SBL Annual Meeting Papers November 2005

WORKING DRAFT: Please do not cite without permission of the author

Paul N. Anderson
George Fox University
Newberg, OR 97132

The Origin and Development of
the Johannine Egō Eimi Sayings
in Cognitive-Critical Perspective

Adobe Acrobat version

One of the great puzzles of Johannine and Jesus studies is the fact that the Johannine Jesus is presented as speaking constantly about himself, whereas the Synoptic Jesus speaks primarily about the Kingdom of God. In Mark, Jesus emphasizes Messianic secrecy; in John, Jesus emphasizes Messianic disclosure. If Jesus were indeed wanting to minimize the disclosure of his identity, how could the extroverted claims of the Johannine Jesus be anything close to the real Jesus of history? Conversely, if indeed the real Jesus spoke of himself in such I-Am metaphors as "I am the Light of the World," "the Bread of Life," "the Gate to the Fold and the Good Shepherd," "the True Vine," "the Resurrection and the Life," and "the Way, the Truth, and the Life," how could these sayings not have been preserved in the other gospel traditions as well? And certainly, if the Jesus of history developed associations along with the "I Am" statement of Yahweh in the burning bush of Exodus 3:14, why are these statements preserved uniquely in John?

For these and other good reasons, Jesus and Johannine scholars alike have accorded greater historical weight to the Synoptic presentations of Jesus' teachings, functioning to exclude the sayings of the Johannine Jesus from standard historical Jesus studies. The Johannine I-Am sayings are thus relegated to categories of theology, or myth, rather than history, requiring alternative explanations of their origins. Indeed, the Johannine Jesus does speak with the language of the Fourth Evangelist, and theologically so, but an adequate scientific investigation as to how such a phenomenon might have evolved would yet make a welcome contribution to more than one set of studies. History-of-Religions approaches have been the primary means of accounting for this Johannine idiosyncrasy, but they suffer from evidentiary shortcomings and from naïve conjectures about how and why assimilation might have taken place. Cognitive-critical analysis, however, poses a helpful scientific way forward in that it sheds new light on the origin and development of these sayings in ways that have not yet been explored. The goal of the present essay is to suggest how this might be so.

The Current State of the Problem

The current state of the problem shows several movements. a) First, in an attempt to harmonize the Johannine presentation of Jesus' teaching with that of the Synoptics, the theological mystification of the Johannine tradition has been a prominent attempt to reconcile the differences. While the Synoptics include the public ministry of Jesus, John is thought to have included the private teachings of Jesus as would have been remembered by an "inner ring" of disciples, including the Beloved Disciple, if he were one of the three who were closest to Jesus. While the Johannine and Synoptic traditions may indeed be regarded as "Bi-Optic" perspectives, reflecting individuated perspectives of the pre-Markan and early Johannine traditions going back to the earliest stages of their developments, the public/private inference breaks down on several levels.

First, not all the Synoptic teachings of Jesus are public, including some of the Markan commands to secrecy. Private teaching is a part of the Synoptic tradition, not just public teaching, so that inference can only be partially assumed. Second, and more importantly, the Johannine I-Am sayings are mostly delivered in public settings, not private ones. Only the I-Am sayings of John 14 and 15 (the Way, the Truth, and the Life; the True Vine) are presented as private teachings to the disciples; the others are all presented as public statements. Aside from the problem of why other members of the Twelve, or even the inner ring of three (especially if Peter's preaching had at least something to do with the tradition underlying Mark, according to Papias and Eusebius), the fact that the text itself goes against such a theory is at least one reason for its inadequacy.

b) The prevalent historical-critical approach is to infer a borrowing of themes from parallel religions, such as Mandean Gnosticism or other history-of-religions sources. Most notable in advancing such a view is Rudolf Bultmann's inference of a Revelation-Sayings Source (an Offenbarungsreden collection) having underlain the distinctively Johannine presentation of Jesus' teachings. In Bultmann's view, John the Baptist's gnosticizing movement, from which the followers of Jesus came (according to John 1:35-51), must have employed Revelation Sayings characterized by the poetic form of the Prologue. By means of conducting a form-critical analysis of John 1:1-18, by applying similar characteristics to the rest of the Johannine discourse material, and by inferring a disordering and (wrong) reordering of the Johannine material, Bultmann is able to reconstruct an underlying "source" from which the Johannine I-Am sayings are thought to have emerged. His argument is that it is similar to the language and thought forms of the Odes of Solomon and other Gnostic-Christian literature, enough to have inferred a common origin. This theory also functioned to explain the epistemological origin of John's high and low Christology-the former attributable to an alien source, and the latter attributable to the incarnational Christology of the evangelist.

