Copyright holder: Tyndale University, 3377 Bayview Ave., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M2M 3S4 Att.: Library Director, J. William Horsey Library Copyright: This Work has been made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright laws of Canada without the written authority from the copyright owner. Copyright license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License Citation: Accepted Manuscript (AM) Citation: Reynolds, Benjamin. “John and the Jewish Apocalypses: Rethinking the Genre of John’s Gospel," in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, edited by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland, pages 1-31. London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2013. This is a pre-copyrighted, author-produced, peer-reviewed version of the book chapter accepted for publication in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, edited by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland. Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2013. Version of Record (VOR) Citation: Reynolds, Benjamin E. "John and the Jewish Apocalypses: Rethinking the Genre of John’s Gospel,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, edited by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland, pages 36-57. London: Bloomsbury T and T Clark, 2013. DOI: 10.5040/978147255083.0006 ***** Begin Content ****** TYNDALE UNIVERSITY 3377 Bayview Avenue Toronto, ON M2M 3S4 TEL: 416.226.6620 www.tyndale.ca Note: This Work has been made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright laws of Canada without the written authority from the copyright owner. Accepted Manuscript (AM) Citation: Reynolds, Benjamin. “John and the Jewish Apocalypses: Rethinking the Genre of John’s Gospel," in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, edited by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland, pages 1-31. London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2013. This is a pre-copyrighted, author-produced, peer-reviewed version of the book chapter accepted for publication in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, edited by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland. Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2013. Version of Record (VOR) Citation: Reynolds, Benjamin E. "John and the Jewish Apocalypses: Rethinking the Genre of John’s Gospel,” in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, edited by Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland, pages 36-57. London: Bloomsbury T and T Clark, 2013. DOI: 10.5040/978147255083.0006 [ Page ] 1 John and the Jewish Apocalypses: Rethinking the Genre of John‘s Gospel Benjamin Reynolds, Tyndale University College 1. Introduction Although the Gospel of John is clearly one of the Four Gospels, it has also been likened to apocalyptic literature. As in the Jewish apocalypses, John‘s Gospel is permeated with the theme of revelation and mystery and with ascents and descents between earth and heaven. Jesus the Logos descends from heaven and makes known the Father to those on earth. He can reveal the heavenly things (ta epourania) because he has come from above and will return to where he was before, and his presence on earth makes possible a vision of God the Father. John Ashton1 and Christopher Rowland2 have argued for seeing John‘s Gospel as similar to apocalyptic literature and have explained what that might mean for ‘understanding the Fourth Gospel’.3 However, not all scholars are open to such a connection between apocalyptic literature and John‘s Gospel. For example, with reference to John 1.51, Douglas Hare states: ‘...the use of such ___________________________ 1 John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 2007). 2 Christopher Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1982); Christopher Rowland and Christopher R. A. Morray- Jones, The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament (CRINT 12; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2009). 3 See the earlier work of Hugo Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel: Interpreted in its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World (Chicago/ Uppsala: Argonaut, 1929). [ Page ] 2 grotesque, apocalyptic imagery as [the Son of Man as a ladder] is not characteristic of the Fourth Gospel‘.4 However, despite disagreements such as these, the Gospel of John is more closely connected with the Jewish apocalypses than the presence or absence of angels, thrones, tours of heaven, visions of hell, climactic judgement scenes, and other such ‘apocalyptic imagery’ would indicate. In this essay I will compare the Jewish apocalypses5 and the Gospel of John. I will address the definition of ‘apocalypse‘, highlight the Gospel‘s apocalyptic framework, note the ways in which John is not an apocalypse, and conclude with a proposal for describing John‘s genre. The questions I am seeking to answer include: ‘What is the relationship between John and the Jewish apocalypses?‘ and ‘How can that relationship best be described in terms of the genre of the Gospel of John?‘ John Ashton has explained John‘s Gospel as ‘an apocalypse—in reverse, upside down, inside out‘.6 With great respect for Ashton and Rowland, I contend that this description, while elegant and provocative, lacks precision when a comparison is made between John‘s Gospel and the Jewish apocalypses. ______________________________ 4 Douglas R. A. Hare, The Son of Man Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), p. 83. 5 Due to issues of space and scope, only the Jewish apocalypses will be addressed. Examination of the early Christian apocalypses in comparison with the Gospel of John is an important area for further study. For descriptions of Jewish and Christian apocalypses, see John J. Collins (ed.), Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre (Semeia 14; Atlanta: Scholars, 1979). See also Adela Yarbro Collins (ed.), Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Setting (Semeia 36; Decatur: Scholars, 1986). 6 Ashton, Understanding2, p. 329. See also Rowland, The Mystery of God, pp. 123-31. [ Page ] 3 Admittedly, both Ashton and Rowland have acknowledged that they do not intend for the designation ‘apocalypse in reverse’ to function as a precise description of the Gospel of John’s relationship with the genre of ‘apocalypse’.7 However, because Ashton’s explanation is the only description that has been given, it rightly serves as the starting-point for any discussion of ‘intimations of apocalyptic’ in John.8 If Ashton’s description is not intended to be exact, is it possible to describe the relationship with more precision? And what might a more accurate description look like? Now, in pursuing the answers to these questions, I am in significant agreement with John Ashton and Christopher Rowland, and I want to stress that I see this discussion as an in-house debate amongst those who view John’s Gospel as having some relationship with apocalyptic literature. I assume that no one would classify the Gospel as an apocalypse, but there may be various ways to explain this relationship and the similarities shared by John and the Jewish apocalypses. Even Ashton, in his second edition of Understanding the Fourth Gospel, states that to include the Gospel of John in the definition of apocalypse ‘stretches the genre somewhat but perhaps not to breaking point’.9 Thus, I may well come to a conclusion with which Ashton and Rowland will agree. Either way, my intention is to clarify some of the issues of genre surrounding the relationship between the Gospel of John and apocalyptic literature. _______________________________ 7 They did so in response to this paper as well as in following private conversations at the Bangor Colloquium. For Christopher Rowland the designation ‘apocalypse in reverse’ serves as a kind of heuristic device or metaphor to denote the effect of John’s Gospel on its readers/hearers. 