejection of ritual suggests that ritual is not needed to fulfil these functions in the context of devotion to Jesus. We find a reason for that in two of the key aspects of Christology that have already been seen to shape devotion, the incarnation and indwelling. In the first instance, the incarnation is a vehicle of revelation, for Jesus is the only revealer of the Father. As such, God has communicated decisively, and there is no need for ritual to seek such communication from God. The indwelling Spirit continues that communication (16:12– 15), and thus there is no need for ritual actions in order to receive communication from God. The reciprocal communication from people to God is enabled through the closeness of relationship conveyed through indwelling (§10.1.2). Followers of Jesus now can communicate with him as the disciples could during his bodily presence on earth. As well as enabling communication, the incarnation and indwelling negate the need to seek an experience of the divine through ritual. The follower of Jesus has Jesus present with them constantly, and thus the experience of God is a lived daily experience. To the experience of indwelling could be added an experience of the incarnation as mediated through the text of the Gospel, as the literary artistry of the Gospel provides an evocative vehicle to represent the life of Jesus to the audience. As the functions of communicating with and experiencing the divine are met without recourse to ritual, it would be inappropriate to adopt such practices as part of devotion to Jesus.

Ritual acts in the Graeco-Roman world could also have a more transactional framework. While such a transactional model was not universal, the do ut des pattern reflects at least one aspect of Graeco-Roman ritual interaction (§7.2.3). Thus, ritual could involve the supplicant making an offering to the gods in the hope or even expectation of receiving something in return, such as healing or protection. The Gospel presents a picture where God has already acted. God has given his son (3:16), while Jesus is the sacrifice ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ (11:50), using an expression commonly used to indicate the beneficiary of a sacrifice.797 Through that sacrifice comes the gift of life for those who believe, while Jesus repeatedly instructs his followers to simply ask for what they need (14:13–14; 16:23). As God has already acted, there is no need to engage in a rite, hoping that God will act. Indeed, to do so would evidence a lack of trust in God’s revelation as conveyed by the Gospel. Thus, the action of God, and the identity of Jesus as the sacrifice that brings life, require a devotion that abandons Graeco-Roman rituals.

797 Jim, "Greek": 616.

202

The final aspect of Jesus’ identity which shapes the Johannine presentation of ritual is Jesus as Temple replacement. The Temple in Jerusalem, as with Graeco-Roman temples, was the focus for ritual activity, particularly for sacrifices. Yet John presents Jesus as replacing the Temple in Jerusalem (2:19; 4:21–24).798 An end to physical ritual is implied, particularly as the ongoing presence of Jesus is spiritual rather than physical, and thus there is no physical place in which to conduct rituals. The impact of the Temple replacement upon ritual activity may be mitigated if the community of believers is understood as the new temple after Jesus’ departure, as argued by Mary Coloe.799 The gathered community might provide a location for ritual, but it would indicate a transformation of ritual if the people are both the temple and those enacting the ritual. Thus, the identity of Jesus as the replacement of the Temple requires a transformation of traditional ritual practices. The Christological presentation of Jesus as Temple, as sacrifice, and as indwelling all make Graeco-Roman ritual practices incompatible with a right expression of devotion to Jesus.

10.1.7 Summary

When the Graeco-Roman forms of devotion are seen in the light of Johannine Christology, there is an evident mismatch of object and means. The unique identity of Jesus drives the need for knowledge and propositional belief. The incarnation and indwelling of Jesus create a close relationship that does not require external means to sustain. This relationship, along with Jesus’ identity as Son of God and as a model of obedience, establishes the necessity of ethical imitation of Jesus. These changes to the cognitive, relational and ethical aspects result in the need for devotion to be ongoing in a continuous sense. Jesus’ unique identity also requires public confession that conveys a commensurate sole allegiance, as well as representing the message of Jesus for others to respond by believing. The incarnation and indwelling, by enacting a close relationship between Jesus and the believer, remove the need for ritual acts to experience or communicate with Jesus. Jesus’ identity as temple and as sacrifice similarly preclude the use of Graeco-Roman ritual devotion. These aspects of Johannine Christology require a certain form of devotion, giving a reason for the complex presentation of belief in John’s Gospel. That form of devotion stands in stark contrast to those practiced in the Graeco-Roman world, pointing towards a

798 See §2.5; Coloe, God, 84, 99–100; Hoskins, Jesus, 2. 799 Coloe, God, 3.

203

motivation for John to teach his audience the right form of devotion.

The need to teach the right form of devotion is more pressing when the Graeco- Roman tendency towards syncretistic practices is considered. In Graeco-Roman religious expressions it was common to take the forms of devotion offered to one god and replicate them with another. The development of the Cult of Isis reflects these syncretistic tendencies, as the Egyptian origins are overlaid by practices which imitated those of Greek mystery initiations, but which also influenced the conceptions of Isis (see §6.2). Similarly, the Roman worship of their emperors involved offering ἰσόθεοι τιμαί—the same honours as the gods (see §8.3). The ritual honours traditionally given to the gods were applied to the emperor, and thus the forms of ritual tended to align with local customs. In this context, there was the real possibility that devotion to Jesus could be similarly influenced. The early audience, upon being convinced that Jesus was worthy of devotion, might seek to apply their traditional forms of devotion to Jesus.

Given that the Johannine concept of Jesus is incompatible with such devotion, there is a clear motivation for John to not only present the right form of devotion, but to do so in a pervasive (and persuasive) way, in order to prevent such syncretism. The Gospel seeks to reshape the traditional forms of devotion of the Graeco-Roman world, so that those who begin following Jesus might instead express their devotion appropriately. Established paradigms are not shifted easily, and thus the correct form of devotion is reinforced through repetition. Johannine Christology explains the complexity of the Johannine concept of belief, while the need to reshape the devotion of the Graeco-Roman audience explains the pervasiveness of the concept.

10.2 Conclusion

10.2.1 The Purpose of John

This thesis began with the contention that the Gospel of John gives as much attention to how to respond to Jesus as to the issue of to whom one must respond. The intent of the thesis is to answer the questions: (a) what is the nature of the ideal response to Jesus according to John? and (b) why is it presented with the degree of complexity and pervasiveness which we find in the Gospel?

204

The first question has been answered through an analysis of the text of the Gospel, focused upon the language of response to Jesus that is centred upon but not limited to belief. We have demonstrated that the ideal response to Jesus entails cognitive, relational, ethical, ongoing, and public aspects. The ideal response to Jesus, the genuine belief that leads to life (20:31) requires: (1) knowing and accepting that Jesus is the Messiah, the divine Son of God, and the one who is risen, along with belief in the Father who sent Jesus; (2) a close interpersonal relationship with Jesus, characterised by trust and love, and extending out to fellow believers; (3) a life of obedience to Jesus, living in imitation of him, particularly in imitation of his visible love for others; (4) an ongoing allegiance to Jesus, expressed through continuing in the cognitive, relational, and ethical aspects of belief; and (5) a public witness that acknowledges one’s own faith, as well as presenting Jesus in order that others might believe.

The second question has been answered by examining this concept alongside Graeco- Roman patterns of devotion to the gods. The Johannine pattern of devotion has been found to be markedly distinct from the Graeco-Roman patterns. The complexity of the Johannine presentation is dependent upon Johannine Christology, with relational and revelatory aspects primarily shaping the required form of devotion. These foundations in Christology mean that Graeco-Roman forms of devotion are inappropriate to be directed towards Jesus. As a result, there is a purpose for the Gospel to teach right devotion in such a context. The additional feature of the syncretistic tendencies in Graeco-Roman religious practice adds an impetus to such teaching. The pervasiveness of the Johannine concept is explained by the need to reshape the traditional practices of the audience. Therefore, we conclude that the Gospel of John seeks to reshape the devotion of the Graeco-Roman audience into a form of believing that aligns with the identity of Jesus, the Messiah and Son of God.

10.2.2 Contributions

This thesis has contributed to scholarship on the Gospel of John by presenting a comprehensive analysis of the Johannine concept of belief in all its complexity. Where previous studies have identified some of the aspects of devotion outlined above, they have not been fully explored as a coherent required response to Jesus. Thus, to present a complete picture of what the Johannine presentation requires as a response to Jesus is a new contribution. It entails a recognition that ideas such as ‘belief’ are concepts that are conveyed through more than a single lexeme. Earlier approaches which focused solely on πιστεύω

205

provided a limited picture of belief. The present study has presented a more comprehensive picture of the complex concept of belief as presented in the Gospel of John. The range of aspects which comprise genuine belief have been shown to be closely connected throughout the Gospel. In addition, an awareness of the literary feature of the story and discourse levels of the text, and their role regarding the presentation of the characters within the narrative, has enabled greater clarity on the way the characters contribute to the audience’s understanding of genuine belief.

Alongside the analysis of the concept of belief, this thesis has accounted for the complexity and pervasiveness of the Johannine presentation of belief. This explanation includes both an external motivation, in the patterns of devotion of an early audience of the Gospel, and an internal motivation, in Johannine Christology. The external motivation has been explored through the patterns of devotion that comprise the religious repertoire of a Graeco-Roman audience of the Gospel. Graeco-Roman patterns of devotion have been compared to Johannine belief, showing that Johannine belief is notably distinct from Graeco- Roman patterns of devotion. In addition, Johannine Christology renders the Graeco-Roman forms of devotion incompatible with the identity of Jesus, and we have found that the Johannine understanding of Jesus requires the Johannine pattern of belief. The combination of these two factors justify the assertion at the start of the thesis that the Gospel is not only about who to believe, but also, importantly, how to believe. The Gospel has a purpose of conveying how to believe, in order to reshape the devotion of a Graeco-Roman audience into belief that aligns with Jesus’ identity, so that they might genuinely believe and thus receive life.

A further implication of this thesis is a reconsideration of how characters within the narrative are understood. It is common to see the characters within the Gospel as in some way representing different types or categories of response to Jesus, which the audience is to learn from and either emulate or avoid (see §1.2.2). Such models have focused primarily on the content of propositional belief, and while propositional belief is part of the required response, the function of the characters should not be limited to such a role, especially in a way that seeks to narrowly define a wide range of responses.800 Instead, in light of the pervasiveness

800 Thus Moloney’s relatively simple model of no faith, partial faith, and full faith is more helpful than the proliferation of categories suggested by Culpepper or Zumstein. Moloney, "From Cana," 193–95; Culpepper, Anatomy, 146–48; Zumstein, "Stratégie," 249.

206

of the theme of how to respond to Jesus, and the imperative provided by a Graeco-Roman audience, the characters should be seen as part of this strategy of reinforcing the right response. The focus is not to be on their minor variations, and nor does any one character represent the ideal believer.801 Rather, the characters function to model parts of the ideal response, in order to evoke a response of genuine belief in the audience.

The results of this thesis raise an interesting question regarding the Johannine understanding of the Lord’s Supper and baptism. We have found clues in the analysis of the place of ritual in Graeco-Roman devotion and the purpose of the Gospel of reshaping devotion that suggest a coherent explanation for the omission of the Last Supper in John, along with the minimised role for baptism. As John is seeking to dissuade his Graeco-Roman audience from applying their rituals to Jesus, it would be counterproductive to include positive accounts of ritual, or commands to participate in them. Yet the use of allusions, notably in chapter six, preclude identifying John as anti-sacramental.802 This question has room for further research, however it appears that John combines implicit endorsement with a primary strategy to shape the audience’s devotion away from ritual acts.

10.2.3 Further Research

The confines of the thesis have required some questions to be left unanswered, with the most obvious avenue for further research being an investigation of the Johannine concept of devotion in light of the patterns of devotion in second-Temple Judaism. While the content and setting of the Gospel suggests that many of the early audience were Graeco-Roman, undoubtedly many also were diaspora Jews. Some of the issues raised above such as the minimisation of both ritual and of Jesus’ involvement with the Temple suggest that there may be a similar purpose in teaching right devotion in a Jewish context as well as a Graeco-

801 The Beloved Disciple has been identified as the ideal disciple. Farelly, Disciples, 149–50; Beck, Discipleship, 132; Hengel, Johannine, 78. This assessment is problematic given the largely passive role of the Beloved Disciple. While he is made aware of the betrayer, he says nothing (13:25–26), and while he believes at the tomb, he does not bear witness, at least not within the narrative (20:8). Bauckham therefore argues the Beloved Disciple is the ideal witness, and thus ideal author, rather than the ideal disciple. R. J. Bauckham, "The Beloved Disciple as Ideal Author," JSNT 49 (1993), 21–44; cf. Resseguie, "Beloved Disciple," 537; Bennema, Encountering, 181. 802 It is implausible that an audience familiar with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper could read John 6 without seeing an allusion. However, as argued in §3.2, the image of eating and drinking is primarily a metaphor for believing. On the sacraments in John, see R. J. Bauckham, "Sacraments and the Gospel of John," in The Oxford Handbook of Sacramental Theology (eds. B. Hans, et al.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015); F. W. Guyette, "Sacramentality in the Fourth Gospel: Conflicting Interpretations," Ecclesiology 3, no. 2 (2007); F. J. Moloney, "When is John Talking About Sacraments?," ABR 30 (1982); R. E. Brown, "The Johannine Sacramentary Reconsidered," TS 23, no. 2 (1962).

207

Roman one. In addition, it may be that patterns of devotion from the Hebrew Bible have contributed, alongside Christology, to shaping the Johannine concept of devotion.

10.2.4 Conclusion

This thesis has investigated the complex and prominent concept of belief in the Gospel of John. The analysis of the concept as unfolded through the narrative resulted in a five-fold description of belief, encompassing cognitive, relational, ethical, ongoing and public aspects. These aspects reflect some parallels with Graeco-Roman devotion, but in every aspect there is a reshaping and intensification of the scope and significance of the aspect within the Gospel. The only counterexample is that of ritual, which is central to Graeco- Roman devotion but downplayed in John. The extensive presentation of the Johannine concept of belief reflects a deliberate intent to reshape the devotion of the Graeco-Roman audience. Christology provides the motivation for the reshaping, as the form of believing must align with the identity of Jesus, the Messiah and Son of God, in order to be the genuine belief that leads to life. John wants his audience to enjoy life and uses all the resources he has at hand to show his audience the nature of the response which makes this possible.

208

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Achilles Tatius. Leucippe and Cleitophon. Translated by S. Gaselee. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969.

Aelian. On Animals. Translated by A. F. Scholfield. 3 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959.

Aelian, Fragments. In Historical Miscellany. Translated by N. G. Wilson. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Aelius Aristides, Orations 1–16. In F. W. Lenz, C. A. Behr, P. Aelii Aristidis, Opera quae exstant omnia, Vol. I: Orationes I-XVI. Leiden: Brill, 1976–1980.

Aelius Aristides, Orations 17–53. In B. Keil, Aelii Aristidis Smyrnaei quae supersunt omnia Vol II: Orationes XVII-LIII. Berolini: Apud Weidmannos, 1898.

Altertümer von Pergamon. VIII. Edited by M. Fränkel and C. Habicht. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1890–1969.

Apollonius of Tyana. Letters. In Philostratus. Apollonius of Tyana, Volume III: Letters of Apollonius. Ancient Testimonia. Eusebius's Reply to Hierocles. Edited and translated by C. P. Jones. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006.

Appian. The Civil Wars. In Roman History, Volume III: The Civil Wars, Books 1- 3.26. Translated by H. White. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913.

Apuleius. Apologia. Florida. De Deo Socratis. Edited and translated by C. P. Jones. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017.

Apuleius. Metamorphoses (The Golden Ass). 2 vols. Edited and translated by J. Arthur Hanson. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989–1996.

Aristophanes. Birds. In Birds. Lysistrata. Women at the Thesmophoria. Edited and translated by J. Henderson. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.

Aristophanes. Wealth. In Frogs. Assemblywomen. Wealth. Edited and translated by J. Henderson. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002.

Aristotle. Translated by H. Rackham et al. 23 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926–1995.

Artemidorus, Onirocritica. Edited by R. A. Pack. Leipzig: Teubner, 1963.

Audollent, A. Defixionum Tabellae. Paris: Fontemoing, 1904.