Weaknesses of such a view are several. First, the disordering-reordering scheme Bultmann argues requires more faith for the critical scholar than most naturalistic sensibilities will allow. Even if some rearrangement may have happened, the extensive scheme argued by Bultmann suffers credibility in direct proportion to the extensiveness of the argument. Second, since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, John the Baptist is more closely linked with sectarian Judaism (such as the Essene movement) than with Gnosticism proper. Third, the case is much stronger to infer that connections between the Odes of Solomon and John are far more likely to have involved Johannine influence upon the latter rather than any sort of Gnostic influence upon John. Indeed, the bulk of John's agency and revelation schemas are more plausibly Jewish (rooting in the agency motif of Deuteronomy 18:15-22) than in Hellenism, although it was welcomed and readily comprehensible within the later Johannine Jewish-Gentile settings. Fourth, the contacts between the Odes and John are simply not close enough to infer any sort of direct derivation either way. The point of this analysis is that critical approaches to the epistemological origins of the distinctive Johannine I-Am sayings on the basis of Hellenistic religions fall flat in the light of actual evidence.

c) Making serious sense of the fact that most of the I-Am sayings in John are not explicitly theophanic, but that most of them are means of identification, showing something particular about Jesus' ministry, several scholars have worked exegetically to alleviate the high christological problem by diminishing the divinity associations with these texts. Indeed, this works with most of the passage, and especially the work of Katrin Williams (1999, 2001) demonstrates this to be so. Pointing to the rich traditions of Hebrew Scripture (Deut. 32:39; Is.40:5; 41:4; 43:10; 46:4) Williams rightly acknowledges the affinity with most of John's I-Am sayings with Yahweh's assurances of provision by means of the self-identification: anî hû. Her mistake, and that of others moving totally in this direction, however, is the failure to acknowledge at least three texts that appear to be explicitly theophanic or to at least possess theophanic overtones. These include John 6:20, where it is not a identification declaration as it is in Mark, but more of an epiphany-and even stronger a theophany; 8:58, where upon declaring "Before Abraham was, I AM," the Jewish leaders pick up stones to kill Jesus; and the arrest scene (Jn. 18:5-8) portrays the soldiers ironically falling back at the encounter with Jesus' theophanic words, but arresting him nonetheless. These apparent-theophanic passages and overtones not only deserve to be addressed, but the connection with the Septuagintal rendering of Exodus 3:14-precisely the same words used by Jesus in the Johannine and Markan accounts of the sea-crossing encounter-may also provide a key to understanding how the rest of the Johannine I-Am sayings developed.

d) More arguable is the thesis that the Johannine I-Am sayings developed within the socio-religious dialogue between the Johannine Jesus movement and its Jewish environment. Within this approach, it is argued that the I-Am sayings show an intentional crafting so as to further the apologetic interests of the evangelist in reaching Jewish audiences with the news that Jesus is the Messiah/Christ. Along these lines, the character of the material becomes readily divisible into two categories: the absolute use of the phrase (at times being reminiscent of the burning bush theophany of Ex. 3:14) and the metaphorical (or predicate nominative) use of the phrase. Some of the former use (notably Jn. 6:20 and 8:58) become associated with Jesus' claim to divinity, while others appear less striking as theological claims. At the very least, images for the true Israel can be seen as being furthered in many of the I-Am sayings, and such would have furthered the evangelist's apologetic purposes declared at the end of the first edition: John 20:31. Note the presentation of the material:

Table I: The I-Am Sayings of Jesus in John

1) With a predicate nominative ("the life-producing bread"-6:35, 48, 51; "the light of the world"-8:12; 9:5; "the gate to the sheepfold"-10:7, 9; "the good shepherd"-10:11, 14; "the resurrection and the life"-11:25; "the way, the truth, and the life"-14:6; "the authentic vine"-15:1, 5).

2) Without a nominative-identification (4:26; 8:24, 28; 13:13, 19; 18:5, 6, 8, 37).

3) Without a nominative-theophanic (6:20; 8:58).

4) Descriptive of place-originative/destinative/relative (7:28, 29, 34, 36; 8:16, 23; 10:36; 12:26; 13:33; 14:3; 16:32; 17:11, 14, 16, 24).

5) Identifying with Jesus-associative (the blind man, 9:9).

6) Testifying to Jesus' Messiahship-the negative (John the Baptist's denying that he is the Messiah: 1:20, 21, 27; 3:28).