8 See for example the various titles of papers from the Bangor Colloquium in this volume. 9 Ashton, Understanding2, p. 7. [ Page ] 4 2. Of Apocalypses, Apocalyptic and Definitions Entering into discussions of genre poses a number of problems, not the least of which is the fact that the term ‘genre’ and genre definitions are scholarly constructs and are always unstable. Any definition of a genre such as ‘apocalypse’ must recognize the porous and nebulous nature of these abstract constructs. However, if we do not begin from a definition of some kind, abstract or not, there is no clarity concerning what we are discussing. In this regard, the defining of genres in general is, in my opinion, a necessary exercise; however, at the same time, we must constantly remind ourselves that the border between what is on the inside of the genre and what is outside is in reality a border of our own making. For the purpose of this essay, therefore, defining the terms ‘apocalypse’ and ‘apocalyptic’ is important for clarifying John’s relationship with apocalyptic literature. What does it mean to say that the Gospel of John is ‘an apocalypse—in reverse, upside down, inside out’? What would it mean to say that it is an ‘apocalypse’ proper? While we may prefer to avoid the need to define terms, some clarity is required with regard to what we mean by ‘apocalypse’ and, therefore, by a ‘reversed apocalypse’. Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, defining the words ‘apocalyptic’ and ‘apocalypse’ is not without its challenges. First, a survey of scholarly use reveals an inconsistency in the use of the terms.10 In biblical studies, there is a tendency in some circles for ‘apocalyptic’ to refer mainly to eschatology, even though eschatology is not always a feature of apocalypses. For instance, Jesus’ message of the kingdom has been likened to ‘apocalyptic’ because of the hope in ____________________________ 10 Richard E. Sturm, ‘Defining the Word — Apocalyptic”: A Problem in Biblical Criticism’, in Joel Marcus and Marion L. Soards (eds.), Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J. Louis Martyn (JSNTSup 24; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), pp. 16-48. [ Page ] 5 a cosmic overthrow of the world’s present condition,11 and ‘apocalypticism’ has been associated with an ‘imminent expectation’ or a ‘cosmic drama of the end’.12 Second, popular uses of the words ‘apocalyptic’ and ‘apocalypse’ most often refer to cataclysmic, end-of-the-world scenarios.13 These difficulties of scholarly confusion and popular meaning, along with others, contribute to the inconsistency of meaning in the use of the terms ‘apocalyptic’ and ‘apocalypse’. A helpful starting-point in attempting to clarify the confusion in the scholarly discussion is the definition of ‘apocalypse’ by the SBL Genres Project. This definition, primarily advocated by John Collins, states that an apocalypse is: a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world.14 ___________________________ 11 Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (trans. Kendrick Grobel; 2 vols; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951/1955), I, pp. 4-6. 12 See Ernst Käsemann, The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17 (trans. Gerhard Krodel; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968), p. 13, cf. p. 72. 13 The website www.apocalypticmovies.com provides information about films that portray catastrophic events that threaten to destroy the world or actually do destroy the world. This website also lists post-apocalyptic films which take place after such ‘apocalyptic’ events. 14 John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2nd edition, 1998), p. 5. [ Page ] 6 This definition has received criticism of various kinds,15 but, for the purposes of discussing the Gospel of John and the Jewish apocalypses, John Ashton‘s critique of the definition is the most relevant.16 Ashton‘s concern seems to be the way in which the Gospel of John fits this definition of apocalypse ‘snugly’ while ‘it is obviously not an apocalypse’.17 He rightly notes the importance of clarifying the difference between prophecy in the OT and the mediation of revelation in apocalypses and the importance of discussing the relevance of the milieu of the apocalyptic literature. He also argues that the mode of apocalyptic revelation should be specified—a vision or dream needing interpretation, or heavenly ascent.18 Although the mode of the revelation may be distinctive of apocalypses, not all apocalypses include the modes of vision, dream, or heavenly ascent. In 4 Ezra, for example, an angel at times meets Ezra even when he does not appear to be in a visionary state (5.31; 7.1; cf. 4.1). In Jubilees, Moses goes up Mount Sinai to meet God in the more or less literal sense of climbing the mountain. While the Book of the Luminaries and the Apocalypse of Weeks imply heavenly journeys, there is no explicit reference to these journeys.19 __________________________________ 15 See especially the critique by David Hellholm, ‘The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John’, Semeia 36 (1986), pp. 13-64. 16 For a brief overview of ‘apocalyptic’, see the introductory essay in David E. Aune, Apocalypticism, Prophecy, and Magic in Early Christianity: Collected Essays (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), pp. 1-12. 17 Ashton, Understanding2, p. 309 (emphasis original). 18 Ashton, Understanding2, p. 310. 19 See Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, p. 60. The implication of heavenly journeys in the Book of the Luminaries and the Apocalypse of Weeks may be seen in 1 En. 81.5; 93.2; see George W. [ Page ] 7 These four examples of apocalypses suggest that specifying the mode of revelation in a definition of ‘apocalypse’ should be done with caution.20 However, as Ashton’s objection indicates, more clarity might be beneficial as long as it is not overly specific. Thus, I suggest emending the SBL definition so that it states that the heavenly mediation to the human recipient is ‘often, though not always, through visions, dreams, or an ascent to heaven’. A further aspect of Ashton’s critique of the SBL definition of ‘apocalypse’ is that eschatology ‘is not a constant or a necessary feature of apocalyptic writing’.21 Since he gives no further explanation of this criticism, I can only assume that Ashton disagrees with the part of the SBL definition that refers to ‘eschatological salvation’. Ashton is correct that eschatology, in the sense of a climactic judgement at the end of the world, does not make up the content of all apocalypses.22 Clearly, this sort of eschatology concerns some apocalypses (e.g., Parables of ______________________________________________________________________________________________ E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 136; 81-108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), pp. 340, 443. 20 John J. Collins, ‘Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre’, Semeia 14 (1979), pp. 1- 20 (11), contends that the phrase referring to the mediation of revelation by an otherworldly figure in the definition of ‘apocalypse’ includes the various modes of revelation. 