Augustus. Res Gestae Divi Augusti. In Velleius Paterculus. Compendium of Roman History. Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Translated by F. W. Shipley. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1924.

209

Babrius, Fables. In Babrius, Phaedrus. Fables. Translated by B. E. Perry. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965.

Cicero. Translated by W. Miller et al. 29 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913–2010.

Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. VII Inscriptiones Africae Latinae. Edited by T. Mommsen. Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburg Academy, 1881

Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. X. Inscriptiones Bruttiorum, Lucaniae, Campaniae, Siciliae, Sardiniae Latinae. Edited by T. Mommsen. Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburg Academy, 1883

Didyma. II. Die Inschriften. Edited by R. Rehm. Berlin: Mann,1958.

Die Inschriften von Ephesos. Edited by H. Wankel et al. 8 vols. Bonn: Habelt, 1979–1984.

Dio Chrysostom. Discourses 1-11. Translated by J. W. Cohoon. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932.

Dio Cassius. Roman History. Translated by E. Cary, H. B. Foster. 9 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914–1927.

Diodorus Siculus. Library of History. Translated by C. H. Oldfather et al. 12 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1933–1967.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Roman Antiquities. Translated by E. Cary. 7 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937–1950.

Epictetus. Discourses. Fragments. The Encheiridion. 2 vols. Translated by W. A. Oldfather. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925–1928.

Ἐπιγραφικὰ τοῦ Ὠρωποῦ. Edited by B. G. Petrakos. Athens: Archaiologika etaireía, 1980.

Euripides, Bacchae. In Bacchae. Iphigenia at Aulis. Rhesus. Edited and translated by D. Kovacs. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003.

Fronto. Correspondence, Volume I. Translated by C. R. Haines. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919.

Galen. On Diseases and Symptoms. Edited and translated by I. Johnston. Cambridge, Cambridge University Pres, 2006.

Galen. Subfiguratio Empirica. In K. Deichgräber. Die griechische Empirikerschule. Berlin, Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1930.

Heliodorus, Aethiopica. Edited by I. Bekkero. Leipzig: Teubner, 1855.

Herrmann, P. and G. Petzl. Tituli Asiae Minoris V, Tituli Lydiae. 3 vols. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1981–2007.

Herrmann, P. and H. Malay. New Documents from Lydia. Wien: Österreichische Akademie

210

der Wissenschaften, 2007.

Herodotus. The Persian Wars. Translated by A. D. Godley. 4 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920–1925.

Hesiod. Works and Days. In Theogony. Works and Days. Testimonia. Edited and translated by G. W. Most. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018.

Homer. Iliad. Translated by A. T. Murray. Revised by W. F. Wyatt. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1924–1925.

Horace. Odes and Epodes. Edited and translated by N. Rudd. Loeb Classical Library 33. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.

Horsley, G. H. R. and S. Mitchell. The Inscriptions of Central Pisidia: Including Texts from Kremna, Ariassos, Keraia, Hyia, Panemoteichos, the Sanctuary of Apollo of the Perminoundeis, Sia, Kocaaliler, and the Döşeme Boǧazı. Bonn: Habelt, 2000.

Iamblichus, De mysteriis. Edited by G. Parthey. Leipzig: Teubner, 1857.

Inscriptiones Creticae. Edited by M. Guarducci. 4 vols. Rome: Libreria dello Stato, 1935– 1950.

Inscriptiones Graecae II et III. Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriors. Edited by J. Kirchner. Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburg Academy, 1913-1940.

Inscriptiones Graecae, IV. Inscriptiones Argolidis. Edited by F. H. von Gaertringen. Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburg Academy, 1929.

Inscriptiones Graecae, X. Inscriptiones Epiri, Macedoniae, Thraciae, Scythiae. Edited by C. Edson. Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburg Academy, 1972.

Inscriptiones Graecae, XII. Inscriptiones insularum maris Aegaei praeter Delum, 2. Inscriptiones Lesbi, Nesi, Tenedi. Edited by W. R. Paton. Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburg Academy, 1899.

Inscriptiones Graecae XII,5. Inscriptiones Cycladum. Edited by F. H. von Gaertringen. 2 vols. Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburg Academy, 1903-1909.

Inscriptiones Graecae, XIV. Inscriptiones Siciliae et Italiae, additis Galliae, Hispaniae, Britanniae, Germaniae inscriptionibus. Edited by G. Kaibel. Berlin: Berlin- Brandenburg Academy, 1890.

Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes. Edited by R. Cagnat. 3 vols. Paris: Leroux, 1906–1927.

Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae. Edited L. Moretti. Rome: Istituto Italiano per la Storia Antica, 1968–91.

Julian. Letters. Epigrams. Against the Galilaeans. Fragments. Translated by W. C. Wright. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1923.

211

Juvenal. Satires. In Juvenal, Persius. Juvenal and Persius. Edited and translated by S. M. Braund. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.

Livy. History of Rome. Translated by B. O. Foster et al. 14 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919–1959.

Lucian. Translated by A. M. Harmon & K. Kilburn. 8 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913–1959.

Lycurgus. Against Leocrates. In Lycurgus, Dinarchus, Demades, Hyperides. Minor Attic Orators, Volume II: Lycurgus. Dinarchus. Demades. Hyperides. Translated by J. O. Burtt. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1954.

Marcus Aurelius. Edited and translated by C. R. Haines. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916.

Martial. Epigrams. Edited and translated by D. R. Shackleton Bailey. 3 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.

Noll, R. Die griechischen und lateinischen Inschriften der wiener Antikensammlung. Vienna: Kunsthistorisches Museum, 1962.

Oribasius, Collectionum Medicarum Reliquiae. Edited by J. Raeder. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1928–1929.

Ovid. Translated by J. G. Frazer et al. Revised by G. P. Goold. 6 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914–1931.

Pausanias. Description of Greece. Translated by W. H. S. Jones. Edited by R. E. Wycherley. 5 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1918–1935.

Petzl, G. Die Beichtinschriften Westkleinasiens. Bonn: Habelt, 1994.

Philo. Translated by F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929–1962.

Philodemus. On Piety. Edited by D. Obbink. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996.

Philostratus. Apollonius of Tyana. Edited and translated by C. P. Jones. 3 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005–2006

Plato. Translated H. N. Fowler et al. 12 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914–2017

Pliny. Natural History. Translated by H. Rackham et al. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1938–1962.

Pliny the Younger. Letters. Panegyricus. Translated by B. Radice. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969.

Plutarch. Lives. Translated by B. Perrin. 11 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914–1926.

212

Plutarch. Moralia. Translated by F. C. Babbitt et al. 15 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927–2004.

Polyaenus, Stratagems. Edited by I. Melber. Leipzig: Teubner, 1887.

Polybius. The Histories. Fragments. Edited and translated by S. Douglas Olson. Translated by W. R. Paton. Revised by F. W. Walbank, Christian Habicht. 6 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010-12.

Porphyry, De abstinentia. Edited by J. Bouffartigue and M. Patillon. 3 vols. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1979.

Porphyry. Pros Markellan. Edited by W. Pötscher. Leiden: Brill, 1969.

Propertius. Elegies. Edited and translated by G. P. Goold. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990.

Seneca. Translated by J. W. Basore. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928–1972.

Sextus Empiricus. Translated by R. G. Bury. 4 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935–1949.

Silius Italicus. Punica. Translated by J. D. Duff. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library 277. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934.

Sokolowski, F. Lois sacrées de l'Asie Mineure. Paris: Boccard, 1955.

Sokolowski, F. Lois sacrées des cités grecques. Supplément. Paris: Boccard, 1962.

Sokolowski, F. Lois sacrées des cités grecques. Paris: Boccard, 1969.

Sophocles. Oedipus Tyrannus. In Ajax. Electra. Oedipus Tyrannus. Edited and translated by H. Lloyd-Jones. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994.

Strabo. Geography. Translated by H. L. Jones. 8 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917–1932.

Suda. Edited by A. Adler. 5 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1928-1938.

Suetonius. Lives of the Caesars. Lives of Illustrious Men. Translated by J. C. Rolfe. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914.

Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Edited by A. Chaniotis, T. Corsten, N. Papazarkadas, E. Stavrianopoulou and R.A. Tybout. Leiden: Brill.

Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. Edited by W. Dittenberger. 4 vols. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1915–1924.

Tacitus. Annals. Translated by J. Jackson. 3 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931–1937.

The Anti-Nicene Fathers. Edited by A. Roberts and J. Donaldson. 1885–1887. 10 vols. Repr.,

213

Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1. Edited by P. Schaff. 1886–1889. 14 vols. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part XI. Edited by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. London, Egypt Exploration Fund, 1915.

Theocritus, Epigrams. In Theocritus, Moschus, Bion. Theocritus. Moschus. Bion. Edited and translated by N. Hopkinson. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015.

Theodoretus, Graecarum Affectionum Curatio. Edited by I. Raeder. Leipzig, Teubner, 1904.

Theophrastus, Peri eusebias. Edited by W. Pötscher. Leiden: Brill, 1964.

Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War. Translated by C. F. Smith. 4 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919–1923.

Tibullus. Elegies. In Catullus, Tibullus. Catullus. Tibullus. Pervigilium Veneris. Translated by F. W. Cornish, J. P. Postgate, J. W. Mackail. Revised by G. P. Goold. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913.

Valerius Maximus. Memorable Doings and Sayings. Edited and translated by D. R. Shackleton Bailey. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.

Vanderlip, V. F. The Four Greek Hymns of Isidorus and the Cult of Isis. Toronto: Hakkert, 1972.

Varro. Antiquitates rerum divinarum. Edited by B. Cardauns. 2 vols. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1976.

Virgil. Eclogues. Georgics. Aeneid. Translated by H. Rushton Fairclough. Revised by G. P. Goold. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916–1918.

Xenophanes. In Poetarum elegiacorum testimonia et fragmenta. Edited by B. Gentili and C. Prato. 2nd ed. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012.

Xenophon. Translated by C. L. Brownson et al. 7 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1918.

Xenophon of Ephesus. Anthia and Habrocomes. In Longus, Xenophon of Ephesus. Daphnis and Chloe. Anthia and Habrocomes. Edited and translated by J. Henderson. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.

214

Secondary Sources

Abbott, E. A. Johannine Vocabulary: A Comparison of the Words of the Fourth Gospel with Those of the Three. London: Black, 1905.

Adkisson, R. L. "An Examination of the Concept of Believing as a Dominant Motif in the Gospel of John." PhD thesis, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1990.

Akala, A. J. The Son-Father Relationship and Christological Symbolism in the Gospel of John. London: Bloomsbury, 2014.

Alexander, L. "A Map of Understanding: The Riskiness of Trust in the World of the Early Christians." JSNT 40, no. 3 (2018): 276–288.

Alvar Ezquerra, J. Romanising Oriental Gods: Myth, Salvation and Ethics in the Cults of Cybele, Isis and Mithras. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Anderson, D. R. "The Nature of Faith." Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 5, no. 4 (1999): 2–26.

Anderson, P. N. "On 'Seamless Robes' and 'Leftover Fragments'—A Theory of Johannine Composition." Pages 169–218 in The Origins of John's Gospel. Edited by S. E. Porter and H. T. Ong. Leiden: Brill, 2016.

Ando, C. "Exporting Roman Religion." Pages 429–445 in A Companion to Roman Religion. Edited by J. Rüpke. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007.

Ando, C. The Matter of the Gods: Religion and the Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008.

Ando, C. "The Ontology of Religious Institutions." History of Religions 50, no. 1 (2010): 54– 79.

Appold, M. L. The Oneness Motif in the Fourth Gospel: Motif Analysis and Exegetical Probe into the Theology of John. Tübingen: Mohr, 1976.

Armstrong, A. H. Classical Mediterranean Spirituality: Egyptian, Greek, Roman. New York: Crossroad, 1986.

Arndt, W. F., F. W. Gingrich, W. Bauer, and F. W. Danker. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Arnold, C. E. "‘I Am Astonished That You Are So Quickly Turning Away!’ (Gal 1.6): Paul and Anatolian Folk Belief." NTS 51 (2005): 429–449.

Balabanski, V. "The Prayer of Jesus as an Inspiration and Call to Ecumenical Unity: Looking for "Jesuanic Resonance" in John 17:20–21." Pages 635–650 in Jesus – Gestalt und Gestaltungen: Rezeptionen des Galiläers in Wissenschaft, Kirche und Gesellschaft. Edited by P. von Gemünden, D. G. Horrell, and M. Küchler. Freiburg: Vandenhoeck

215

& Ruprecht, 2013.

Ball, D. M. ‘I Am’ in John’s Gospel: Literary Function, Background and Theological Implications. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996.

Barclay, W. New Testament Words. London: SCM, 1964.

Barnes, T. D. "Legislation against the Christians." JRS 58 (1968): 32–50.

Barr, J. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961.

Barr, J. "Words for Love in Biblical Greek." Pages 3–18 in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology in Memory of George Bradford Caird. Edited by L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.

Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. London: SPCK, 1955.

Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. Second ed. London: SPCK, 1978.

Barrosse, T. "The Relationship of Love to Faith in St John." TS 18 (1957): 538–559.

Barth, G. "Pistis in hellenistischer Religiosität." ZNW 73, no. 1 (1982): 110–126.

Barus, A. "The Faith Motif in John's Gospel: A Narrative Approach." PhD Thesis, University of Aberdeen, 2000.

Bassler, J. M. "Mixed Signals: Nicodemus in the Fourth Gospel." JBL 108, no. 4 (1989): 635–646.

Bassler, J. M. "The Galileans: A Neglected Factor in Johannine Community Research." CBQ 43, no. 2 (1981): 243–257.

Bates, M. W. Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017.

Bauckham, R. Gospel of Glory: Major Themes in Johannine Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015.

Bauckham, R. J. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

Bauckham, R. J. "John for Readers of Mark." Pages 147–171 in The Gospels for All Christians. Edited by R. Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Bauckham, R. J. "Sacraments and the Gospel of John." Pages 83–96 in The Oxford Handbook of Sacramental Theology. Edited by B. Hans and M. Levering. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

216

Bauckham, R. J. "The Beloved Disciple as Ideal Author," JSNT 49 (1993), 21–44

Bauckham, R. J. ed. The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Bauckham, R. J. The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Beard, M. "Cicero and Divination: The Formation of a Latin Discourse." JRS 76 (1986): 33– 46.

Beard, M. and M. Crawford. Rome in the Late Republic. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985.

Beard, M., J. A. North, and S. R. F. Price. Religions of Rome. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. John. 2nd ed., Waco, TX: Word, 1987.

Beck, D. R. The Discipleship Paradigm: Readers and Anonymous Characters in the Fourth Gospel. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Beck, R. "Mystery Religions, Aretalogy and the Ancient Novel." Pages 131–150 in The Novel in the Ancient World. Edited by G. Schmeling. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

Becker, J. "Wunder und Christologie: Zum literarkritischen und christologischen Problem der Wunder im Johannesevangelium." NTS 16 (1969-70): 130–148.

Beerden, K. Worlds Full of Signs: Ancient Greek Divination in Context. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

Beirne, M. M. Women and Men in the Fourth Gospel: A Genuine Discipleship of Equals. London: Sheffield Academic, 2003.

Belayche, N. "Individualization and Religious Rhetoric in Imperial Anatolia." Pages 243–266 in The Individual in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean. Edited by J. Rüpke. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Belayche, N. "Les stèles dites de confession: une religiosité originale dans l‘Anatolie impériale?" Pages 73–81 in The Impact of Imperial Rome on Religions, Ritual and Religious Life in the Roman Empire. Edited by L. d. Blois, P. Funke, and J. Hahn. Leiden: Brill, 2006.

Belayche, N. "Priests as Diviners: An Impact on Religious Changes in Imperial Anatolia?" Pages 112–135 in Priests and Prophets among Pagans, Jews and Christians. Edited by B. Dignas, R. Parker, and G. G. Stroumsa. Leuven: Peeters, 2013.

Bell, C. Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Bendlin, A. "Looking Beyond the Civic Compromise: Religious Pluralism in Late Republican Rome." Pages 115–35 in Religion in Archaic and Republican Rome and

217

Italy: Evidence and Experience. Edited by E. Bispham and C. Smith. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000.

Bendlin, A. "Peripheral Centres – Central Peripheries: Religious Communication in the Roman Empire." Pages 35–68 in Römische Reichsreligion und Provinzialreligion. Edited by H. Cancik and J. Rüpke. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997.

Bendlin, A. "Religion at Rome." Pages 189–216 in Themes in Roman Society and Culture. Edited by M. Gibbs, M. Nikolic, and P. Ripat. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Bendlin, A. "Rituals or Beliefs? ‘Religion’ and the Religious Life of Rome." Scripta Classica Israelica XX (2001): 191–208.

Bennema, C. A Theory of Character in New Testament Narrative. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014.

Bennema, C. "Character Reconstruction in the New Testament (1): The Theory." ExpT 127, no. 8 (2016): 365–374.

Bennema, C. "Character Reconstruction in the New Testament (2): The Practice." ExpT 127, no. 9 (2016): 417–429.

Bennema, C. Encountering Jesus: Character Studies in the Gospel of John. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009.

Bennema, C. "Mimesis in John 13: Cloning or Creative Articulation?" NovT 56 (2014): 261– 274.

Bennema, C., "Moral Transformation in the Johannine Writings," IDS 51, no. 3 (2017) a2120. https://doi.org/10.4102/ids.v51i3.2120

Bennema, C. "Moral Transformation through Mimesis in the Johannine Tradition." TynBul 69, no. 2 (2018): 183–203.

Bennema, C. "The Character of John in the Fourth Gospel." JETS 52, no. 2 (2009): 271–284.

Bennema, C. "The Giving of the Spirit in John's Gospel - A New Proposal?" EvQ 74, no. 3 (2002): 195–213.

Bennema, C. "The Identity and Composition of ΟΙ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ in the Gospel of John," TynBul 60, no. 2 (2009): 239–63.

Betz, H. D. ed. Plutarch's Theological Writings and Early Christian Literature. Leiden: Brill, 1975.

Beutler, J. A Commentary on the Gospel of John. Translated by M. Tait. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017.

Beutler, J. "Faith and Confession: The Purpose of John." Pages 19–31 in Word, Theology, and Community in John. Edited by J. Painter, R. A. Culpepper, and F. F. Segovia. St.

218

Louis, MO: Chalice, 2002.

Beutler, J. "Greeks Come to See Jesus (John 12,20f)." Bib 71, no. 3 (1990): 333–347.

Biguzzi, G. "Ephesus, Its Artemision, Its Temple to the Flavian Emperors, and Idolatry in Revelation." NovT 40, no. 3 (1998): 276–290.

Black, D. A. Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek: A Survey of Basic Concepts and Applications. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988.

Black, D. A. and J. Cerone eds. The Pericope of the Adulteress in Contemporary Research. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016.

Blaine, B. B. J. Peter in the Gospel of John: The Making of an Authentic Disciple. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2007.

Boedeker, D. "Family Matters: Domestic Religion in Classical Greece." Pages 229–247 in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity. Edited by J. Bodel and S. M. Olyan. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008.

Boers, H. Neither on This Mountain Nor in Jerusalem. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1988.

Böhler, D. "Liebe und Freundschaft im Johannesevangelium. Zum alttestamentlichen Hintergrund von Joh 21,15-19." Bib 96, no. 4 (2015): 599–608.

Bolt, P. Jesus' Defeat of Death: Persuading Mark's Early Readers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Bolt, P. "Life, Death, and the Afterlife in the Greco-Roman World." Pages 51–79 in Life in the Face of Death. Edited by R. N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Bolt, P. "What Fruit Does the Vine Bear? Some Pastoral Implications of John 15:1–8." RTR 51, no. 1 (1992): 11–19.

Bonney, W. Caused to Believe: The Doubting Thomas Story at the Climax of John’s Christological Narrative. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

Booth, A. "Long Live the King: The Fourth Gospel's Responses to Greco-Roman Suspicions Concerning Monarchy." JGRChJ 13 (2017): 189–212.

Bortone, P. Greek Prepositions from Antiquity to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Botha, J. E. "The Meanings of Pisteúō in the Greek New Testament: A Semantic- Lexicographical Study." Neot 21, no. 2 (1987): 225–240.

Bowersock, G. W. Augustus and the Greek World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965.

Bradley, K. "Contending with Conversion: Reflections on the Reformation of Lucius the Ass." Phoenix 52, no. 3/4 (1998): 315–334.

219

Brant, J.-A. A. Dialogue and Drama: Elements of Greek Tragedy in the Fourth Gospel. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004.

Brant, J.-A. A. John. Grand Rapids: Michigan, 2011.

Braun, F.-M. Jean le théologien. 3 vols. Paris: Gabalda, 1959.

Bremmer, J. N. "Atheism in Antiquity." Pages 11–26 in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Edited by M. Martin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Bremmer, J. N. "Greek Normative Animal Sacrifice." Pages 132–144 in A Companion to Greek Religion. Edited by D. Ogden. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007.

Bremmer, J. N. "Imperial Mysteries." Mètis 14 (2016): 21–34.

Bremmer, J. N. "'Religion', 'Ritual' and the Opposition 'Sacred vs. Profane': Notes towards a Terminological 'Genealogy'." Pages 9–32 in Ansichten griechischer Rituale. Edited by F. Graf. Stuttgart & Leipzig: Teubner, 1998.

Bremmer, J. N. "Why Did Jesus' Followers Call Themselves 'Christians'?" Pages 3–12 in Maidens, Magic and Martyrs in Early Christianity. Edited by J. N. Bremmer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017.

Brenk, F. "An Imperial Heritage: The Religious Spirit of Plutarch of Chaeronea." ANRW 36.1:248–349. Part 2, Principat, 36.1. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. New York: de Gruyter, 1987.

Brown, R. E. An Introduction to the Gospel of John. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003.

Brown, R. E. The Community of the Beloved Disciple. London: Cassell, 1979.

Brown, R. E. The Gospel According to John. 2 vols., Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966-70.

Brown, R. E. "The Johannine Sacramentary Reconsidered." TS 23, no. 2 (1962): 183–206.

Brown, S. "Believing in the Gospel of John: The Ethical Imperative to Becoming Children of God." Pages 3–24 in Johannine Ethics: The Moral World of the Gospel and Epistles of John. Edited by S. Brown and C. W. Skinner. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017.

Brown, S. and C. W. Skinner eds. Johannine Ethics: The Moral World of the Gospel and Epistles of John. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017.

Bruce, F. F. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Bruner, F. D. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.

Buch-Hansen, G. "The Johannine Literature in a Greek Context." Pages 138–154 in The Oxford Handbook of Johannine Studies. Edited by J. M. Lieu and M. C. de Boer.

220

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Bultmann, R. The Gospel of John. Oxford: Blackwell, 1971.

Bultmann, R. Theology of the New Testament. Vol. 2. London: SCM, 1965.

Burdick, D. W. "Οἰδα and Γινώσκω in the Pauline Epistles." Pages 344–356 in New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Edited by R. N. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974.

Burge, G. M. The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

Burkert, W. Ancient Mystery Cults. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987.

Burkert, W. Greek Religion. Translated by J. Raffan. Oxford: Blackwell, 1985.

Burrell, B. Neokoroi: Greek Cities and Roman Emperors. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

Burridge, R. Imitating Jesus : An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.

Busine, A. "Oracles and Civic Identity in Roman Asia Minor." Pages 175–196 in Cults, Creeds and Identities in the Greek City after the Classical Age. Edited by R. Alston, O. M. Van Nijf, and C. G. Williamson. Leuven: Peeters, 2013.

Busine, A. Paroles d'Apollon: Pratiques et traditions oraculaires dans l’Antiquité tardive (IIe–VIe siècle). Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Buth, R. "Οὖν, Δέ, Καί, and Asyndeton in John’s Gospel." Pages 144–161 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis. Edited by D. A. Black. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.

Byrne, B. Life Abounding: A Reading of John's Gospel. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2014.

Byrne, B. "The Faith of the Beloved Disciple and the Community in John 20." Pages 31–45 in The Johannine Writings. Edited by S. E. Porter and C. A. Evans. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.

Byrne, P. "That You May Come to Believe that Jesus is the Messiah (John 20)." The DRev 135, no. 2 (2017): 99–110.

Calvin, J. The Gospel According to St. John 1–10. Translated by T. H. L. Parker. Edinburgh: St. Andrew, 1959.

Campbell, C. R. Paul and Union with Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012.

Cancik, H. and H. Schneider, eds. Der neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike. Das klassische Altertum und seine Rezeptionsgeschichte. 18 vols. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1996–2003.

221

Capes, D. B. "Imitatio Christi and the Gospel Genre." BBR 13, no. 1 (2003): 1–19.

Caragounis, C. C. "‘Abide in Me’: The New Mode of Relationship between Jesus and His Followers as a Basis for Christian Ethics (John 15)." Pages 250–263 in Rethinking the Ethics of John. Edited by J. G. van der Watt and R. Zimmermann. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012.

Caragounis, C. C. "What Did Jesus Mean by τὴν ἀρχήν in John 8:25?" NovT 49, no. 2 (2007): 129–147.

Carbon, J.-M. and V. Pirenne-Delforge. "Beyond Greek 'Sacred Laws'." Kernos 25 (2012): 163–182.

Carbon, J.-M. and V. Pirenne-Delforge. "Codifying ‘Sacred Laws’ in Ancient Greece." Pages 141–57 in Writing Laws in Antiquity/L’écriture du droit dans l’Antiquité. Edited by D. Jaillard and C. Nihan. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2017.

Carbon, J.-M. and V. Pirenne-Delforge. "Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families." Pages 65–119 in Cities and Priests: Cult personnel in Asia Minor and the Aegean islands from the Hellenistic to the Imperial period. Edited by M. Horster and A. Klöckner. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013.

Carson, D. A. Exegetical Fallacies. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.

Carson, D. A. "Syntactical and Text-Critical Observations on John 20:30–31: One More Round on the Purpose of the Fourth Gospel." JBL 124, no. 4 (2005): 693–714.

Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Carson, D. A. "The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: John 20:31 Reconsidered." JBL 106, no. 4 (1987): 639–651.

Carson, D. A. "Understanding Misunderstandings in the Fourth Gospel." TynBul 33 (1982): 59–91.

Carter, W. John and Empire: Initial Explorations. London: T&T Clark, 2008.

Cassidy, R. J. John's Gospel in New Perspective: Christology and the Realities of Roman Power. New York: Orbis, 1992.

Chaniotis, A. "Constructing Fear of Gods: Epigraphic Evidence from Sanctuaries of Greece and Asia Minor." Pages 205–234 in Unveiling Emotions: Sources and Methods for the Study of Emotions in the Greek World. Edited by A. Chaniotis. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2012.

Chaniotis, A. "Greek Ritual Purity From Automatisms to Moral Distinctions." Pages 123–139 in How Purity is Made. Edited by P. Rösch and U. Simon. Weisbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012.

222

Chaniotis, A. "Illness and Cures in the Greek Propitiary Inscriptions and Dedications." Pages 323–344 in Ancient Medicine in its Socio-Cultural Context. Edited by H. F. J. Horstmanshoff, P. J. van der Eijk, and P. H. Schrijvers. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

Chaniotis, A. "Negotiating Religion in the Cities of the Eastern Roman Empire." Kernos 16 (2003): 177–90.

Chaniotis, A. "Processions in Hellenistic Cities: Contemporary Discourses and Ritual Dynamics." Pages 21–47 in Cults, Creeds and Identities in the Greek City after the Classical Age. Edited by R. Alston, O. M. van Nijf, and C. G. Williamson. Leuven: Peeters, 2013.

Chaniotis, A. "Ritual Dynamics in the Eastern Mediterranean: Case Studies in Ancient Greece and Asia Minor." Pages 141–166 in Rethinking the Mediterranean. Edited by W. V. Harris. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Chaniotis, A. "Staging and Feeling the Presence of God." Pages 169–189 in Panthée: Religious Transformations in the Roman Empire. Edited by L. Bricault and C. Bonnet. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

Chaniotis, A. "The Divinity of Hellenistic Rulers." Pages 431–45 in A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Edited by A. Erskine. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003.

Chaniotis, A. "Under the Watchful Eyes of the Gods: Divine Justice in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor." Pages 1–43 in The Greco-Roman East: Politics, Culture, Society. Edited by S. Colvin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Chatman, S. B. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978.

Chennattu, R. M. Johannine Discipleship as Covenant Relationship. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006.

Christensen, L. B. "'Cult' in the Study of Religion and Archaeology." Pages 13–28 in Aspects of Ancient Greek Cult: Context, Ritual and Iconography. Edited by J. T. Jensen, G. Hinge, P. Schultz, and B. Wickkiser. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2009.

Clark-Soles, J. "Mary Magdalene: Beginning at the End." Pages 626–640 in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel. Edited by S. A. Hunt, D. F. Tolmie, and R. Zimmerman. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.

Clauss, M. Kaiser und Gott: Herrscherkult im römischen Reich. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1999.

Collins, A. Y. "Narrative, History, and Gospel." Semeia 43 (1988): 145–153.

Collins, R. F. "'Blessed are those who have not Seen': John 20:29." Pages 173–190 in Transcending Boundaries: Contemporary Readings of the New Testament: Essays in Honor of Francis J. Moloney. Edited by R. M. Chennattu and M. L. Coloe. Rome: LAS, 2005.

223

Collins, R. F. "'Follow Me': A Life-Giving Ethical Imperative." Pages 43–63 in Johannine Ethics: The Moral World of the Gospel and Epistles of John. Edited by S. Brown and C. W. Skinner. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017.

Collins, R. F. "From John to the Beloved Disciple: An Essay on Johannine Characters." Int 49, no. 4 (1995): 359–369.

Collins, R. F. These Things Have Been Written: Studies on the Fourth Gospel. Louvain: Peeters, 1990.

Collins, R. F. "‘Who Are You?’ Comparison/Contrast and Fourth Gospel Characterization." Pages 59–78 in Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John. Edited by C. W. Skinner. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark 2013.

Coloe, M. L. God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2001.

Coloe, M. L. "John 17:1–26: The Missionary Prayer of Jesus." ABR 66 (2018): 1–12.

Coloe, M. L. "Welcome into the Household of God: The Foot Washing in John 13." CBQ 66 (2004): 400–15.

Conway, C. M. Men and Women in the Fourth Gospel: Gender and Johannine Characterization. Atlanta: SBL Press, 1999.

Cook, R. The Theology of John Chicago: Moody Press, 1979.

Corke-Webster, J. "Trouble in Pontus: The Pliny-Trajan Correspondence on the Christians Reconsidered." TAPA 147, no. 2 (2017): 371–411.

Cotterell, F. P. "The Nicodemus Conversation: A Fresh Appraisal." ExpT 96, no. 8 (1985): 237–242.

Cotterell, P. and M. Turner. Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation. London: SPCK, 1989.

Crook, Z. A. "Fictive-friendship and the Fourth Gospel." HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 67, no. 3 (2011), Art. #997, 7 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v67i3.997.

Crook, Z. A. Reconceptualising Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004.

Croteau, D. A. "An Analysis of the Concept of Believing in the Narrative Contexts of John's Gospel." MTh thesis, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002.

Cullmann, O. "Eiden kai episteusen: La vie de Jésus, objet de la ‘vue’ et de la ‘foi’ d’après le quatrième évangile." Pages 52–61 in Aux sources de la tradition chrétienne: Mélanges offerts à M. Maurice Goguel. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1950.

Culpepper, R. A. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.

224

Culpepper, R. A. "Inclusivism and Exclusivism in the Fourth Gospel." Pages 85–108 in Word, Theology, and Community in John. Edited by J. Painter, R. A. Culpepper, and F. F. Segovia. St Louis, MO: Chalice, 2002.

Culpepper, R. A. "Nicodemus: The Travail of New Birth." Pages 249–59 in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel. Edited by S. A. Hunt, D. F. Tolmie, and R. Zimmerman. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.