21 Ashton, Understanding2, p. 309. 22 John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1st edition, 1991), p. 384, notes that Käsemann speaks of ‘apocalyptic’ in the way that he himself speaks of eschatology. He cites Käsemann, ‘On the Subject of Primitive Christian Apocalyptic’, in New Testament Questions of Today (London: SCM, 1969), pp. 108-37 (109 n. 1): ‘It emerges from the context that almost throughout I speak of primitive Christian apocalyptic to denote the expectation of an imminent Parousia’. See Michael E. Stone, ‘Lists of Revealed Things in the [ Page ] 8 Enoch, 2 Baruch), but the phrase ‘eschatological salvation’ in the SBL definition is explained by Collins to refer to ‘personal eschatology’, i.e. what happens to the righteous and the wicked when they die.23 If we understand ‘eschatological salvation’ as ‘personal eschatological salvation’, rather than purely cataclysmic, end-time eschatology, it may be possible to allow the definition to stand. Ashton and Rowland are correct to point out the lack of this sort of eschatology in all of the Jewish apocalypses. However, the Jewish apocalypses do appear to be concerned with the salvation of the righteous and the wicked. This is a concern for personal eschatology without reference to ‘apocalyptic’ imagery, angels, thrones, books, or the destruction of the world. Taking into account Ashton’s comments concerning the mode of revelation and the milieu of writing, the following definition of ‘apocalypse’ is an emended version of the one previously suggested: a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly figure to a human recipient often, though not always, ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Apocalyptic Literature’, in Frank M. Cross, Werner E. Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller, Jr. (eds.), Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God. Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright (Garden City: Doubleday, 1976), pp. 414-52. 23 Collins, ‘Morphology’, p. 9. Collins argues that ‘personal afterlife’ is one of the most ‘consistent’ aspects of the apocalyptic genre. However, it should be noted that elsewhere Collins appears to take the view that apocalypses contain cataclysmic eschatology. See idem, ‘From Prophecy to Apocalypticism: The Expectation of the End’, in John J. Collins (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, Volume 1: The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity (New York: Continuum, 1998), pp. 129-61. [ Page ] 9 through visions, dreams, or an ascent to heaven, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages personal eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world, ‘and an apocalypse is intended to interpret present, earthly circumstances in the light of the supernatural world..., and to influence both the understanding and the behavior of the audience by means of divine authority ’ .24 Having established a working definition of ‘apocalypse’, and keeping in mind that it also remains a scholarly construct, this essay will now focus on the ways in which the Gospel of John fits the framework of an ‘apocalypse‘ and yet offer reasons why it is not an ‘apocalypse‘. 3. The Gospel of John’s Apocalyptic Framework The Gospel of John can be described as having the framework of an apocalypse in that it coheres in a surprising way with our working definition of ‘apocalypse‘. The Gospel is a narrative that reveals mysteries about God and his Son. It begins with an otherworldly figure descending from heaven and mediating the revelation of heavenly things (3.12-13) to human recipients (1.11, 50- 51); the revelation includes making known the Father (1.18) and the transcendent reality of * _____________________________ 24 The italics indicate additions to the SBL definition. The latter half of the definition is the emendation suggested by Adela Yarbro Collins (‘Introduction: Early Christian Apocalypticism‘, Semeia 36 (1986), pp. 1-11 (7)) to address the question of apocalyptic milieu; however, the ellipsis indicates where I have removed the phrase ‘and of the future‘ because of the concerns over eschatology discussed above. See Benjamin E. Reynolds, The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John (WUNT 2/249; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), p. 16. [ Page ] 10 heaven. Jesus, the otherworldly figure, is clearly from heaven and has descended to earth (1.1-2, 18; 3.13, 34; 9.33; 17.5). The gap between heaven and earth is bridged through the opening of heaven and the Son of Man connecting heaven and earth (1.51).25 The revelation mediated by Jesus discloses the personal eschatological salvation that is possible through belief in him (3.16; 14.6). The temporal aspect of this salvation has its own Johannine peculiarity since there is a present connotation to judgement and salvation (3.17-18; 9.39), yet their future consummation is also envisaged (5.28-29; 6.39-40; 14.1-3). The revelation that Jesus gives is written down and testified by a human recipient (1.14; 2.11; 21.24). Further, like most apocalypses, the Gospel of John places earthly events in heavenly perspective (1.1-5; 3.13, 31; 6.27-35, 62; 9.33, 39; 13.33; 17.1-5; 20.17). And the call to believe through the actions of Jesus is surely a call to the audience to respond to authoritative revelation as the one who speaks and does what he has seen and heard from the Father. Therefore, given that the Gospel fits this particular definition and framework of an apocalypse and shares numerous themes with the Jewish apocalypses,26 it would seem that, in many respects, the Gospel of John should be considered an apocalypse.27 _________________________ 25 Udo Schnelle, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (THKNT 4; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2nd edition, 1998), p. 56. 26 It can be argued that the Gospel of John shares the following themes with Jewish apocalypses: the opening of heaven (John 1.51 with 2 Bar. 22.1; T. Levi 2.6; T. Ab. A 7.3; Apoc. Ab. 19.4; Apoc. Zeph. 10.2; Rev 4.1-2; 19.11); ascent or descent of an otherworldly figure or human recipient (3.13; 6.62 with 1 En. 14.8; T. Levi 2.6-7; T. Ab. A 10.1); the revelation of heavenly things (1.18; 3.12-13 with T. Ab. A 11-14); the vision of God (12.41; 14.9 with Rev 4-5; 1 En. 14.8-23; Apoc. Ab. 18); the vision of God in the heavenly temple (2.21; 12.41 with 1 En. 14); [ Page ] 11 4. Why John’s Gospel is not an Apocalypse Although the Gospel shares the framework of an apocalypse, meeting the key features of our working definition of ‘apocalypse’, John Ashton is correct to say that the Gospel of John is not an apocalypse.28 Five reasons will be offered below which indicate that the Gospel of John diverges from the genre of ‘apocalypse‘, regardless of the Gospel‘s apocalyptic framework and shared similarities with Jewish apocalypses. The first four reasons pertain to John‘s presentation of Jesus as the otherworldly mediator who becomes a human being, who is the content of the revelation, who is one with God, and who is crucified, buried, and raised. The fifth reason addresses the fact that the revelation of the Johannine Jesus has multiple human recipients, which raises questions concerning pseudepigraphy and the authorship of the Gospel. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ judgement and the Son of Man (5.27; 9.39 with Dan 7.9-12; 1 En. 62; T. Ab. A 11-13; Apoc. Ab. 22.3-5; 3 Bar. 15-16; cf. Apoc. Zeph. 6.17; 10.11); double resurrection of the righteous and the wicked (5.28-29 with 1 En. 51.1-5; 4 Ezra 7.28-36; 2 Bar. 50.2-51.4; Rev 20.5-6, 11-14); the importance of the written record of revelation (20.30-31; 21.24 with 1 En. 68.1; 81.6; 82.1; 83.8- 10; 2 En. 23.3-6; 40.1-12; 2 En. J 68.2; Rev 1.11; Jub. 1.5, 7, 26; 2.1; 4 Ezra 14.44-46; 2 Bar. 50.1; cf. 77.12-87.1). These themes deserve more explanation, but, for now, this footnote will have to suffice. 27 Ashton (Understanding2, p. 7) states: ‘Provided that we understand eschatological in the sense that Bultmann employs this word (i.e. as referring to what the Gospel calls life) and admit that Jesus really did speak, as he claims to have done, of —heavenly things” (3.12), this [the SBL definition of apocalypse] fits the Fourth Gospel to a T‘. 28 Ashton, Understanding2, p. 309. [ Page ] 12 4.1. The Mediator as a Human Being Like the Jewish apocalypses, the Gospel of John is set within a narrative framework in which an otherworldly figure mediates revelation to a human recipient. One element where John‘s Gospel diverges from the normal apocalyptic plot relates to the character of the otherworldly being. In the Jewish apocalypses, the mediator figure is commonly an angel. It is the angel Gabriel who interprets Daniel’s vision (Dan 8.15-26). Uriel teaches Enoch about the heavenly luminaries in the Book of the Luminaries (1 En. 72-82). In the Testament of Abraham it is Michael who leads Abraham on his heavenly journey. Phanael takes Baruch into the heavens and discloses heavenly mysteries to him (3 Bar. 2.1, 5), and the unnamed ‘angel of the presence’ tells Moses the law in Jubilees. In contrast, it is not an angel who descends and reveals the heavenly mysteries in the Gospel of John, but rather Jesus, the Logos, the Son of God. Some scholars have argued that the Gospel of John presents an angelomorphic Christology, particularly in 1.51, where the angels of God are said to ascend and descend on the Son of Man.29 One of the more obvious similarities between the Johannine Jesus and angels is that both are sent by God and reveal messages from God.30 However, while there are similarities, the significant difference between Jesus and the otherworldly mediators of the Jewish __________________________ 29 See Charles A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence (AGJU 42; Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 270-93; Jarl E. Fossum, The Image of the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence of Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (NTOA 30; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995), pp. 135-51. 30 Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, pp. 284-86; Robert H. Gundry, Jesus the Word According to John the Sectarian (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), pp. 13-14. [ Page ] 13 apocalypses is that the heavenly figure of John’s Gospel becomes human—‘the Word became flesh and dwelt among us‘ (1.14). In the Jewish apocalypses, the angelic mediators remain angels and do not become like those to whom they reveal the heavenly mysteries.31 An example of this difference can be seen in the episode from the Testament of Abraham where Michael (‘the commander-in-chief‘) is directed by God to descend and tell Abraham that he is about to die (A 1.5). Michael is so overcome by Abraham‘s hospitality and righteousness that he ascends to heaven and announces to God that he cannot inform the patriarch of his impending death (A 4.6). God commands Michael to return and to eat whatever Abraham puts in front of him. A dream given to Isaac will allow Michael to announce Abraham‘s death through the interpretation of the dream. Michael‘s response to this plan reveals his concern about the food. As angels do not eat food, he asks what he is to do with the food that Abraham will put in front of him (A 4.9). God tells Michael that he will send a spirit upon him that will devour whatever he puts into his mouth (A 4.10). After Michael descends, the devouring spirit does its work and ‘the commander-in-chief’ interprets Isaac’s dream (A 7.8-12). What is clear from this episode is that angels are not human and therefore do not eat.32 In John’s Gospel, the human Jesus does eat and drink, even though he is a heavenly mediator sent by God. He does not eat or drink when the disciples return with food (4.31-34), ___________________________ 31 Kevin P. Sullivan, Wrestling with Angels: A Study of the Relationship Between Angels and Humans in Ancient Jewish Literature and the New Testament (AGJU 55; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004), pp. 37-83, especially 82-83. See Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 70-71. 32 In Tob 12.19, Raphael claims that he never ate anything. A vision made it appear as though he ate. See Sullivan, Wrestling with Angels, pp. 179-95. [ Page ] 14 although their expectation is that Jesus can, and will, eat. He reclines at table with Lazarus (12.2), has dinner with his disciples (13.2), and drinks the sour wine from the cross (19.29).33 The fact that Jesus is a human being and the heavenly emissary is a significant difference between John and the Jewish apocalypses, given that an apocalypse is partly defined in terms of an otherworldly figure mediating revelation to a human recipient. In John, the otherworldly figure has become a human being like the recipients to whom he reveals the heavenly mysteries.34 4.2. The Mediator as the Content and Centre of the Revelation A second significant difference between the Gospel of John and Jewish apocalypses is that in the Gospel the otherworldly figure is also the content of the revelation. To describe this as the merging of Message and Messenger35 or Jesus as Revealer and Revelation36 captures the sense of ______________________________ 33 There are indications that even the resurrected Jesus eats food (21.13-15). 34 With regard to John 3.13, Ashton contends that Jesus is an angel and a seer. He states (Understanding2, p. 258): ‘The blinding realization that in Jesus angel and seer are one and the same marks one of the most significant advances in the whole history of Christian thought: its ramifications are endless‘. Ashton appears to be referring to Jesus as seer because of his descent from heaven and role in revealing the mysteries that he has seen in heaven. Jesus‘ descent-ascent pattern is partly what Ashton sees as the reversal of apocalyptic seers‘ typical ascent-descent pattern. However, while some seers ascend to heaven and then descend, it is not true of all. Some seers remain on earth, and angels descend and disclose revelation to them, as Jesus does in John‘s Gospel. See below for further discussion. 35 Gundry, Jesus the Word, p. 14. 