Culpepper, R. A. "Temple Violation: Reading John 2:13–22 at the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus." Pages 289–313 in The Opening of John's Narrative (John 1:19–2:22). Edited by R. A. Culpepper and J. Frey. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017.

Culpepper, R. A. "The Johannine Hypodeigma: A Reading of John 13." Semeia 53 (1991): 133–52.

Culpepper, R. A. The Johannine School. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1975.

Culpepper, R. A. "The Pivot of John's Prologue." NTS 27, no. 1 (1980): 1–31.

Cumont, F. Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism. Chicago: Open Court, 1911.

Cuss, D. Imperial Cult and Honorary Terms in the New Testament. Fribourg: Fribourg University Press, 1974.

Cuvigny, H. "The Shrine in the praesidium of Dios (Eastern Desert of Egypt): Graffiti and Oracles in Context." Chiron 40 (2010): 245–300.

Davies, M. "Sisyphus and the Invention of Religion (‘Critias' TrGF 1 (43) F 19 = B 25 DK)." Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 36 (1989): 16–32.

De Boer, M. C. "Narrative Criticism, Historical Criticism, and the Gospel of John." JSNT 47, no. 1 (1992): 35–48.

De Boer, M. C. "The Original Prologue to the Gospel of John." NTS 61 (2015): 448–467. de Hoz, M. P. "The Aretalogical Character of the Maionian 'Confession' Inscriptions." Pages 357–367 in Estudios de Epigrafía Griega. Edited by Á. M. Fernández. La Laguna: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de La Laguna, 2009. de Jonge, M. Jesus: Stranger from Heaven and Son of God. Translated by J. E. Steely. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1977. de Jonge, M. "Jewish Expectations about the 'Messiah' according to the Fourth Gospel." NTS 19 (1973): 246–270. de la Potterie, I. "Genèse de la foi pascale d'après Jn. 20." NTS 30 (1984): 26–49. de la Potterie, I. La vérité dans saint Jean. 2 vols. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977.

225

de la Potterie, I. "L'emploi dynamique de εἰς dans Saint Jean et ses incidences théologiques." Bib 43, no. 3 (1962): 366–387. de la Potterie, I. "οἶδα et γινώσκω les deux modes de la connaissance dans le quatrième évangile." Bib 40, no. 3 (1959): 709–725. de Ste Croix, G. E. M. "Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?" Past & Present 26 (1963): 6–38.

Decourtray, A. "La conception johannique de la foi." NRTh 81, no. 6 (1959): 562–576.

DeFilippo, J. G. "Curiositas and the Platonism of Apuleius' Golden Ass." AJP 111, no. 4 (1990): 471–492.

Denaux, A. "The Twofold Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: A Reading of the Conclusion to John's Gospel (20:31)." Pages 519–36 in Studies in the Gospel of John and its Christology. Edited by J. Verheyden, G. Van Oyen, M. Labahn, and R. Bieringer. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. den Boer, W. Private Morality in Greece and Rome: Some Historical Aspects. Leiden: Brill, 1979.

Devillers, L. "Le prologue du quatrième évangile, clé de voûte de la littérature johannique." NTS 58 (2012): 317–330.

Dillon, M. P. J. "The Didactic Nature of the Epidaurian Iamata." ZPE 101 (1994): 239–260.

Dillow, J. C. "Abiding Is Remaining in Fellowship: Another Look at John 15:1–6." BSac 147, no. 585 (1990): 44–53.

Dodd, C. H. The Bible and the Greeks. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935.

Dodd, C. H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: University Press, 1968.

Dodds, E. R. Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety: Some Aspects of Religious Experience from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Domeris, W. R. "The Holy One of God as a Title for Jesus." Neot 19 (1985): 9–17.

Dongell, J. R. John: A Bible Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition. Indianapolis: Wesleyan, 1997.

Downie, J. "Dream Hermeneutics in Aelius Aristides' Hieroi Logoi." Pages 109–127 in Dreams, Healing, and Medicine in Greece: From Antiquity to the Present. Edited by S. M. Oberhelman. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2013.

Downie, J. "Narrative and Divination: Artemidorus and Aelius Aristides." ARG 15, no. 1 (2014): 97–116.

226

Driediger-Murphy, L. G. "'Do Not Examine, But Believe!' A Classicist's Perspective on Teresa Morgan's Roman Faith and Christian Faith." RelS 54, no. 4 (2018): 568–576. du Toit, B. A. "The Aspect of Faith in the Gospel of John with Special Reference to the Farewell Discourses of Jesus." Neot 25, no. 2 (1991): 327–340.

Duke, P. D. Irony in the Fourth Gospel. Atlanta: John Knox, 1985.

Dunand, F. Le culte d'Isis dans le bassin oriental de la Méditerranée. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1973.

Dunant, C. "Sus aux voleurs! Une tablette en bronze à inscription grecque du musée de Genève." MH 35, no. 4 (1978): 241–244.

Dunn, J. D. G. Neither Jew Nor Greek: A Contested Identity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.

Edelstein, E. J. L. and L. Edelstein. Asclepius: Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.

Edwards, M. John. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004.

Ehrenberg, V. and A. H. M. Jones. Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus & Tiberius. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976.

Eidinow, E. "Ancient Greek Religion: 'Embedded' ... and Embodied." Pages 54–79 in Communities and Networks in the Ancient Greek World. Edited by C. Taylor and K. Vlassopoulos. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Eidinow, E. "Networks and Narratives: A Model for Ancient Greek Religion." Kernos 24 (2011): 9–38.

Eidinow, E. "Oracular Consultation, Fate, And the Concept of the Individual." Pages 21–39 in Divination in the Ancient World: Religious Options and the Individual. Edited by V. Rosenberger. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2013.

Eidinow, E. "The (Ancient Greek) Subject Supposed to Believe." Numen 66, no. 1 (2019): 56-88.

Ellis, N. J., M. G. Aubrey, and M. Dubis. "The Greek Verbal System and Aspect Prominence: Revising our Taxonomy and Nomenclature." JETS 59, no. 1 (2016): 33– 62.

Elson, T. O. "Disciples and Christology in the Gospel of John: The Contrasting Function of Disciples in Greco-Roman Biography and the Fourth Gospel." PhD thesis, Fuller Theological Seminary, 2002.

Engelmann, H. "Ephesische Inschriften." ZPE 84 (1990): 89–94.

Erickson, R. J. "Oida and Ginōskō and Verbal Aspect in Pauline Usage." WTJ 44, no. 1 (1982): 110–122.

227

Erskine, A. "Epilogue." Pages 505–510 in The Gods of Ancient Greece. Edited by A. Erskine and J. N. Bremmer. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, 2010.

Esler, P. F. and R. A. Piper. Lazarus, Mary and Martha: Social-Scientific Approaches to the Gospel of John. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006.

Estes, D. The Questions of Jesus in John: Logic, Rhetoric and Persuasive Discourse. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

Fahr, W. ΘΕΟΥΣ ΝΟΜΙΖΕΙΝ. Zum Problem der Anfänge des griechischen Atheismus. New York: Hildesheim, 1969.

Fanning, B. M. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990.

Faraone, C. A. "Household Religion in Ancient Greece." Pages 210–28 in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity. Edited by J. Bodel and S. M. Olyan. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008.

Farelly, N. "An Unexpected Ally: Nicodemus’s Role within the Plot of the Fourth Gospel." TJ 34 (2013): 31–43.

Farelly, N. The Disciples in the Fourth Gospel. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.

Fee, G. D. "On the Text and Meaning of John 20:30–31." Pages 29–42 in To What End Exegesis?: Essays Textual, Exegetical, and Theological. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.

Feeney, D. Literature and Religion at Rome: Cultures, Contexts, and Beliefs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Ferngren, G. B. "Introduction." Pages xiii–xxii in Asclepius: collection and interpretation of the testimonies. Edited by E. J. L. Edelstein and L. Edelstein. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.

Festugière, A. J. "À Propos des Arétalogies d'Isis." HTR 42, no. 4 (1949): 209–234.

Festugière, A. J. Personal Religion among the Greeks. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1954.

Fishwick, D. "Pliny and the Christians: The Rites Ad Imaginem Principis." American Journal of Ancient History 9, no. 2 (1984): 123–130.

Fishwick, D. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1987–2004.

Flink, T. "Son and Chosen. A Text-critical Study of John 1,34." Filologia Neotestamentaria 18 (2005): 85–109.

Flower, M. A. The Seer in Ancient Greece. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008.

228

Forestell, J. T. The Word of the Cross. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1974.

Förster, H. "Selbstoffenbarung und Identität. Zur grammatikalischen Struktur der „absoluten“ Ich-Bin-Worte Jesu im Johannesevangelium." ZNW 108, no. 1 (2017): 57–89.

Förster, H. "Überlegungen zur Grammatik von Joh 8,25 im Lichte der handschriftlichen Überlieferung." ZNW 107, no. 1 (2016): 1–29.

Fox, R. L. Pagans and Christians. London: Penguin, 1988.

Frankfurter, D. Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998.

Frey, J. "'Ethical' Traditions, Family Ethos, and Love in the Johannine Literature." Pages 167–204 in Early Christian Ethics in Interaction with Jewish and Greco-Roman Contexts. Edited by J. W. van Henten and J. Verheyden. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

Frey, J. "Glauben und Lieben im Johannesevangelium." Pages 1–54 in Glaube, Liebe, Gespräch: Neue Perspektiven johanneischer Ethik. Edited by C. Hoegen-Rohls and U. Poplutz. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018.

Frey, J. "‘Ich habe den Herrn gesehen’ (Joh 20,28): Entstehung, Inhalt und Vermittlung des Osterglaubens nach Johannes 20." Pages 267–284 in Studien zu Matthäus und Johannes/Études sur Matthieu et Jean. Edited by A. Dettwiler and U. Poplutz. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009.

Frey, J. "Love Relationships in the Fourth Gospel: Establishing a Semantic Network." Pages 171–198 in Repetitions and Variations in the Fourth Gospel. Style, Text, Interpretation. Edited by G. Van Belle, M. Labahn, and P. Maritz. Leuven: Peeters, 2009.

Frey, J. "The Diaspora-Jewish Background of the Fourth Gospel." SEÅ 77 (2012): 169–196.

Friesen, S. J. Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John: Reading Revelation in the Ruins. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Friesen, S. J. Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia, and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family. Leiden: Brill, 1993.

Funk, R. W. "Papyrus Bodmer II P66 and John 8, 25." HTR 51, no. 2 (1958): 95–100.

Gaffney, J. "Believing and Knowing in the Fourth Gospel." TS 26 (1965): 215–241.

Garland, R. Religion and the Greeks. London: Bristol Classical, 1994.

Gasparro, G. S. "Mysteries and Oriental Cults: A Problem in the History of Religions." Pages 276–324 in The Religious History of the Roman Empire. Edited by S. R. F. Price and J. A. North. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

229

Georgoudi, S. "Sacrificing to the Gods: Ancient Evidence and Modern Interpretations." Pages 92–105 in The Gods of Ancient Greece. Edited by J. N. Bremmer and A. Erskine. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010.

Gignac, F. T. "The Use of Verbal Variety in the Fourth Gospel." Pages 191–200 in Transcending Boundaries: Contemporary Readings of the New Testament: Essays in Honor of Francis J. Moloney. Edited by R. M. Chennattu and M. L. Coloe. Rome: LAS, 2005.

Goody, J. "Religion and Ritual: The Definitional Problem." The British Journal of Sociology 12, no. 2 (1961): 142–164.

Gordon, R. "Religion in the Roman Empire: The Civic Compromise and its Limits." Pages 235–255 in Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World. Edited by M. Beard and J. A. North. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990.

Gorman, M. "John's Implicit Ethic of Enemy-Love." Pages 135–158 in Johannine Ethics: The Moral World of the Gospel and Epistles of John. Edited by S. Brown and C. W. Skinner. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017.

Gradel, I. Emperor Worship and Roman Religion. Oxford: Clarendon, 2002.

Graf, F. "Gods in Greek Inscriptions: Some Methodological Questions." Pages 55–80 in The Gods of Ancient Greece: Identities and Transformations. Edited by J. N. Bremmer and A. Erskine. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010.

Grandjean, Y. Une nouvelle arétalogy d’Isis à Maronée. Leiden: Brill, 1975.

Griffiths, J. G. Apuleius of Madauros: The Isis Book (Metamorphoses, Book XI). Leiden: Brill, 1975.

Griffiths, J. G. "Isis and 'The Love of the Gods'." JTS 29, no. 1 (1978): 147–151.

Griffiths, J. G. "Isis in the Metamorphoses of Apuleius." Pages 141–166 in Aspects of Apuleius’ Golden Ass. Edited by B. L. Hijmans and R. T. van der Paardt. Groningen: Bouma’s Boekhuis B.V., 1978.

Griffiths, J. G. "The Great Egyptian Cults of Oecumenical Spiritual Significance." Pages 39– 65 in Classical Mediterranean Spirituality: Egyptian, Greek, Roman. Edited by A. H. Armstrong. New York: Crossroad, 1986.

Grijalvo, E. M. "Elites and Religious Change in Roman Athens." Numen 52, no. 2 (2005): 255–82.

Gruen, E. S. "Greek Πίστις and Roman Fides." Athenaeum 60 (1982): 50–68.

Guthrie, D. New Testament Theology. Chicago: IVP, 1981.

Guyette, F. W. "Sacramentality in the Fourth Gospel: Conflicting Interpretations." Ecclesiology 3, no. 2 (2007): 235–250.

230

Habicht, C. "Die augusteische Zeit und das erste Jahrhundert nach Christi Geburt." Pages 41– 88 in Le Culte des souverains dans l'Empire Romain. Edited by W. den Boer. Geneva: Foundation Hardt, 1973.

Haenchen, E. A Commentary on the Gospel of John. Translated by R. W. Funk. 2 vols., Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

Hakola, R. "The Burden of Ambiguity: Nicodemus and the Social Identity of the Johannine Christians," NTS 55, no. 4 (2009): 438–55.

Harder, R. Karpokrates von Chalkis und die memphitische Isispropaganda. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1944.

Harmon, D. P. "Religion in the Latin Elegists." ANRW 16.3:1909–1973. Part 2, Principat, 16.3. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. New York: de Gruyter, 1986.

Harris, E. "Toward a Typology of Greek Regulations about Religious Matters: A Legal Approach." Kernos 28 (2015): 53–83.

Harris, M. J. Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012.

Harrison, J. E. Prolegomena to the study of Greek religion. 3rd ed. London: Cambridge University Press, 1922.

Harrison, S. J. "Apuleius' Metamorphoses." Pages 491–516 in The Novel in the Ancient World. Edited by G. Schmeling. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

Harrison, T. "Beyond the Polis? New Approaches to Greek Religion." JHS 135 (2015): 165– 180.

Harrison, T. Divinity and History: The Religion of Herodotus. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000.

Hasler, V. "Glauben und Erkenne im Johannesevangelium: Strukturale und hermeneutische Überlegungen." EvT 50, no. 4 (1990): 279–296.

Hawthorne, G. F. "The Concept of Faith in the Fourth Gospel." BSac 116, no. 462 (1959): 117–126.

Hays, R. B. "Reading Scripture in Light of the Resurrection." Pages 216–38 in The Art of Reading Scripture. Edited by E. F. Davis and R. B. Hays. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

Hays, R. B. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation, a Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.

Heil, J. P. The Gospel of John: Worship for Divine Life Eternal. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015.

231

Heilmann, J. Wein und Blut: Das Ende der Eucharistie im Johannesevangelium und dessen Konsequenzen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2014.

Henault, B. W. "John 4:43–54 and the Ambivalent Narrator. A response to Culpepper’s Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel." Studies in Religion/Sciences Religiuses 19, no. 3 (1990): 287–304.

Hengel, M. The Johannine Question. Translated by J. Bowden. London: SCM, 1989.

Hengel, M. The Son of God. London: SCM, 1976.

Henrichs, A. "The Sophists and Hellenistic Religion: Prodicus as the Spiritual Father of the Isis Aretalogies." HSCP 88 (1985): 139–158.

Henrichs, A. "What is a Greek God?" Pages 19–40 in The Gods of Ancient Greece: Identities and Transformations. Edited by R. N. Bremmer and A. Erskine. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010.

Henrichs, A. "What is a Greek Priest?" Pages 1–14 in Practitioners of the Divine: Greek Priests and Religious Figures from Homer to Heliodorus. Edited by B. Dignas and K. Trampedach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008.

Heyob, S. K. The Cult of Isis among Women in the Graeco-Roman World. Leiden: Brill, 1975.

Hillmer, M. R. "They Believed in Him: Discipleship in the Johannine Tradition." Pages 77– 97 in Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament. Edited by R. N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Hirsch-Luipold, R. "Religiöse Tradition und individueller Glaube: Πίστις und πιστεύειν bei Plutarch als Hintergrund zum neutestamentlichen Glaubensverständnis," in Glaube (eds. J. Frey, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 251–73.

Hodges, Z. C. "Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 2: Untrustworthy Believers— John 2:23–25." BSac 135, no. 538 (1978): 139–152.

Hodges, Z. C. "Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 4: Coming to the Light—John 3:20–21." BSac 135, no. 540 (1978): 314–322.

Hooker, M. D. "The Johannine Prologue and the Messianic Secret." NTS 21, no. 1 (1974): 40–58.

Hopkins, A. D. "A Narratological Approach to the Development of Faith in the Gospel of John." PhD thesis, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1992.

Horrocks, G. Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley- Blackwell, 2010.

Horsley, G. H. R. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: A Review of the Greek

232

Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1976. Vol. 1. North Ryde, NSW: Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, 1981.

Horsley, G. H. R. "The Inscriptions of Ephesus and the New Testament." NovT 34, no. 2 (1992): 105–168.

Horsley, R. A. "Religion and Other Products of Empire." JAAR 71, no. 1 (2003): 13–44.

Horster, M. "Priests, Priesthoods, Cult Personnel - Traditional and New Approaches." Pages 5–26 in Civic Priests: Cult Personnel in Athens from the Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity. Edited by M. Horster and A. Klöckner. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012.

Hoskins, P. M. Jesus as the Fulfillment of the Temple in the Gospel of John. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006.

Hubbard, M. V. "Greek Religion." Pages 105–123 in The World of the New Testament. Edited by J. B. Green and L. M. McDonald. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017.

Hunn, D. "The Believers Jesus Doubted: John 2:23–25." TJ 25, no. 1 (2004): 15–25.

Hunt, S. A., D. F. Tolmie, and R. Zimmerman eds. Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.

Hurtado, L. W. Destroyer of the Gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016.

Hylen, S. E. Imperfect Believers: Ambiguous Characters in the Gospel of John. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009.

Israelowich, I. Society, Medecine and Religion in the Sacred Tales of Aelius Aristides. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

Jensen, A. S. John's Gospel as Witness: The Development of the Early Christian Language of Faith. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004.

Jensen, M. D. "John Is No Exception: Identifying the Subject of εἰμἰ and Its Implications." JBL 135, no. 2 (2016): 341–353.

Jerumanis, P.-M. Réaliser la communion avec Dieu: Croire, vivre, et demeurer dans l’évangle selon S. Jean. Paris: Gabalda, 1996.

Jim, T. S. F. "On Greek Dedicatory Practices: The Problem of hyper." GRBS 54 (2014): 616– 37.

Johnson, L. T. Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 2009.

Jojko, B. Worshiping the Father in Spirit and Truth: An Exegetico-Theological Study of Jn 4:20–26 in the Light of the Relationships Among the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Tesi Gregoriana, Serie Teologia, 193. Rome: Pontificia università gregoriana,

233

2012.

Kahlos, M. "Religio and Superstitio: Retortions and Phases of a Binary Opposition in Late Antiquity." Athenaeum 95, no. 1 (2007): 389–408.

Kahn, C. H. "Greek Religion and Philosophy in the Sisyphus Fragment." Phronesis 42, no. 3 (1997): 247–62.

Kanagaraj, J. J. "The Implied Ethics of the Fourth Gospel: A Reinterpretation of the Decalogue." TynBul 52, no. 1 (2001): 33–60.

Karakolis, C. "Recurring Characters in John 1:19–2:11: Narrative-Critial and Reader- Oriented Approach." Pages 17–37 in The Opening of John's Narrative (John 1:19– 2:22). Edited by R. A. Culpepper and J. Frey. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017.

Käsemann, E. The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17. London: SCM, 1968.

Kasula, S. "A Shadow Replaced by Realities: The Theme of Temple in Relation to Christology, Pneumatology and Ecclesiology in John's Gospel." University of Glasgow, 2016.

Kee, H. C. "Myth and Miracle: Isis, Wisdom, and the Logos of John." Pages 145–164 in Myth, Symbol, and Reality. Edited by A. M. Olson. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980.

Keener, C. S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003.

Keil, J. "Ärtzeinschriften aus Ephesos." Pages 128–138 in Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes. Vienna: Hölder, 1905.

Kerr, A. R. The Temple of Jesus' Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John. London: Sheffield Academic, 2002.

Kindt, J. "Personal Religion: A Productive Category for the Study of Ancient Greek Religion?" JHS 135 (2015): 35–50.

Kindt, J. "Polis Religion - A Critical Appreciation." Kernos 22 (2009): 9–34.

Kindt, J. "Religion." Pages 364–377 in The Oxford Handbook of Hellenic Studies. Edited by G. Boys-Stones, B. Graziosi, and P. Vasunia. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Kindt, J. "The Story of Theology and the Theology of the Story." Pages 12–34 in Theologies of Ancient Greek Religion. Edited by J. Kindt, E. Eidinow, and R. Osborne. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.

King, C. "The Organization of Roman Religious Beliefs." ClAnt 22, no. 2 (2003): 275–312.

Kittel, G., and G. Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by

234

G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976.

Klink, E. W. John. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016.

Klink, E. W. The Sheep of the Fold: The Audience and Origin of the Gospel of John. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Knipfing, J. R. "The Libelli of the Decian Persecution." HTR 16, no. 4 (1923): 345–90.

Koester, C. R. "Hearing, Seeing, and Believing in the Gospel of John." Bib 70, no. 3 (1989): 327–348.

Koester, C. R. "'The Saviour of the World' (John 4:42)." JBL 109 (1990): 665–680.

Koester, C. R. Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.

Koester, C. R. The Word of Life: A Theology of John's Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

Koester, C. R. "The Wedding at Cana (John 2:1–11): Reading the Text in the Cultural Context of Ephesus." Pages 217–232 in The Opening of John's Narrative (John 1:19– 2:22). Edited by R. A. Culpepper and J. Frey. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017.

Koester, C. R. "Jesus' Resurrection, the Signs, and the Dynamics of Faith in the Gospel of John." Pages 47–74 in The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of John. Edited by C. R. Koester and R. Bieringer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.

Koester, C. R. "The Spectrum of Johannine Readers." Pages 5–19 in What is John? Readers and Readings of the Fourth Gospel. Edited by F. F. Segovia. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1996.

Koester, C. R. "Theological Complexity and the Characterization of Nicodemus in John’s Gospel." Pages 165–181 in Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John. Edited by C. W. Skinner. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013.

Koester, H. Introduction to the New Testament. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.

Konstan, D. Friendship in the Classical World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Konstan, D. "Trusting in Jesus." JSNT 40, no. 3 (2018): 247–254.

Köstenberger, A. "Jesus as Rabbi in the Fourth Gospel." BBR 8 (1998): 97–128.

Köstenberger, A. "The Two Johannine Verbs for Sending: A Study of John's Use of Words with Reference to General Linguistic Theory." Pages 125–43 in Linguistics and the New Testament: Critical Junctures. Edited by S. E. Porter and D. A. Carson. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999.

235

Köstenberger, A. J. The Missions of Jesus & The Disciples according to the Fourth Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Köstenberger, A. J. A Theology of John's Gospel and Letters. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.

Kruse, C. G. John. Rev. ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2017.

Kudlien, F. "Beichte und Heilung." Medizinhistorisches Journal 13, no. 1/2 (1978): 1–14.

Kurz, W. S. "The Beloved Disciple and Implied Readers." BTB 19, no. 3 (1989): 100–7.

Kysar, R. "The Dismantling of Decisional Faith: A Reading of John 6:25-71." Pages 161–181 in Critical Readings of John 6. Edited by R. A. Culpepper. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Labahn, M. "Simon Peter: An Ambiguous Character and His Narrative Career." Pages 151– 167 in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel. Edited by S. A. Hunt, D. F. Tolmie, and R. Zimmerman. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.

Labahn, M. "'It’s Only Love' – Is That All? Limits and Potentials of Johannine 'Ethic' – A Critical Evaluation of Research." Pages 3–43 in Rethinking the Ethics of John. Edited by J. G. van der Watt and R. Zimmerman. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012.

Lagrange, M.-J. Évangile selon Saint Jean. 2 ed. Paris: Lecoffre, 1925.

Lamb, D. A. Text, Context and the Johannine Community: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of the Johannine Writings. New York/London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015.

Laney, J. C. "Abiding Is Believing: The Analogy of the Vine in John 15:1–6." BSac 146, no. 581 (1989): 55–66.

Larsen, K. B. Recognizing the Stranger: Recognition Scenes in the Gospel of John. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Larson, J. Ancient Greek Cults: A Guide. New York, NY: Routledge, 2007.

Lateiner, D. "Marriage and the Return of Spouses in Apuleius' 'Metamorphoses'." The Classical Journal 95, no. 4 (2000): 313–332.

Latte, K. Römische Religionsgeschichte. Munich: Beck, 1960.

Latz, A. B. "A Short Note towards a Theology of Abiding in John's Gospel." JTI 4, no. 1 (2010): 111–118.

Lee, D. A. "In the Spirit of Truth: Worship and Prayer in the Gospel of John and the Early Fathers." VC 58, no. 3 (2004): 277–297.

Lee, D. A. "Partnership in Easter Faith: The Role of Mary Magdalene and Thomas in John 20." JSNT 58 (1995): 37–49.

236

Lee, D. A. The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel: The Interplay of Form and Meaning. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994.

Lee, D. A. "Friendship, Love and Abiding in the Gospel of John." Pages 57–74 in Transcending Boundaries: Contemporary Readings of the New Testament: Essays in Honor of Francis J. Moloney. Edited by R. M. Chennattu and M. L. Coloe. Rome: LAS, 2005.

Lee, J. A. L. "The Puzzle of John 21:15-17: A Formality Solution." NovT 59, no. 1 (2017): 27–30.

Lett, J. "The Divine Identity of Jesus as the Reason for Israel's Unbelief in John 12:36–43." JBL 135, no. 1 (2016): 159–173.

Leung, M. M. The Kingship-Cross Interplay in the Gospel of John: Jesus' Death as Corroboration of His Royal Messiahship. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011.

Levinsohn, S. H. Discourse Features of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. Dallas: SIL International, 2000.

Liddell, H. G. and R. Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Edited by S. H. S. Jones. 9th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983.

LiDonnici, L. R. "Compositional Background of the Epidaurian 'Iamata." AJP 113, no. 1 (1992): 25–41.

Liebert, E. "That You May Believe: The Fourth Gospel and Structural Developmental Theory." BTB 14, no. 2 (1984): 67–73.

Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. Continuity and Change in Roman Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.

Lieu, J. M. "Faith and the Fourth Gospel: A Conversation with Teresa Morgan." JSNT 40, no. 3 (2018): 289–298.

Lincoln, A. T. "The Beloved Disciple as Eyewitness and the Fourth Gospel as Witness." JSNT 85, no. 1 (2002): 3–26.

Lincoln, A. T. The Gospel According to Saint John. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.

Lincoln, A. T. "The Lazarus Story : A Literary Perspective." Pages 211–232 in The Gospel of John and Christian Theology. Edited by R. J. Bauckham and C. Mosser. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

Lincoln, A. T. Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000.

Lincoln, A. T. "'I am the Resurrection and the Life': The Resurrection Message of the Fourth Gospel." Pages 122–144 in Life in the Face of Death. Edited by R. N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

237

Lindars, B. The Gospel of John. New Century Bible. London: Oliphants, 1972.

Lindsay, D. R. Josephus and Faith: Πίστις and Πιστεύειν as Faith Terminology in the Writings of Flavius Josephus and in the New Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1993.

Lipka, M. Roman Gods: A Conceptual Approach. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

Loader, W. "John 1:51 and Johannine Christology." Pages 119–132 in The Opening of John's Narrative (John 1:19–2:22). Edited by R. A. Culpepper and J. Frey. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017.

Loader, W. R. G. Jesus in John's Gospel: Structure and Issues in Johannine Christology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017.

Lozada, F. A Literary Reading of John 5: Text as Construction. New York: Peter Lang, 2000.

Lozano, F. "Divi Augusti and Theoi Sebastoi: Roman Initiatives and Greek Answers." ClQ 57, no. 1 (2007): 139–152.

Luhrmann, D. "Pistis im Judentum." ZNW 64, no. 1 (1973): 19–38.

Luke, T. S. "A Healing Touch for Empire: Vespasian's Wonders in Domitianic Rome." GR 57, no. 1 (2010): 77–106.

Lund, G. "The Joys and Dangers of Ethics in John's Gospel." Pages 264–289 in Rethinking the Ethics of John. Edited by J. G. van der Watt and R. Zimmermann. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012.

Lupu, E. Greek Sacred Law: A Collection of New Documents. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

MacAskill, G. "Name Christology, Divine Aseity, and the I Am Sayings in the Fourth Gospel." JTI 12, no. 2 (2018): 217–241.

Mackey, J. L. "Das Erlöschen des Glaubens: The Fate of Belief in the Study of Roman Religion." Phasis 20 (2017): 83–150.

MacMullen, R. Paganism in the Roman Empire. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981.

Mahoney, R. Two Disciples at the Tomb. Frankfurt: Lang, 1974.

Malatesta, E. Interiority and Covenant. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978.

Malina, B. J. and R. L. Rohrbaugh. Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1998.

Marcus, J. "Rivers of Living Water from Jesus’ Belly (John 7:38)." JBL 117, no. 2 (1998): 328–30.

Martin, L. H. "Aspects of Religious Experience and Hellenistic Mystery Religions." R&T 12,

238

no. 3–4 (2005): 349–69.

Martin, L. H. Hellenistic Religions: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

Martin, R. P. Worship in the Early Church. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Martyn, J. L. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. New York: Harper & Row, 1968.

Martzavou, P. "Dream, Narrative, and the Construction of Hope in the ‘Healing Miracles’ of Epidauros." Pages 177–204 in Unveiling Emotions: Sources and Methods for the Study of Emotions in the Greek World. Edited by A. Chaniotis. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2012.

Martzavou, P. "Isis Aretalogies, Initiations, and Emotions: The Isis Aretalogies as a Source for the Study of Emotions." Pages 267–291 in Unveiling Emotions: Sources and Methods for the Study of Emotions in the Greek World. Edited by A. Chaniotis. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2012.

Mathew, B. The Johannine Footwashing as the Sign of Perfect Love. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018.

McFadden, K. W. "Does ΠΙΣΤΙΣ mean 'Faith(fulness)' in Paul?" TynBul 66, no. 2 (2015): 251–270.

McKay, K. L. "Style and Significance in the Language of John 21:15–17." NovT 27, no. 4 (1985): 319–333.

Meeks, W. A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983.

Meeks, W. A. "The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism." JBL 91, no. 1 (1972): 44– 72.

Meijer, P. A. "Philosophers, Intellectuals and Religion in Hellas." Pages 216–64 in Faith, Hope, and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World. Edited by H. S. Versnel. Leiden: Brill, 1981.

Menken, M. J. J. "Interpretation of the Old Testament and Resurrection of Jesus in John’s Gospel." Pages 113–130 in Studies in John’s Gospel and Epistles: Collected Essays. Edited by M. J. J. Menken. Leuven: Peeters, 2015.