36 See Bultmann, Theology, II, p. 66. [ Page ] 15 the assimilation that moves the Gospel of John beyond the bounds of texts belonging to the genre of ‘apocalypse’. Revelation in the Jewish apocalypses never focuses on the angelic figure. Angels interpret dreams and visions, speak messages from God, and transport seers into heaven, but they are never the content of the revelation. They do not take centre stage; rather, they direct attention away from themselves to what is revealed. By contrast, the heavenly mediator figure in John‘s Gospel directs people to God, but it is only through belief in Jesus that people can receive eternal life or come to the Father (14.6). The focus on Jesus’ identity (chs. 7-9), on his words and works (4.34; 5.36; 8.26, 28), and on the necessity of belief in him for salvation (3.16; 20.30-31), highlight the way in which the heavenly emissary in John is the centre and content of the revelation that he himself brings. Two additional features in the Gospel of John underscore this important difference. First, the otherworldly figure is the Son of Man, the one who has the authority to judge (5.27). In the Jewish apocalypses in which a son of man figure appears, the mediator is the one who discloses or interprets a vision of the son of man (cf. 1 En. 62 with 71.14; 4 Ezra 13). The angel is not part of the vision, nor is the angel confused with any of the figures in the vision.37 Secondly, the Johannine Jesus receives glory (12.23; 13.31-32). Angels in the Jewish apocalypses do not typically receive glory nor do they come close to the status of the heavenly mediator as presented in John’s Gospel.38 These features highlight the important difference between the Gospel and the _____________________________ 37 In the Parables of Enoch, we do find the interesting possibility that the human recipient (or seer) of the revelation (Enoch) is the son of man figure of his vision (70.1; 71.14). See Daniel C. Olson, ‘Enoch and the Son of Man in the Epilogue of the Parables’, JSP 18 (1998), pp. 27-38. 38 Even Yahoel, in Apoc. Ab. 10.3-17, is not glorified or worshipped even though he is given the divine name. Yahoel worships God along with Abraham (17.2). See Larry W. Hurtado, One God, [ Page ] 16 apocalypses in that the heavenly emissary in John is the content and focus of the revelation. This is something that does not occur in the Jewish apocalypses. 4.3. The Mediator as One with God The third indication that the fourth evangelist is not writing an apocalypse proper is the oneness that Jesus, the mediator figure, shares with God. In the Jewish apocalypses, angelic mediators are messengers of God and speak the words of God. Notably, in Jubilees and 4 Ezra it is often difficult to determine whether God or the angelic mediator is speaking.39 In addition, in the Apocalypse of Abraham the angel Yahoel bears the divine name (10.3, 8) and is described in terms suggestive of divine attributes (11.1-6)40 Christopher Rowland contends that even though Yahoel has divine attributes and bears the divine name, ‘the figure is clearly an angel’.41 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (London: T&T Clark/Continuum, 2nd edition, 1998), pp. 81-82; Rowland, Open Heaven, p. 103. 39 4 Ezra 5.31, 38-56; 6.11-16, 30-32; 7.1-17; Jub. 1.22, 26, 27; 2.1; 6.20, 32; 33.18; 50.1-2. See Ashton, Understanding2, pp. 291-92. 40 Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, pp. 76-78, 277-78, who also cites Prayer of Joseph 9; 1 En. 69.15; 3 En. 12.5. See also Rowland, Open Heaven, pp. 94-113; Ashton, Understanding2, pp. 281-98. 41 Rowland, Open Heaven, p. 103; Sullivan, Wrestling with Angels, p. 82. [ Page ] 17 Like the angels in these apocalypses, the Johannine Jesus is clearly an otherworldly mediator of heavenly revelation and thus a messenger and agent of God.42 For this reason, similarities between Jesus and the angelic mediators are to be expected. However, John presents a oneness between Jesus and the Father that extends beyond the role of the otherworldly mediators in the Jewish apocalypses. Jesus says, ‘I and the Father are one’ (10.30; cf. 17.22). Jesus does what God does: he judges, he gives life (5.19-24), and he works on the Sabbath (5.17). Jesus is accused of making himself equal with God (5.18). He claims the divine name ‘I Am‘ (8.28), and he says that he has come in his Father‘s name (5.43; 17.11; cf. 12.28). Jesus has the glory of the only begotten of the Father (1.14); God and Jesus are glorified in one another (13.31-32; also 12.41). Not only was the Logos with God, the Logos was God (1.1).43 Ernst Kasemann states: ‘In unique dignity as the Father’s “exegete” (1.18), he surpasses everyone else who may otherwise have been sent‘.44 The mediator figures of the Jewish apocalypses primarily disclose or interpret revelation. They point away from themselves to the content or meaning of what is revealed. The mediator in John’s Gospel directs attention to himself because he is the revelation. 4.4. The Mediator as Crucified, Buried, and Raised ___________________________ 42 See Peder Borgen, ‘God’s Agent in the Fourth Gospel’, in Philo, John, and Paul: New Perspectives on Judaism and Early Christianity (Brown Judaic Studies 131; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), pp. 171-84. 43 See Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), pp. 46-50. 44 Käsemann, Testament, p. 11. [ Page ] 18 A further difference between the Jewish apocalypses and John‘s Gospel is almost too obvious to mention. Unlike the otherworldly mediators in the Jewish apocalypses, Jesus suffers death by crucifixion, is buried, and is raised to life on the third day. In Johannine language, this is the lifting up and glorification of Jesus.45 Nothing like death or suffering happens to the otherworldly mediators in the Jewish apocalypses,46 and, as mentioned above, no angel receives glory as does the Johannine Jesus. Although this aspect relates to some of the previously mentioned differences (i.e., Jesus‘ humanity), the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus mark a stark contrast between the Gospel of John and the Jewish apocalypses. 4.5. Multiple Human Recipients and Pseudonymous Authorship In the Jewish apocalypses a human being receives the revelation. While such individuals are well-known figures from Israel‘s past, including Enoch, Moses, Abraham, Baruch, Ezra, and Levi, each Jewish apocalypse names only one figure as the recipient of the heavenly mysteries. In contrast, the fourth evangelist portrays the revelation as being received by more than one human figure, as the Gospel‘s opening verses make clear: Jesus came to his own but his own did not receive him (1.11). Again, a few verses later, the evangelist writes ‘we have seen his glory’ (1.14), implying that the glory of the Word become flesh was seen by more than one person (cf. 21.24). In 2.11 there is further evidence for multiple recipients of the revelation: ‘Jesus revealed his glory and his disciples believed in him’. And in 1.51 Jesus speaks to Nathanael using the second person ___________________________ 45 Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (2 vols.; The Anchor Bible 29/29A; New York: Doubleday, 1966/1970), I, p. 146; Josef Blank, Krisis: Untersuchungen zur johanneischen Christologie und Eschatologie (Freiburg im Breisgau: Lambertus-Verlag, 1964), p. 267. 46 Note that the mediator in Dan 10 was opposed by the prince of the kingdom of Persia (v. 13). [ Page ] 19 plural: ‘you will see (opsesthe) heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man‘. In addition, Jesus tells Thomas: kai ap arti ginoskete auton kai heorakate auton (‘and from now on you [pl.] know him [the Father] and you [pl.] have seen him‘; 14.7). The Johannine revelation is clearly revealed to a broader group and not one individual. The receipt of the heavenly revelation by more than one figure is a subtle but noteworthy difference between the Gospel of John and Jewish apocalypses.47 At the same time, the Gospel itself is described as the testimony of one figure, the disciple whom Jesus loved (13.23; 19.26; 20.2; 21.7, 20). Without delving deeply into the authorship debate, the Beloved Disciple is probably among those who claim to have seen Jesus‘ glory (note the plural ‘we’ in 1.14; cf. 12.37-43); he testifies to the events of Jesus' passion (19.35; 20.8) and writes down what he has seen (21.24; cf. 19.35; 20.30-31). This may suggest a singular human recipient of the revelation. However, the Beloved Disciple is clearly one of many disciples to have received and seen Jesus’ revelation, and there is no mention of him experiencing a heavenly ascent, a dream, or a vision. Further, unlike most Jewish apocalypses (cf. Rev 1.9), the author of John’s Gospel is unnamed. Jewish apocalypses are typically pseudonymous and the reason for this, in all likelihood, is to lend authority to the revelation.48 On the whole, therefore, there are ____________________________ 47 Note T. Ab. A 7.8-12, where Michael interprets Isaac’s dream to Isaac, Abraham, and possibly to Sarah; however, Abraham is the only one taken on the tour of heaven. 