Menken, M. J. J. "John 6:51c–58: Eucharist or Christology? ." Pages 285–308 in Studies in John’s Gospel and Epistles: Collected Essays. Edited by M. J. J. Menken. Leuven: Peeters, 2015.

Mercer, C. "ἈΠΟΣΤΕΛΛΕΙΝ and ΠΕΜΠΕΙΝ in John." NTS 36 (1990): 619–624.

Merkelbach, R. "Der Eid der Isismysten." ZPE 1 (1967): 55–73.

239

Merkelbach, R. "Zwei Texte aus dem Sarapeum zu Thessalonike." ZPE 10 (1973): 45–54.

Metzger, B. M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994.

Metzner, R. "Der Geheilte von Johannes 5 – Repräsentant des Unglaubens." ZNW 90 (1999): 177–193.

Myers A. D. and B. G. Schuhard eds. Abiding Words: The Use of Scripture in the Gospel of John. Atlanta: SBL, 2015.

Michaels, J. R. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.

Mikalson, J. D. Ancient Greek Religion. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley, 2011.

Mikalson, J. D. Religion in Hellenistic Athens. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.

Miller, J. F. "Propertius' Tirade against Isis (2.33a)." CJ 77, no. 2 (1981): 104–111.

Miller, S. "Mary (of Bethany): The Anointer of the Suffering Messiah." Pages 473–486 in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel. Edited by S. A. Hunt, D. F. Tolmie, and R. Zimmerman. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.

Millowick, C. "Life in His Name: A Biblical Theological Exploration of Temple Allusions in the Farewell Discourse in John's Gospel." MTh Thesis, Australian Lutheran College, 2009.

Minear, P. S. "The Original Functions of John 21," JBL 102, no. 1 (1983): 85–98.

Minear, P. S. "'We don’t know where…' John 20:2." Int 30, no. 2 (1976): 125–39.

Moehring, H. R. "The Persecution of the Jews and the Adherents of the Isis Cult at Rome A.D. 19." NovT 3, no. 4 (1959): 293–304.

Moellering, H. A. Plutarch on Superstition. Boston: Christopher, 1962.

Moloney, F. J. Belief in the Word: Reading John 1–4. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

Moloney, F. J. "Can Everyone Be Wrong? A Reading of John 11:1–12:8." NTS 49, no. 4 (2003): 505–527.

Moloney, F. J. "‘For as Yet They Did Not Know the Scripture’ (John 20:9): A Study in Narrative Time." ITQ 79, no. 2 (2014): 97–111.

Moloney, F. J. Glory not Dishonor: Reading John 13–21. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998.

Moloney, F. J. The Gospel of John. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998.

Moloney, F. J. The Johannine Son of Man. Rome: LAS, 1976.

240

Moloney, F. J. "John 20: A Journey Completed." ACR 59, no. 4 (1982): 417–432.

Moloney, F. J. Love in the Gospel of John: An Exegetical, Theological, and Literary Study. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.

Moloney, F. J. "Narrative Criticism of the Gospels." Pacifica 4, no. 2 (1991): 181–201.

Moloney, F. J. "A Sacramental Reading of John 13:1–38." CBQ 53, no. 2 (1991): 237–56.

Moloney, F. J. Signs and Shadows: Reading John 5–12. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.

Moloney, F. J. "The Love Theme in the Gospel of John," Pages 117–134 in Johannine Studies 1975-2017. Edited by F. J. Moloney. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017.

Moloney, F. J. "The Structure and Message of John 15:1–16:3." ABR 35 (1987): 35–49.

Moloney, F. J. "When is John Talking About Sacraments?" ABR 30 (1982): 10–33.

Moloney, F. J. "Who is 'the Reader' in/of the Fourth Gospel?" ABR 40 (1992): 20–33.

Moloney, F. J. "From Cana to Cana (Jn 2.1–4.54) and the Fourth Evangelist’s Concept of Correct (and Incorrect) Faith." Pages 185–213 in Studia Biblica 1978 International Congress on Biblical Studies. Edited by E. A. Livingstone. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1978.

Momigliano, A. On Pagans, Jews, and Christians. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press, 1987.

Moore, C. H. The Religious Thought of the Greeks: From Homer to the Triumph of Christianity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916.

Moralee, J. For Salvation's Sake: Provincial Loyalty, Personal Religion, and Epigraphic Production in the Roman and Late Antique near East. London: Routledge, 2004.

Morgan, T. "Faith in Dialogue." JSNT 40, no. 3 (2018): 299–311.

Morgan, T. Popular Morality in the Early Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Morgan, T. Roman Faith and Christian Faith: Pistis and Fides in the Early Roman Empire and Early Churches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Morris, L. "Variation – A Feature of the Johaninne Style." Pages 293–319 in Studies in the Fourth Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969.

Morris, L. L. The Gospel According to John. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Motyer, S. "Method in Fourth Gospel Studies: A Way Out of the Impasse?" JSNT 66, no. 1 (1997): 27–44.

241

Motyer, S. Your Father the Devil? A New Approach to John and 'the Jews'. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997.

Moulton, J. H. Prolegomena. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908.

Muderhwa, B.V. "The Blind Man of John 9 as a Paradigmatic Figure of the Disciple in the Fourth Gospel." HTS Teologiese Studies/HTS Theological Studies 68, no. 1 (2012), Art. #1008, 10 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v68i1.1008

Mueller, H.-F. Roman Religion in Valerius Maximus. London: Routledge, 2002.

Müller, M. "‘Have You Faith in the Son of Man?’ (John 9.35)." NTS 37 (1991): 291–94.

Naiden, F. S. "Recent Study of Greek Religion in the Archaic through Hellenistic Periods." CBR 11, no. 3 (2013): 388–427.

Naiden, F. S. Smoke Signals for the Gods: Ancient Greek Sacrifice from the Archaic through Roman Periods. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Newbigin, L. The Light Has Come: An Exposition of the Fourth Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Newbold, R. "Benefits and Moral Development in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses." Ancient Narrative 3 (2003): 88–105.

Neyrey, J. H. The Gospel of John. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Neyrey, J. H. An Ideology of Revolt: John's Christology in Social-Science Perspective. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.

Neyrey, J. H. "Worship in the Fourth Gospel: A Cultural Interpretation of John 14–17." BTB 36, no. 3 (2006): 107–117.

Neyrey, J. H. "Worship in the Fourth Gospel: A Cultural Interpretation of John 14–17-Part 2." BTB 36, no. 4 (2006): 155–163.

Nicholson, G. C. Death as Departure: The Johannine Descent-Ascent Schema. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983.

Nielsen, J. T. "The Narrative Structures of Glory and Glorification in the Fourth Gospel." NTS 56 (2010): 343–366.

Nielsen, J. T. "The Lamb of God: The Cognitive Structure of a Johannine Metaphor." Pages 217–256 in Imagery in the Gospel of John. Edited by J. Frey, J. G. van der Watt, and R. Zimmermann. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.

Nilsson, M. P. Geschichte der griechischen Religion. 2 vols. C. H. Beck: Munich, 1955–61.

Nongbri, B. Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept. London: Yale University

242

Press, 2013.

Nongbri, B. "Dislodging 'Embedded' Religion: A Brief Note on a Scholarly Trope." Numen 55 (2008): 440–60.

North, J. A. "Caesar on religio." ARG 15, no. 1 (2013): 187–200.

North, J. A. "Conservatism and Change in Roman Religion." Papers of the British School at Rome 44 (1976): 1–12.

North, J. A. "Religious Toleration in Republican Rome." Pages 199–219 in Roman Religion. Edited by C. Ando. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003.

North, J. A. "Diviners and Divination at Rome." Pages 51–71 in Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World. Edited by M. Beard and J. A. North. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990.

North, J. A. "The Development of Religious Pluralism." Pages 174–93 in The Jews among Pagans and Christians: In the Roman Empire. Edited by J. Lieu, J. A. North, and T. Rajak. New York: Routledge, 1994.

O'Day, G. R. Revelation in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Mode and Theological Claim. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.

O'Day, G. R. "Jesus as Friend in the Gospel of John." Pages 75–92 in Transcending Boundaries: Contemporary Readings of the New Testament: Essays in Honor of Francis J. Moloney. Edited by M. L. Coloe and R. M. Chennattu. Rome: LAS, 2005.

O'Day, G. R. "Martha: Seeing the Glory of God " Pages 487–503 in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel. Edited by S. A. Hunt, D. F. Tolmie, and R. Zimmerman. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.

O’Brien, K. S. "Written that You May Believe: John 20 and Narrative Rhetoric." CBQ 67, no. 2 (2005): 284–302.

Okure, T. The Johannine Approach to Mission: A Contextual Study of John 4:1–42. Tübingen: Mohr, 1988.

Okure, T. "The Significance Today of Jesus' Commission to Mary Magdalene." International Review of Mission 81, no. 322 (1992): 177–188.

Orlin, E. M. "Octavian and Egyptian Cults: Redrawing the Boundaries of Romanness." AJP 129, no. 2 (2008): 231–53.

Osborne, R. "Sacrificial Theologies." Pages 233–248 in Theologies of Ancient Greek Religion. Edited by J. Kindt, E. Eidinow, and R. Osborne. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.

Painter, J. "John 9 and the Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel." JSNT 28, no. 1 (1986): 31– 61.

243

Painter, J. The Quest for the Messiah: The History, Literature and Theology of the Johannine Community. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991.

Painter, J. "Eschatological Faith in the Gospel of John." Pages 36–52 in Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology. Edited by R. Banks. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Painter, J. "The Enigmatic Johannine Son of Man." Pages 1869–87 in The Four Gospels: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle, and J. Verheyden. Leuven: Peeters, 1992.

Panagiotidou, O. "Asclepius’ Myths and Healing Narratives: Counter-Intuitive Concepts and Cultural Expectations." Open Library of Humanities 2, no. 1 (2016): 1–26.

Parker, R. Miasma: Pollution and Purification in early Greek Religion. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983.

Parker, R. On Greek Religion. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2011.

Parker, R. "The Problem of the Greek Cult Epithet." Opuscula Atheniensia 28 (2003): 173– 83.

Parker, R. "Epigraphy and Greek Religion." Pages 17–30 in Epigraphy and the Historical Sciences. Edited by J. Davies and J. Wilkes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Parker, R. "What are Sacred Laws?" Pages 57–70 in The Law and the Courts in Ancient Greece. Edited by E. M. Harris and L. Rubenstein. London: Duckworth, 2004.

Parsenios, G. L. Departure and Consolation: The Johannine Farewell Discourses in Light of Graeco-Roman Literature. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Pazdan, M. M. "Nicodemus and the Samaritan Woman: Contrasting Models of Discipleship." BTB 17, no. 4 (1987): 145–148.

Pearcy, L. T. "Theme, Dream, and Narrative: Reading the Sacred Tales of Aelius Aristides." TAPA 118 (1988): 377–391.

Peper, B. M. and M. DelCogliano. "The Pliny and Trajan Correspondence." Pages 366–371 in The Historical Jesus in Context. Edited by A.-J. Levine, D. C. Allison, and J. D. Crossan. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006.

Peppard, M. The Son of God in the Roman World: Divine Sonship in its Social and Political Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Petridou, G. Divine Epiphany in Greek Literature and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Petridou, G. "Asclepius the Divine Healer, Asclepius the Divine Physician: Epiphanies as Diagnostic and Therapeutic Tools." Pages 291–301 in Medicine and Healing in the

244

Ancient Mediterranean World. Edited by D. Michaelides. Oxford: Oxbow, 2014.

Petridou, G. "Aelius Aristides as Informed Patient and Physician." Pages 451–470 in Homo Patiens - Approaches to the Patient in the Ancient World. Edited by G. Petridou and C. Thumiger. Leiden: Brill, 2015.

Petsalis-Diomidis, A. Truly Beyond Wonders: Aelius Aristides and the Cult of Asklepios. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Petzl, G. and H. Malay. "A New Confession-Inscription from the Katakekaumene." GRBS 28, no. 4 (1987): 459–472.

Phillips, C. R. "The Sociology of Religious Knowledge in the Roman Empire to A.D. 284." ANRW 16.3:2677–2773. Part 2, Principat, 16.3. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. New York: de Gruyter, 1986.

Phillips, G. L. "Faith and Vision in the Fourth Gospel." Pages 83–96 in Studies in the Fourth Gospel. Edited by F. L. Cross. London: A.R. Mowbray, 1957.

Phillips, P. "The Samaritans of Sychar: A Responsive Chorus." Pages 292–298 in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel. Edited by S. A. Hunt, D. F. Tolmie, and R. Zimmerman. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.

Pirenne-Delforge, V. "Reading Pausanias: Cults of the Gods and Representations of the Divine." Pages 375–87 in The Gods of Ancient Greece: Identities and Transformations. Edited by J. N. Bremmer and A. Erskine. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010.

Pirenne-Delforge, V. "Under Which Conditions Did the Greeks 'Believe' in Their Myths? The Religious Criteria of Adherence." Pages 38–54 in Antike Mythen. Medien, Transformationen, Konstruktionen. Festschriften für Fritz Graf. Edited by U. Dill and C. Walde. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009.

Pirenne-Delforge, V. "Greek Priests and 'Cult Statues': In How Far Are They Unnecessary." Pages 121–41 in Divine Images and Human Imaginations in Ancient Greece and Rome. Edited by Mylonopolous. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

Pleket, H. W. "Religious History as the History of Mentality: The 'Believer' as Servant of the Deity in the Greek World." Pages 152–92 in Faith, Hope, and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World. Edited by H. S. Versnel. Leiden: Brill, 1981.

Pollard, T. E. "The Father-Son and God-Believer Relationships according to St John: A Brief Study of John’s Use of Prepositions " Pages 363–369 in L'évangile de Jean: sources, rédaction, théologie. Edited by M. De Jonge. Gembloux: Duculot, 1977.

Poplutz, U. "Paroimia und Parabole: Gleichniskonzepte bei Johannes und Markus." Pages 103–20 in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language. Edited by J. Frey, J. G. van der Watt, and R. Zimmerman. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.

245

Popp, T. "Thomas: Question Marks and Exclamation Marks." Pages 504–29 in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel. Edited by S. A. Hunt, D. F. Tolmie, and R. Zimmerman. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.

Porter, S. E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament: With Reference to Tense and Mood. New York: Peter Lang, 1993.

Potter, D. S. "Roman Religion: Ideas and Actions." Pages 113–67 in Life, Death, and Entertainment in the Roman Empire. Edited by D. S. Potter and D. J. Mattingly. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999.

Poulson, F. "Talking, Weeping and Bleeding Sculptures: A Chapter of the History of Teligious Fraud." Acta Archeologica 16 (1945): 178–195.

Powell, M. A. What is Narrative Criticism? A New Approach to the Bible. London: SPCK, 1993.

Price, S. R. F. "Between Man and God: Sacrifice in the Roman Imperial Cult." JRS 70 (1980): 28–43.

Price, S. R. F. "Gods and Emperors: The Greek Language of the Roman Imperial Cult." JHS 104 (1984): 79–95.

Price, S. R. F. Religions of the Ancient Greeks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Price, S. R. F. "Religious Mobility in the Roman Empire." JRS 102 (2012): 1–19.

Price, S. R. F. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Price, S. R. F. "Homogeneity and Diversity in the Religions of Rome." Pages 253–276 in The Religious History of the Roman Empire. Edited by S. R. F. Price and J. A. North. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Pryor, J. W. "Covenant and Community in John's Gospel." RTR 47, no. 2 (1988): 44–51.

Pryor, J. W. "Jesus and Israel in the Fourth Gospel: John 1:11." NovT 32, no. 3 (1990): 201– 218.

Pulleyn, S. "The Power of Names in Classical Greek Religion." ClQ 44, no. 1 (1994): 17–25.

Pulleyn, S. Prayer in Greek Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.

Quast, K. Peter and the Beloved Disciple: Figures for a Community in Crisis. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989.

Rainbow, P. A. Johannine Theology: The Gospel, the Epistles and the Apocalypse. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic; Nottingham: Apollos, 2014.