48 See Rowland, Open Heaven, pp. 61-70; Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, pp. 39-40, 270-71; Loren T. Stuckenbruck, ‘Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha’, in John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (eds.), The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2010), pp. 143-62 (154-56). [ Page ] 20 significant differences between John and the Jewish apocalypses with regard to the recipients of the heavenly revelation and pseudonymous authorship.49 4.6. Summary Although the Gospel of John corresponds closely to our working definition of an apocalypse, it is, nevertheless, not an apocalypse. The Gospel may fit the framework of an apocalypse and share motifs with the Jewish apocalypses, but the usual cast of characters in the apocalypses do not match those found in the Gospel. Jesus is no mere angelic messenger. Instead, as mediator of the revelation, he is also the centre of the revelation, is one with the source of the revelation, and is a human being, even one who suffers death, like those to whom he discloses the revelation. This merging of apocalyptic characters bursts the wineskins of the genre of ‘apocalypse’. In addition, a comparison between pseudonymous authors of Jewish apocalypses and the Beloved Disciple raises an interesting area for further study, although, as far as the definition of apocalypse is concerned, the revelation in John‘s Gospel is disclosed to multiple human recipients rather than to a single recipient. These differences in the function of otherworldly _______________________________ 49 In the Jewish apocalypses, the great heroes of Israel are associated with seeing the heavenly mysteries and reporting what they have seen. Now, although the author is unnamed, the designation ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved‘ apparently functioned as a referent to a specific person who was most likely known to the first hearers and readers of the Gospel. Further study is needed, but does the designation ‘Beloved Disciple‘ function as a pseudonym similar to those of the Jewish apocalypses? Or might the veiled anonymity of the author function as some sort of compromise between the pseudonymity of the Jewish apocalypses and the anonymity of the Gospels? [ Page ] 21 mediator and human recipient imply that the Gospel does not conform to the definition of an apocalypse. The framework of ‘apocalypse’ is still visible but the cast of characters in the apocalyptic plot—the otherworldly figure, human recipient, revelation and God—merge together in the person of Jesus. 5. Questioning John’s Gospel as ‘Apocalypse in Reverse ’ John Ashton argues that, rather than an apocalypse proper, ‘the fourth evangelist conceives his own work as an apocalypse—in reverse, upside down, inside out‘.50 It appears that Ashton perceives the Gospel of John to be an apocalypse reversed and upside down primarily because the revelation takes place on earth. He states, ‘There is no divine plan first disclosed to a seer in a vision and then repeated in earthly terms. The divine plan itself—the Logos—is incarnate: fully embodied in the person of Jesus. It is his life that reveals God‘s grand design of saving the world, a design now being realized, lived out, by the community‘. 51 This position is echoed by Christopher Rowland: ‘Heavenly visions of God are not what is on offer in the Fourth Gospel, for ____________________________ 50 Ashton, Understanding2, pp. 328-29. To repeat (see above), although I recognize that Ashton’s comment is more of a turn of phrase than a technical description, I think that it can be misleading if it is taken even somewhat literally. Further, this description still leaves open the question of how to describe the relationship between the Gospel of John and the Jewish apocalypses. 51 Ashton, Understanding2, p. 328, also pp. 528-29. [ Page ] 22 claims to see God must be regarded as claims to see Jesus. The Gospel of John is indeed "an apocalypse in reverse”’.52 The view that John’s Gospel is ‘an apocalypse in reverse’ therefore appears to rely on two points: 1) the Gospel of John has no heavenly vision of God by a seer and 2) the vision of God is given in, of, and through the life of the earthly Jesus, the Logos made flesh. If we understand apocalypses primarily in terms of heavenly ascents and throne room visions, describing John’s Gospel as ‘an apocalypse in reverse’ makes perfect sense. However, an apocalypse has not been defined as such in this essay. But rather an apocalypse has been defined as a narrative that focuses on heavenly revelation mediated by an otherworldly figure to a human recipient. In my opinion, designating the Gospel of John as ‘an apocalypse in reverse’ is not the best way to explain the similarity of John with the Jewish apocalypses, and this for two reasons. First, not all Jewish apocalypses narrate visions of heaven or ascents to heaven, even though the revelation may often be mediated in these ways. And secondly, the embodiment of the vision of God in a human being seems less like an inversion and more like an innovation. I will address these two points in turn. 5.1. Apocalypses without Heavenly Ascents or Visions of Heaven Two of the Jewish apocalypses, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, do not speak of heavenly ascents nor do they include visions of God. The seer is grounded on earth and the otherworldly mediator descends to earth to answer Ezra’s and Baruch’s prayers and questions. In fact, 4 Ezra seems to __________________________ 52 Rowland, Mystery of God, p. 131; idem, ‘Apocalyptic, Mysticism, and the New Testament’, in Hubert Cancik, et. al. (eds.), Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag. I: Judentum (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), pp. 405-30 (426). [ Page ] 23 refute ascent speculation, making the claim that God cannot be reached (8.21), while the angel Uriel clarifies the impossibility of descent to hell or ascent to heaven (4.8).53 Of greater interest is Jubilees. At first glance, one might not think to include this text in the list of Jewish apocalypses, since it does not contain the strange visionary imagery or heavenly ascents that the word ‘apocalypse’ often conjures in the imagination. Jubilees has even been called a ‘borderline case for the apocalyptic genre’.54 The text recounts Israel’s history from creation to Moses and strongly emphasizes the importance of keeping the law and of obeying God’s commands; as such, Jubilees would seem to be closer to the biblical account in Exodus, were it not for its framework.55 The text begins with Moses going up Mount Sinai to receive the law and speaks of the glory of the Lord dwelling on the mountain. However, once Moses is on the mountain, what he is told—the history of Israel from creation until Moses’ own day—is described as revelation. Jub. 1.4 states: ‘And the Lord revealed to him both what (was) in the beginning and what will occur (in the future), the account of the division of all the days of the Law and the testimony’ (cf. 1.27-29).56 ___________________________ 53 See Rowland, Mystery of God, p. 126; Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), pp. 80-81, 272-73. Note that the Testament of Abraham has examples of both heavenly descent by an otherworldly mediator and ascent by a human seer. 54 Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, p. 83. See also John C. Endres, Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees (CBQMS 18; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1987), pp. 4-5. 