246

Redman, J. C. S. "Eyewitness Testimony and the Characters in the Fourth Gospel " Pages 59–78 in Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John. Edited by C. W. Skinner. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013.

Reimer, A. M. "The Man Born Blind: True Disciple of Jesus." Pages 428–438 in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel. Edited by S. A. Hunt, D. F. Tolmie, and R. Zimmerman. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.

Reinhartz, A. "A Rebellious Son? Jesus and His Mother in John 2:4." Pages 233–248 in The Opening of John's Narrative (John 1:19–2:22). Edited by R. A. Culpepper and J. Frey. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017.

Reinhartz, A. "The Jews of the Fourth Gospel." Pages 121–37 in The Oxford Handbook of Johannine Studies. Edited by J. M. Lieu and M. C. de Boer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Reinhartz, A. "The Lyin’ King? Deception and Christology in the Gospel of John." Pages 117–133 in Johannine Ethics: The Moral World of the Gospel and Epistles of John. Edited by S. Brown and C. W. Skinner. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017.

Reinhartz, A. The Word in the World: The Cosmological Tale in the Fourth Gospel. Atlanta: Scholars, 1992.

Renberg, G. H. "Public and Private Places of Worship in the Cult of Asclepius at Rome." MAAR 51/52 (2006/2007): 87–172.

Renberg, G. H. Where Dreams May Come: Incubation Sanctuaries in the Greco-Roman World. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2017.

Rensberger, D. Johannine Faith and Liberating Community. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988.

Rensberger, D. "The Messiah who has Come into the World." Pages 15–23 in Jesus in Johannine Tradition. Edited by R. T. Fortna and T. Thatcher. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001.

Rensberger, D. "Spirituality and Christology in Johannine Sectarianism." Pages 173–188 in Word, Theology, and Community in John. Edited by J. Painter, R. A. Culpepper, and F. F. Segovia. St. Louis, MO: Chalice, 2002.

Renz, G. "Nicodemus: an Ambiguous Disciple? A Narrative Sensitive Investigation." Pages 255–283 in Challenging perspectives on the Gospel of John. Edited by J. Lierman. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.

Resseguie, J. L. Narrative Criticism of the New Testament: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.

Resseguie, J. L. "The Beloved Disciple: The Ideal Point of View." Pages 537–553 in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel. Edited by S. A. Hunt, D. F. Tolmie, and R.

247

Zimmerman. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.

Resseguie, J. L. "A Narrative-Critical Approach to the Fourth Gospel." Pages 1–17 in Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John. Edited by C. W. Skinner. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013.

Reynolds, B. E. The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.

Richey, L. B. Roman Imperial Ideology and the Gospel of John. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2007.

Richter, D. S. "Plutarch on Isis and Osiris: Text, Cult, and Cultural Appropriation." TAPA 131 (2001): 191–216.

Ricl, M. "Continuity and Change in Anatolian Cults: The Case of Lydian Confession- Inscriptions." Belgrade Historical Review V (2014): 7–21.

Ricl, M. "Hosios kai Dikaios. Première partie: Catalogue des inscriptions." Epigraphica Anatolica 18 (1991): 1–70.

Ricl, M. "Hosios kai Dikaios. Seconde partie: Analyse." Epigraphica Anatolica 19 (1992): 71–103.

Ricl, M. "Observations on a New Corpus of Inscriptions from Lydia." Epigraphica Anatolica 44 (2011): 143–152.

Ricl, M. "The Appeal to Divine Justice in the Lydian Confession-Inscriptions." Pages 67–76 in Forschungen in Lydien. Edited by E. Schwertheim. Bonn: Habelt, 1995.

Ridderbos, H. N. The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Riley, P. C. J. The Lord of the Gospel of John. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019.

Rives, J. B. "The Decree of Decius and the Religion of Empire." JRS 89 (1999): 135–154.

Rives, J. B. "Graeco-Roman Religion in the Roman Empire: Old Assumptions and New Approaches." CBR 8, no. 2 (2010): 240–299.

Roberts, L. "Amulettes Grecques." Journal des Savants 1 (1981): 3–44.

Roubekas, N. P. "Ancient Greek Atheism? A Note on the Terminological Anachronisms in the Study of Ancient Greek 'Religion'." Ciências da Religião: história e sociedade 12, no. 2 (2014): 224–241.

Runge, S. E. Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2010.

Rüpke, J. "Hellenistic and Roman Empires and Euro-Mediterranean Religion." Journal of

248

Religion in Europe 3 (2010): 197–214.

Rüpke, J. "Representation or Presence? Picturing the Divine in Ancient Rome." ARG 12 (2010): 181–196.

Rüpke, J. "Antike Großstadtreligion." Pages 13–30 in Zwischen Krise und Alltag: Antike Religionen im Mittelmeerraum. Edited by C. Batsch, U. Egelhaaf-Gaiser, and R. Stepper. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1999.

Russell, E. "Possible Influence of the Mysteries on the Form and Interrelation of the Johannine Writings." JBL 51, no. 4 (1932): 336–351.

Ryle, J. C. Expository Thoughts on the Gospels, Volume 4: John 10:31–21:25. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982.

Salier, W. H. The Rhetorical Impact of the Semeia in the Gospel of John. Tübingen: Mohr, 2004.

Salier, W. H. "The Temple in the Gospel According to John." Pages 121–134 in Heaven on Earth: The Temple in Biblical Theology. Edited by T. D. Alexander and S. Gathercole. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004.

Salier, W. H. "The Obedient Son: The 'Faithfulness' of Christ in the Fourth Gospel." Pages 223–238 in The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies. Edited by M. F. Bird and P. M. Sprinkle. Milton Keynes: Paternoster; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009.

Salier, W. H. "Jesus, the Emperor, and the Gospel According to John." Pages 284–301 in Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John. Edited by J. Lierman. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.

Sanders, J. T. Ethics in the New Testament: Change and Development. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.

Sandy, G. N. "Serviles Voluptates in Apuleius' Metamorphoses." Phoenix 28, no. 2 (1974): 234–244.

Scheid, J. An Introduction to Roman Religion. Translated by J. Lloyd. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003.

Scheid, J. Quand faire, c’est croire: Les Rites sacrificiels des Romains. Paris: Aubier, 2005.

Scheid, J. "Cults, Myths, and Politics at the Beginning of the Empire." Pages 117–138 in Roman Religion. Edited by C. Ando. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003.

Scheid, J. and M. Linder. "Quand croire c'est faire. Le problème de la croyance dans la Rome ancienne." ASSR 38, no. 81 (1993): 47–61.

Schenk, W. "Glaube im lukanischen Doppelwerk." Pages 69–92 in Der Glaube im Neuen Testament: Studien zu Ehren von Hermann Binder anläßlich seines 70. Geburtstags.

249

Edited by F. Hahn and H. Klein. Düsseldorf: Neukirchner, 1982.

Schlam, C. C. "The Curiosity of the Golden Ass." CJ 64, no. 3 (1968): 120–125.

Schlam, C. C. The Metamorphoses of Apuleius: On Making an Ass of Oneself. London: Duckworth, 1992.

Schlier, H. "Glauben, Erkennen, Lieben nach dem Johannesevangelium." Pages 279–293 in Besinnung auf das neue Testament. Freiberg: Herder, 1964.

Schliesser, B. "To Touch or Not to Touch? Doubting and Touching in John 20:24–29." EC 8, no. 1 (2017): 69–93.

Schliesser, B. "Faith in Early Christianity: An Encyclopedic and Bibliographic Outline." Pages 3–50 in Glaube. Edited by J. Frey, B. Schliesser, and N. Ueberschaer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017.

Schnabel, E. J. "Divine Tyranny and Public Humiliation: A Suggestion for the Interpretation of the Lydian and Phrygian Confession Inscriptions." NovT 45, no. 2 (2003): 160– 188.

Schnackenburg, R. The Gospel According to St. John. 3 vols. New York: Herder & Herder, 1968-1982.

Schneiders, S. M. "The Foot Washing (John 13:1–20): An Experiment in Hermeneutics." CBQ 43, no. 1 (1981): 76–92.

Schneiders, S. M. "Reflections on Commitment in the Gospel According to John." BTB 8, no. 1 (1978): 40–48.

Schneiders, S. M. Written That You May Believe: Encountering Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. New York: Crossroad, 2003.

Schneiders, S. M. "To See or Not to See: John 9 as a Synthesis of the Theology and Spirituality of Discipleship." Pages 189–209 in Word, Theology, and Community in John. Edited by J. Painter, R. A. Culpepper, and F. F. Segovia. St. Louis, MO: Chalice, 2002.

Schnelle, U. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. 5th ed. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2016.

Schnelle, U. "Der ungenannte Jünger in Johannes 1:40." Pages 97–117 in The Opening of John's Narrative (John 1:19–2:22). Edited by R. A. Culpepper and J. Frey. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017.

Schottroff, L. Der glaubende und die feindliche Welt: Beobachtungen zum gnostischen Dualismus und seiner Bedeutung für Paulus und das Johannesevangelium. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neuchirchner, 1970.

Schulz, A. Nachfolgen und nachahmen. Munich: Kösel, 1962.

250

Seglenieks, C. "Faith and Narrative: A Two-Level Reading of Belief in the Gospel of John," TynBul 70, no. 1 (2019): 23–40.

Seglenieks, C. "'Now You Believe': The Faith of the Disciples in John 16:30–33." Colloq 50, no. 2 (2018): 90–108.

Seglenieks, C. "Untrustworthy Believers: The Rhetorical Strategy of the Johannine Language of Commitment and Belief." NovT 61, no. 1 (2019): 55–69.

Segovia, F. F. The Farewell of the Word: The Johannine Call to Abide. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.

Segovia, F. F. "John 1:1–18 as Entree into Johannine Reality: Representation and Ramifications." Pages 33–64 in Word, Theology, and Community in John. Edited by J. Painter, R. A. Culpepper, and F. F. Segovia. St. Louis, MO: Chalice, 2002.

Segovia, F. F. "The Love and Hatred of Jesus and Johannine Sectarianism." CBQ 43, no. 2 (1981): 258–272.

Segovia, F. F. Love Relationships in the Johannine Tradition. Chico: Scholars Press, 1982.

Segovia, F. F. "'Peace I leave with You; My Peace I Give to You': Discipleship in the Fourth Gospel." Pages 76–102 in Discipleship in the New Testament. Edited by F. F. Segovia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

Shear, J. L. "Religion and the Polis: The Cult of the Tyrannicides at Athens." Kernos 25 (2012): 27–55.

Shepherd, D. "'Do You Love Me?' A Narrative-Critical Reappraisal of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in John 21:15–17." JBL 129, no. 4 (2010): 777–792.

Sherwin-White, A. N. "The Early Persecutions and Roman Law Again." JTS 3, no. 2 (1952): 199–213.

Shin, S. Ethics in the Gospel of John: Discipleship as Moral Progress. Leiden: Brill, 2018.

Silva, M. "The Pauline Style as Lexical Choice: ΓΙΝΩΣΚΕΙΝ and Related Verbs." Pages 184–207 in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce. Edited by D. A. Hagner and M. J. Harris. Exeter: Paternoster, 1980.

Silva, M., ed. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014.

Skinner, C. W. John and Thomas—Gospels in Conflict? Johannine Characterization and the Thomas Question. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2009.

Skinner, C. W. "'Son of God' or 'God’s Chosen One' (John 1:34)? A Narrative-Critical Solution to a Text-Critical Problem." BBR 25, no. 3 (2015): 341–57.

251

Skinner, C. W. "Love One Another: The Johannine Love Command in the Farewell Discourse." Pages 25–42 in Johannine Ethics: The Moral World of the Gospel and Epistles of John. Edited by S. Brown and C. W. Skinner. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017.

Skinner, C. W. "John’s Gospel and the Roman Imperial Context." Pages 116–129 in Jesus is Lord, Caesar is Not: Evaluating Empire in New Testament Studies. Edited by S. McKnight and J. B. Modica. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2013.

Skinner, C. W. "Misunderstanding, Christology, and Johannine Characterization: Reading John’s Characters through the Lens of the Prologue." Pages 111–27 in Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John. Edited by C. W. Skinner. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013.

Smalley, S. S. "The Sign in John XXI," NTS 20, no. 3 (1974): 275–288.

Smith, C. S. Pauline Communities as 'Scholastic Communities': A Study of the Vocabulary of 'Teaching' in 1 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012.

Smith, D. M. John. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999.

Smith, D. M. "Ethics and the Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel." Pages 109–122 in Word, Theology and Community in John. Edited by J. Painter, R. A. Culpepper, and F. F. Segovia. St Louis, MO: Chalice, 2002.

Smith, J. Z. Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.

Smith, W. R. Lectures on the Religion of the Semites, First Series : The Fundamental Institutions. New ed. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1894.

Sokolowski, F. "Propogation of the Cult of Sarapis and Isis in Greece." GRBS 15, no. 4 (1974): 441–48.

Solmsen, F. Isis among the Greeks and Romans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979.

Sourvinou-Inwood, C. "Further Aspects of Polis Religion." Pages 38–55 in Oxford Readings in Greek Religion. Edited by R. Buxton. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Sourvinou-Inwood, C. "What is Polis Religion?" Pages 13–37 in Oxford readings in Greek religion. Edited by R. Buxton. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Spawforth, A. J. S. "Corinth, Argos, and the Imperial Cult: Pseudo-Julian, Letters 198." Hesperia 63, no. 2 (1994): 211–32.

Staley, J. L. The Print's First Kiss: A Rhetorical Investigation of the Implied Reader in the Fourth Gospel. Atlanta: Scholars, 1988.

Stark, R. "Religious Competition and Roman Piety." Interdisciplinary Journal of Research

252

on Religion 2 (2006): 2–30.

Stegall, T. L. "That You May Believe: The Evangelistic Purpose and Message of John’s Gospel in Relation to Free Grace Theology." ThD thesis, Grace Biblical Seminary, 2017.

Stibbe, M. W. G. John. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993.

Stibbe, M. W. G. John as Storyteller: Narrative Criticism and the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Stibbe, M. W. G. "A Tomb with a View: John 11.1–44 in Narrative-Critical Perspective " NTS 40, no. 1 (1994): 38–54.

Stoneman, R. The Ancient Oracles: Making Gods Speak. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011.

Stovell, B. M. "Love One Another and Love the World: The Love Command and Jewish Ethics in the Johannine Community." Pages 426–458 in Christian Origins and the Establishment of the Early Jesus Movement. Edited by S. E. Porter and A. W. Pitts. Leiden: Brill, 2018.

Stroud, R. S. "The Sanctuary of Demeter on Acrocorinth in the Roman Period." Pages 65–74 in The Corinthia in the Roman Period. Including the Papers Given at a Symposium Held at the Ohio State University on 7-9 March 1991. Edited by T. E. Gregory. Ann Arbor, MI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1993.

Stube, J. C. A Graeco-Roman Rhetorical Reading of the Farewell Discourse. London: T&T Clark, 2006.

Swanson, T. D. "To Prepare a Place: Johannine Christianity and the Collapse of Ethnic Territory." JAAR 62, no. 2 (1994): 241–263.

Swetnam, J. "The Meaning of πεπιστευχότας in John 8,31." Bib 61, no. 1 (1980): 106–109.

Sylva, D. Thomas – Love as Strong as Death: Faith and Commitment in the Fourth Gospel. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013.

Sylva, D. D. "Nicodemus and His Spices (John 19.39)." NTS 34 (1988): 148–151.

Tagliabue, A. "Aelius Aristides’ Sacred Tales: A Study of the Creation of the 'Narrative about Asclepius'." ClAnt 35, no. 1 (2016): 126–146.

Tagliabue, A. "An Embodied Reading of Ephiphanies in Aelius Aristides' Sacred Tales." Ramus 45, no. 2 (2016): 213–230.

Takács, S. Isis and Sarapis in the Roman World. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

Talbert, C. H. Reading John. Rev. ed. Macon, GA: Smith & Helwys, 2005.

253

Tam, J. C. Apprehension of Jesus in the Gospel of John. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015.

Tam, J. C. "When Papyri and Codices Speak: Revisiting John 2,23–25." Bib 95, no. 4 (2014): 570–588.

Tannehill, R. C. "The Gospel of Mark as Narrative Christology." Semeia 16 (1979): 57–95.

Tate, J. "Greek for 'Atheism'." The Classical Review 50, no. 1 (1936): 3–5.

Tatum, J. Apuleius and the Golden Ass. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1979.

Tatum, W. J. "Roman Religion: Fragments and Further Questions." Pages 273–92 in Veritatis Amicitiaeque Causa: Essays in Honor of Anna Lydia Motto and John R. Clark. Edited by S. N. Byrne and E. P. Cueva. Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci, 1999.

Thatcher, T. Greater Than Caesar: Christology and Empire in the Fourth Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009.

Theobald, M. Die Fleischwerdung des Logos: Studien zum Verhältnis des Johannesprologs zum Corpus des Evangeliums und zu 1 Joh. Münster: Aschendorf, 1988.

Theophilos, M. "John 15.14 and the ΦΙΛ- Lexeme in Light of Numismatic Evidence: Friendship or Obedience?" NTS 64 (2018): 33–43.

Thettayil, B. In Spirit and Truth: An Exegetical Study of John 4:19–26 and a Theological Investigation of the Replacement Theme in the Fourth Gospel. Leuven: Peeters, 2007.

Thiselton, A. Doubt, Faith and Certainty. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017.

Thomas, J. C. Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine Community. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991.

Thompson, M. M. The God of the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.

Thompson, M. M. John. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2015.

Thompson, M. M. "Signs and Faith in the Fourth Gospel." BBR 1 (1991): 89–108.

Thyen, H. Das Johannesevangelium. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015.

Timmins, W. N. "A Faith Unlike Abraham's: Matthew Bates on Salvation by Allegiance Alone." JETS 61, no. 3 (2018): 595–615.

Tolmie, D. F. Jesus' Farewell to the Disciples: John 13:1–17:26 in Narratological Perspective. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

Tolmie, D. F. "The (not so) Good Shepherd: The Use of Shepherd Imagery in the Characterisation of Peter in the Fourth Gospel." Pages 352–367 in Imagery in the Gospel of John. Edited by J. Frey, J. G. van der Watt, and R. Zimmerman. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.

254

Tovey, D. Jesus: Story of God: John's Story of Jesus. Adelaide: ATF, 2007.

Tripolitis, A. Religions of the Hellenistic-Roman age. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

Troost-Cramer, K. Jesus as Means and Locus of Worship in the Fourth Gospel: Sacrifice and Worship Space in John. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2017.

Trozzo, L. M. Exploring Johannine Ethics. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017.

Tuckett, C. M. "Seeing and Believing in John 20." Pages 169–185 in Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. Boer. Edited by J. Krans, L. J. L. Peerbolte, P.-B. Smit, and A. W. Zwiep. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

Turcan, R. The Cults of the Roman Empire. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1996.

Turner, W. "Believing and Everlasting Life—A Johannine Inquiry." ExpT 64, no. 2 (1952): 50–52.

Ueberschaer, N. "Das Johannesevangelium als Medium der Glaubensvermittlung." Pages 451–471 in Glaube. Edited by J. Frey, B. Schliesser, and N. Ueberschaer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017.

Ullucci, D. "Sacrifice in the Ancient Mediterranean: Recent and Current Research." CBR 13, no. 3 (2015): 388–439.

Uro, R. "Ritual and Christian Origins." Pages 220–232 in Understanding the social world of the New Testament. Edited by D. Neufeld and R. E. DeMaris. London: Routledge, 2010. van Belle, G. and P. Maritz. "The Imagery of Eating and Drinking in John 6:35." Pages 333– 352 in Imagery in the Gospel of John. Edited by J. Frey, J. G. van der Watt, and R. Zimmerman. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. van den Heever, G. "Redescribing Graeco-Roman Antiquity: On Religion and History of Religion." R&T 12, no. 3 (2005): 211–38. van der Watt, J. G. "Ethics and Ethos in the Gospel according to John." ZNW 97, no. 3–4 (2006): 147–176. van der Watt, J. G. Family of the King: Dynamics of Metaphor in the Gospel according to John. Leiden: Brill, 2000. van der Watt, J. G. "The Gospel of John's Perception of Ethical Behaviour." IDS 45, no. 2&3 (2011): 431–447. van der Watt, J. G. "Quaestiones disputatae: Are John's Ethics Apolitical?" NTS 62 (2016): 493–97. van der Watt, J. G. "Angels in John 1:51." Pages 133–163 in The Opening of John's

255

Narrative (John 1:19–2:22). Edited by R. A. Culpepper and J. Frey. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. van der Watt, J. G. "Ethics in Community in the Gospel and Letters of John." Pages 363–380 in The Oxford Handbook of Johannine Studies. Edited by J. M. Lieu and M. C. de Boer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. van der Watt, J. G. "Ethics through the Power of Language: Some Explorations in the Gospel according to John." Pages 139–167 in Moral Language in the New Testament: The Interrelatedness of Language and Ethics in Early Christian Writings. Edited by R. Zimmerman, J. G. van der Watt, and S. Luther. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. van der Watt, J. G. and R. Zimmermann eds. Rethinking the Ethics of John. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. van der Watt, J. G. "The Composition of the Prologue of John’s Gospel: The Historical Jesus Introducing Divine Grace." WTJ 57, no. 2 (1995): 311–332. van Kooten, G. "A Non-Fideistic Interpretation of Πιστις in Plutarch's Writings: The Harmony between Πιστις and Knowledge." Pages 215–233 in Plutarch in the Religious and Philosophical Discourse of Late Antiquity. Edited by L. R. Lanzillotta and I. M. Gallarte. Leiden: Brill, 2012. van Nuffeln, P. Rethinking the Gods: Philosophical Readings of Religion in the Post- Hellenistic Period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. van Straten, F. T. "Votives and Votaries in Greek Sanctuaries." Pages 247–284 in Le Sanctuaire Grec. Edited by A. Schachter and J. Bingen. Geneva: Fondation Hardt, 1992. van Straten, F. T. "Gifts for the Gods." Pages 65–151 in Faith, Hope, and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World. Edited by H. S. Versnel. Leiden: Brill, 1981. van Tilborg, S. Reading John in Ephesus. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

Vanderlip, V. F. The Four Greek Hymns of Isidorus and the Cult of Isis. American Studies in Papyrology 12. Toronto: Hakkert, 1972.

Verbanck–Piérard, A. "Les héros guérisseurs: des dieux comme les autres! À propos des cultes médicaux dans l’Attique classique." Pages 281–332 in Héros et héroïnes dans les mythes et les cultes grecs. Edited by V. Pirenne-Delforge and E. S. de la Torre. Liège: Presses universitaires de Liège, 2000.

Vermaseren, M. J. Die Orientalischen Religionen im Römerreich. Leiden: Brill, 1981.

Vernant, J.-P. Myth and society in ancient Greece. Translated by J. Lloyd. Brighton: Harvester, 1979.

Versnel, H. S. Coping with the Gods: Wayward Readings in Greek Theology. Leiden: Brill,

256

2011.

Versnel, H. S. "‘May He Not Be Able to Sacrifice…’ concerning a Curious Formula in Greek and Latin Curses." ZPE 58 (1985): 247–69.

Versnel, H. S. Ter Unus: Isis, Dionysos, Hermes: Three Studies in Henotheism. Leiden: Brill, 1990.

Versnel, H. S. "Writing Mortals and Reading Gods: Appeal to the Gods as a Dual Strategy in Social Control." Pages 37–77 in Demokratie, Recht und soziale Kontrolle im klassischen Athen. Edited by D. Cohen and E. Müller-Luckner. Munich: Oldenbourg, 2002.

Versnel, H. S. "Beyond Cursing: The Appeal to Justice in Judicial Prayers." Pages 60–106 in Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion. Edited by C. A. Faraone and D. Obbink. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Versnel, H. S. "Religious Mentality in Ancient Prayer." Pages 1–64 in Faith, Hope, and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World. Edited by H. S. Versnel. Leiden: Brill, 1981.

Veyne, P. Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths? Translated by P. Wissing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.

Vistar Jr., D. V. "The Supreme Σημεῖον of Jesus’ Death-and-Resurrection in the Fourth Gospel." PhD thesis, University of Otago, 2017. von Wahlde, U. C. "Faith and Works in Jn vi 28–29: Exegesis or Eisegesis?" NovT 22, no. 4 (1980): 304–315. von Wahlde, U. C. The Gospel and Letters of John. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. von Wahlde, U. C. "He Has Given to the Son To Have Life in Himself (John 5,26)." Bib 85, no. 3 (2004): 409–412. von Wahlde, U. C. "Literary Structure and Theological Argument in Three Discourses with the Jews in the Fourth Gospel." JBL 103, no. 4 (1984): 575–584. von Wahlde, U. C. "The Johannine “Jews”: A Critical Survey," NTS 28 (1982) 33–60. von Wahlde, U. C. "The Witnesses to Jesus in John 5:31–40 and Belief in the Fourth Gospel." CBQ 43, no. 3 (1981): 385–404.

Walker, S. "A Sanctuary of Isis on the South Slope of the Athenian Acropolis." ABSA 74 (1979): 243–258.

Wallace, D. B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Walsh, P. G. "Lucius Madaurensis." Phoenix 22, no. 2 (1968): 143–57.

257

Walter, L. L’incroyance des croyants selon saint Jean. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1976.

Walters, E. J. Attic Grave Reliefs That Represent Women in the Dress of Isis. Princeton, NJ: Hesperia, 1988.

Wang, S. K.-H. Sense Perception and Testimony in the Gospel According to John. Tübingen. Mohr Siebeck, 2017.

Warde Fowler, W. The Religious Experience of the Roman People. London: MacMillan, 1911.

Wardle, D. "Valerius Maximus on the Domus Augusta, Augustus, and Tiberius." ClQ 50, no. 2 (2000): 479–493.

Wardle, D. "Deus or Divus: The Genesis of Roman Terminology for Deified Emperors and a Philosopher's Contribution." Pages 181–91 in Philosophy and Power in the Graeco- Roman World. Edited by G. Clark and T. Rajak. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Warner, M. "The Fourth Gospel’s Art of Rational Persuasion." Pages 153–177 in The Bible as Rhetoric: Studies in Biblical Persuasion and Credibility. Edited by M. Warner. London: Routledge, 1990.

Warren, M. My Flesh is Meat Indeed: A Nonsacramental Reading of John 6:51-58. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015.

Watson, F., M. A. Seifrid, and T. Morgan. "Quaestiones disputatae: Roman Faith and Christian Faith." NTS 64 (2018): 243–261.

Webster, J. S. Ingesting Jesus: Eating and Drinking in the Gospel of John. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2003.

Weinstock, S. Divus Julius. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971.

Welles, C. B. "Romanization of the Greek East." BASP 2, no. 2 (1965): 42–46.

West, S. "An Alleged Pagan Use of Αγαπη in P.Oxy 1380." JTS 18, no. 1 (1967): 142–143.

West, S. "A Further Note on 'Αγαπη' in P.Oxy 1380." JTS 20, no. 1 (1969): 228–230.

Whitenton, M. R. "The Dissembler of John 3: A Cognitive and Rhetorical Approach to the Characterization of Nicodemus." JBL 135, no. 1 (2016): 141–158.

Wiebe, D. "The Role of Belief in the Study of Religion: A Response to W. C. Smith." Numen 26, no. 2 (1979): 234–49.

Wild, R. A. "The Known Isis-Sarapis Sanctuaries in the Roman Period." ANRW 17.4:1739– 1851. Part 2, Principat, 17.4. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. New York: de Gruyter, 1984.

258

Willey, H. "Gods and Men in Ancient Greek Conceptions of Lawgiving," Pages 176–204 in Theologies of Ancient Greek Religion. Edited by J. Kindt, E. Eidinow, and R. Osborne. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.

Williams, C. H. "'I Am; or 'I Am He'? Self-Declaratory Pronouncements in the Fourth Gospel and Rabbinic Tradition." Pages 343–352 in Jesus in Johannine Tradition. Edited by R. T. Fortna and T. Thatcher. Edited by R. T. Fortna and T. Thatcher. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001.

Williams, C. H. "John (the Baptist): The Witness on the Threshold." Pages 46–60 in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel. Edited by S. A. Hunt, D. F. Tolmie, and R. Zimmerman. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.

Williams, C. H. "Faith, Eternal Life, and the Spirit in the Gospel of John." Pages 347–362 in The Oxford Handbook of Johannine Studies. Edited by J. M. Lieu and M. C. de Boer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Williams, P. J. "Not the Prologue of John." JSNT 33, no. 4 (2011): 375–386.

Winslow, D. "Religion and the Early Roman Empire." Pages 237–54 in Early Church History: The Roman Empire as the Setting of Primitive Christianity. Edited by S. Benko and J. J. O'Rourke. London: Oliphants, 1971.

Winter, B. W. "The Achaean Federal Imperial Cult II: The Corinthian Church." TynBul 46, no. 1 (1995): 169–78.

Winter, B. W. Divine Honours for the Caesars: The First Christians’ Responses. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.

Witherington III, B. John's Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995.

Witt, R. E. Isis in the Graeco-Roman World. London: Thames and Hudson, 1971.

Witt, R. E. "The Use of Αγαπη in P.Oxy 1380: A Reply." JTS 19, no. 1 (1968): 209–211.

Woolf, G. "Becoming Roman, Staying Greek: Culture, Identity and the Civilizing Process in the Roman East." Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 40 (1994): 116– 43.

Woolf, G. "Isis and the Evolution of Religions." Pages 62–92 in Power, Politics, and the Cult of Isis. Edited by L. Bricault and M. J. Versluys. Leiden: Brill, 2014.

Woolf, G. "Polis-Religion and its Alternatives in the Roman Provinces." Pages 71–84 in Römische Reichsreligion und Provinzialreligion. Edited by H. Cancik and J. Rüpke. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997.

Woolf, G. "Ritual and the Individual in Roman Religion." Pages 136–160 in The Individual in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean. Edited by J. Rüpke. Oxford: Oxford

259

University Press, 2013.

Yee, G. A. Jewish Feasts and the Gospel of John. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1989.

Yoo, J.-W. "The Rhetoric of Truth in the Gospel of John: 'Truth' as Counter-Imperial Reality in the Face of Conflict and Stress." Lutheran School of Theology, 2013.

Zaidman, L. B. and P. S. Pantel. Religion in the Ancient Greek City. Translated by P. Cartledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Zimmerman, R. "Abundant and Abandoning Life: Towards an 'Ethic of Life' in the Gospel of John." ABR 64 (2016): 31–53.

Zimmerman, R. "Figurenanalyse im Johannesevangelium: Ein Beitrag zu Sinn und Wahrheit narratologischer Exegese." ZNW 105, no. 1 (2014): 20–53.

Zimmerman, R. "Jesus - the Lamb of God (John 1:29 and 1:36): Metaphorical Christology in the Fourth Gospel." Pages 79–96 in The Opening of John's Narrative (John 1:19– 2:22). Edited by R. A. Culpepper and J. Frey. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017.

Zimonyi, Á. "The Context of Medical Competitions in Ephesus." Acta Antiqua Hungarica 54 (2014): 355–370.

Zumstein, J. Das Johannesevangelium. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016.

Zumstein, J. L'apprentisage de la foi. 2nd ed. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2015.

Zumstein, J. L'évangile selon Saint Jean (13–21). Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2007.

Zumstein, J. "Le lavement des pieds (Jean 13,1–20): Un exemple de la conception johannique du pouvoir." RTP 132 (2000): 345–60.

Zumstein, J. "Croire et comprendre." Pages 73–88 in Miettes exégétiques. Edited by J. Zumstein. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1991.

Zumstein, J. "L'évangile johannique: une stratégie du croire." Pages 237–252 in Miettes exégétiques. Edited by J. Zumstein. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1991.

Zumstein, J. "Mémoire et relecture pascale dans l'évangile selon Jean." Pages 299–316 in Miettes exégétiques. Edited by J. Zumstein. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1991.

260