55 See Rowland, Open Heaven, pp. 51-52. 56 All translations of Jubilees are from O. S. Wintermute, ‘Jubilees’, OTP, vol. 2. [ Page ] 24 The similarity with prophetic literature is apparent; however, Jubilees qualifies as an apocalypse because it is a narrative in which heavenly revelation is mediated by an otherworldly figure (whether ‘the angel of the presence’ or God himself) to a human recipient (Moses). The aspect of ‘personal eschatological salvation’, which is not connected to a cataclysmic, end-time judgement, is noticeable in the emphasis on righteous living through the keeping of the law (Jub. 6.17-22; 13.26; 15.25-27; 32.10-15; 33.10-14; 49.1-50.13). Although Jubilees lacks heavenly ascents and visions and is located on the borderline of the genre, it is still classified as a Jewish apocalypse.57 Like the Gospel of John, Jubilees is a revelatory narrative that takes place on earth, and it portrays the otherworldly mediator as appearing on earth. Thus, I do not find it entirely helpful to use the earthly location of John’s Gospel in order to describe it as ‘an apocalypse in reverse’. Some apocalypses depict revelation as being given on earth but without heavenly ascents and throne room visions.58 These features do not necessarily intimate that the apocalyptic framework has been reversed. 5.2. The Embodiment of Revelation as Indication of an Inverted Apocalypse? Ashton also seems to ground his view that John’s Gospel is ‘an apocalypse in reverse’ on the fact that God’s revelation is embodied in the human person of Jesus. My understanding of what _______________________________ 57 Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, p. 83; Rowland, Open Heaven, pp. 51-52. 58 The earthly location of apocalyptic revelation is typical of historical apocalypses (including 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, Jubilees, Apocalypse of Weeks) in contrast to the obvious heavenly location of revelation as depicted in ascent apocalypses. Historical apocalypses are part of the genre of apocalypse, but they focus more on visions and do not contain heavenly ascents. See Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, pp. 6-7. [ Page ] 25 Ashton is describing is as follows: it is in Jesus‘ earthly life, specifically in his actions and words, that the revelation of the heavenly mystery of God‘s salvation takes place. The revelation is not mediated through a heavenly ascent or a vision in which a human seer attempts to view the heavenly mysteries. Ashton states: ‘Thus the fundamental paradox consists in the identification of a man, Jesus, with a heavenly being whose message has nothing to do with the things of earth. The form is apocalyptic but...the destiny of Jesus is the reverse of an apocalypse. This, not some esoteric mystery disclosed to a seer or dreamer, is the true revelation‘. 59 As I understand it, Ashton describes John‘s Gospel as ‘an apocalypse in reverse‘ because Jesus‘ destiny ends in heaven and not as a seer returning to earth. Furthermore, Ashton sees the Gospel as a reversed apocalypse because ‘the true revelation‘ is the heavenly revelation embodied on earth in the person of Jesus. Essentially, Ashton seems to argue that the inverted pattern of descent-ascent (rather than ascent-descent), as well as the embodiment of the heavenly revelation in a human being, are the reasons why John‘s Gospel should be called an apocalypse ‘in reverse, upside down, inside out‘. However, if this is the case, we are again confronted with the reality that revelation occurring on earth does not mean that John is an apocalypse in reverse (cf. Jubilees, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, Daniel). Further, the embodiment of the revelation in the person of Jesus is not the inversion or reversal of an apocalypse. What we have in the Gospel of John is too much of an innovation to be called an ‘apocalypse‘ or even ‘an apocalypse in reverse‘. The embodiment of the revelation of God in a human being is unlike anything encountered in the Jewish apocalypses, even in reverse.60 The ______________________________ 59 See Ashton, Understanding2, p. 529. 60 Although this is not directly connected to the revelation disclosed in heavenly ascents, some scholars have noted the apparent transformation of human seers into angels following their [ Page ] 26 framework found in John‘s Gospel is not inverted but rather has been transformed on the inside. While Ashton has rightly noted the existence of a relationship between John‘s Gospel and the genre of ‘apocalypse’, to call the Gospel ‘an apocalypse in reverse’ seems to be an imprecise description of its relationship with the Jewish apocalypses. John’s Gospel fits the framework of an apocalypse in several key points of the definition of ‘apocalypse’,61 but the differences between the Gospel and the Jewish apocalypses have more to do with the merging of characters and plot twists than with the overall plot.62 6. The Gospel of John as ‘Apocalyptic Gospel ’ Although in some ways John’s Gospel appears to fit within the definition of ‘apocalypse’, there are enough differences to prevent it from being classified in this way. At the same time, the Gospel’s similarities with the genre of apocalypse indicate some sort of connection with it. For the lack of something more elegant than ‘apocalypse in reverse’, I suggest that John is better described as an ‘apocalyptic Gospel’. This description may not be exciting or provocative, but it more precisely describes the relationship between the Jewish apocalypses and the Gospel of John. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ascents: Levi’s priesthood in the Testament of Levi, Enoch called ‘that son of man’ in 1 En. 71, and Enoch becomes angelic in 2 En. 22.9-10. See Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, pp. 37, 40, 45- 46; Sullivan, Wrestling with Angels, pp. 85-141. 61 See Ashton, Understanding2, p. 7. 62 As Jörg Frey suggested in response to this paper at the Bangor colloquium, the reason for these differences is likely due to Johannine Christology and not to some conscious or unconscious attempt by the author to distance the Gospel from the Jewish apocalypses. [ Page ] 27 John is, first and foremost, a Gospel. Although John is clearly different from Matthew, Mark and Luke, the four Gospels have more in common with each other than they do with most other literature.63 Leaving aside the discussion concerning the origin of the gospel genre,64 the Gospels do exhibit similarities with Greco-Roman biography;65 however, they also place great emphasis on proclamation, something that is generally absent from biography.66 At its simplest, a gospel may be defined as a narrative about Jesus’ life that proclaims the ‘good news’ of salvation _____________________________ 63 Ashton, Understanding2, p. 24, agrees with this. See also Robert Guelich, ‘The Gospel Genre’, in Peter Stuhlmacher (ed,), The Gospel and the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991; repr. WUNT 28; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), pp. 173-208. Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Volume One (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), p. 33, states: ‘Whatever else may be said about the Fourth Gospel’s genre, it must fall into the same broad category as the Synoptics’. 64 For this, see Lawrence M. Wills, The Quest of the Historical Gospel: Mark, John and the Origins of the Gospel Genre (London/New York: Routledge, 1997). 65 Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (SNTSMS 70; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Keener, Gospel, pp. 29-34. Cf. Ashton, Understanding2, pp. 24-27, who notes the parallels with bioi but questions whether bioi is a sufficient description of the Gospels’ genre. 66 See Ashton, Understanding2, p. 355; Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM, 2000), pp. 141-57. [ Page ] 28 that comes through faith in Jesus.67 Robert Guelich thus concludes his important essay by stating: ‘The Gospels are a literary genre whose form and content consist of, to use Mark’s words, the "gospel of Jesus Messiah, Son of God”’.68 The Gospel of John clearly fits the literary genre called ‘gospel‘ in that it is a narrative about Jesus’ life and proclaims the good news about him.69 Of all the four Gospels, John has one of the clearest and strongest calls for belief in Jesus (20.30-31). John’s proclamation, or shall we say, revelation of Jesus consists not only of Jesus’ words but also his actions.70 Describing John’s Gospel as an ‘apocalyptic Gospel’ is an attempt to underscore the framework, motifs, and themes that it shares with the Jewish apocalypses. In this sense, the definition of the adjective ‘apocalyptic’ in this essay is being aligned with the literary genre and with the content of apocalypses. Despite the popular usage of the word ‘apocalyptic’ and its ____________________________ 67 See Willem S. Vorster, ‘Gospel, Genre of’, ABD 2.1077-79; Guelich, ‘Gospel Genre’, pp. 206-7. 68 Guelich, ‘The Gospel Genre’, p. 208. See his discussion on p. 206 for how the four canonical Gospels relate to the non-canonical gospels. 69 Again, it should be kept in mind that definitions of ‘genre’, as with ‘apocalyptic’, are scholarly constructs; however, at the same time, defining our terms is useful and I would argue necessary for any meaningful discussion. 70 See Ashton, Understanding2, p. 529. Cf. Bultmann, Theology, II, pp. 65-68; Gail R. O’Day, Revelation in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Mode and Theological Claim (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), especially p. 94. [ Page ] 29 inconsistent use in scholarly circles, this is the best way to define the term.71 At the same time, not all items in apocalypses can or should be called ‘apocalyptic’. This point is well made by Michael Stone in his essay ‘Lists of Revealed Things’, in which he documents the types of things that are revealed in apocalypses and how they are not necessarily of otherworldly character.72 Unfortunately, this is a point which continually needs to be made, since, for example, in a recent essay the Greek letters alpha and omega were described as ‘apocalyptic letters’.73 The meaning of the adjective ‘apocalyptic’ should be anchored to the genre of ‘apocalypse’, not to any one specific apocalypse. As a Gospel, John is a narrative about Jesus that proclaims the good news of salvation that comes through him. As an apocalyptic Gospel, John’s narrative fits the framework of an apocalypse and makes use of numerous themes found in Jewish apocalypses. The Gospel of John does not merely proclaim the good news of Jesus; it reveals the Father and the way to him through an otherworldly figure who has descended to earth to make the Father known. The ________________________________ 71 Klaus Koch, The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic (Studies in Biblical Theology 22; London: SCM, 1972), p. 35; John J. Collins, ‘Genre, Ideology and Social Movements in Jewish Apocalypticism’, in Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2001), pp. 25-38 (27). See also Michael E. Stone, ‘Apocalyptic Literature’, in Michael E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT 2.2; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), pp. 383-441. 72 Stone, ‘Lists of Revealed Things’, especially pp. 435-39. Also Rowland, Open Heaven, p. 37. 73 John Herrmann and Annewies van den Hoek, ‘Apocalyptic Themes in the Monumental and Minor Art of Early Christianity’, in Robert J. Daly (ed.), Apocalyptic Thought in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), pp. 33-80 (36 and 44). [ Page ] 30 heavens have opened in order for this revelation to take place. Human witnesses have seen this revelation and have testified to it. 7. Conclusion The Gospel of John reveals obvious links with the genre of ‘apocalypse’. An otherworldly figure descends and discloses heavenly secrets to human recipients. These heavenly things involve the salvation of humanity and unveil information about the relationship between heaven and earth, and, more particularly, about God and the righteous. Although the Gospel shares this affinity with Jewish apocalypses and appears to fit the definition of ‘apocalypse‘, John is not an apocalypse. The Gospel of John‘s otherworldly figure is merged with other apocalyptic characters. Jesus is not only a mediator, but also the content and centre of the revelation that he brings. Jesus is also more than a mediator in that he is glorified; he is the Son of Man with authority to judge, and, most significantly, he is one with God. In another twist in the apocalyptic plot, Jesus the otherworldly mediator has become a human being who, as a human, lives, dies, is buried, and raised. Moreover, in John‘s Gospel the revelation is mediated to multiple human recipients. These differences highlight the transformation of the central plot typical of an apocalypse in such a way that the Gospel no longer fits the genre of apocalypse. Despite the differences between the Gospel of John and the Jewish apocalypses, they are somehow related. Referring to John as an ‘apocalypse in reverse‘—even when used as a rhetorical turn of phrase—is, I think, misleading, in that this description does not take into account those Jewish apocalypses that depict otherworldly figures descending to earth, speak of revelation being given on earth, or portray human recipients who do not leave earth nor who have visions of God. The subtle but significant differences between John‘s Gospel and the Jewish apocalypses keep the Gospel from being declared a full-fledged apocalypse. Rather, John is first [ Page ] 31 a Gospel, but an apocalyptic Gospel in whose narrative the framework of an apocalypse can still be detected. John‘s Gospel is not so much an apocalypse reversed, inside out, upside down, but an apocalypse that is shaken, stirred, and inserted into a Gospel. To call the Gospel of John an ‘apocalyptic Gospel’ may not be elegant, but I contend that it offers a more precise description of its revelatory portrayal of the life, work, and passion of Jesus set, as it is, within an apocalyptic framework. ***** This is the end of the e-text. This e-text was brought to you by Tyndale University, J. William Horsey Library - Tyndale Digital Collections *****