While this fourth option correctly identifies the development of the I-Am sayings as being located within the Johannine tradition, it also has several weaknesses to it if regarded solely as a factor of rhetorical apologetic. First, the likely fact of developmental and apologetic histories does not account fully for the full range of originative possibilities. Does the fact of the evangelist's employment of a feature demonstrate, therefore, that Jesus did not say any of these things? That may be claiming too much. Second, regarding the absolute use of the phrase, it cannot be claimed that Jesus is never portrayed as using "I Am" sayings about himself in Mark. At two significant places in the Markan narrative Jesus employs the pregnant phrase (see, for instance, Mk. 6:50; 13:6), and it cannot be maintained that such a statement never occurs on the lips of the Synoptic Jesus-perhaps it simply made different impressions on the originative sources (different people) of the bi-optic traditions. Third, it also cannot be claimed that Jesus never used the metaphorical language associated with the Johannine I-Am teachings, such as Bread, Light of the world, Shepherd, Vine/Vineyard, etc. Such metaphors are central to many of Jesus' Synoptic parables and teachings, so the Johannine adaptation-if indeed it were such-cannot be held to be too far removed from the historic ministry of Jesus.

The Problem of the Sayings' Epistemological Origin

Parallel to the problem that John's I-Am sayings are different from the language and presentations of the Synoptic Jesus is the fact that religious parallels beyond gospel traditions are not any closer to the Johannine Jesus in content and diction. This being the case, two aspects of cognitive-critical analysis offer a way forward in inferring the epistemological origin and development of these sayings within the Johannine tradition. Considering the first issue, while other predisposing factors may have played a role in the tradition's origins (an alternative origin either within Jewish or Hellenistic religious life, for instance), the simplest consideration involves analyzing the possibility that either the Johannine evangelist or the human source of his tradition heard Jesus say something like the Greek egō eimi or the Aramaic anî hû, and that this framed an originative perceptual rubric for interpreting and organizing various aspects of Jesus' teaching ministry. Thus, the possibility of a set of first impressions and an associative rubric built upon those eikonic perceptions deserves first consideration in cognitive-critical perspective.

The first question in such an investigation relates to how memory is formed and how associations emerge. Well established is the fact that any given event will be experienced and perceived differently by varying audiences, and it is a fact that in all four canonical gospels declarations are made that the disciples (let alone the crowd, the Romans, the Jewish leaders, women, and other actors in the narrative) perceived and understood aspects of Jesus differently. Many a reference is also made to misunderstanding and misperception regarding Jesus' words and works. This fact in and of itself suggests at the very least the developing memory and perception that differences in interpretation existed between different witnesses of Jesus' ministry, between different individuals and groups, and also between earlier and later reflections. Indeed, interfluential dialogical exchanges between emerging traditions can also be inferred when considering similarities and differences between Johannine and particular Synoptic traditions. The point here, though, is that all four gospels record differences of originative perceptions and experiences even among the followers of Jesus-a claim at least somewhat substantiated by the empirical fact of gospel similarities and differences.

From a cognitive-critical perspective several features of such a phenomenon are as follows. Building on the work of James Loder, there are five common elements to every knowing event: 1) a sense of conflict; 2) an interlude for scanning; 3) the posing of a working "hypothesis" as a constructive act of the imagination; 4) the testing of the hypothesis leading to a sense of release and opening; and finally 5) interpretation, which interprets future experiences in the light of the construction of a perceptual set and eikonic impression of the memory as reflected upon over time. According to Loder and the theorists upon which he founds his paradigm, all knowing events follow something like this sort of sequence, and presumably this must have been true also with early Christian perceptions and memories of Jesus. Many factors may contribute to distinctive perceptions and interpretations, including predisposing and experiential ones, but particular developmental histories must also have played a role in the formation of memory and reflection. A distinctive feature of the Johannine tradition, however, is the fact of transformative encounter as a central feature in the narrative. Note the following reports such encounters in John:

Table 2: Johannine Encounter Scenes and Reports

People are presented as encountering something of the divine in the presence of Jesus: Nathanael was known from afar as a "true Israelite in whom there is nothing false" (Jn. 1:47-50), the Samaritan woman experiences her marital situation as known by Jesus (Jn. 4:17-18, 39); Mary Magdalene encounters the risen Lord in the garden (Jn. 20:10-18).

Various recognition scenes are presented, suggesting something of a transformative knowing event in the experiences of the blind man (who came back seeing after washing his eyes as instructed by Jesus, Jn. 9:1-25), Thomas (who confessed "My Lord and my God!" after touching the flesh wounds of Jesus, Jn. 20:24-28), the Beloved Disciple (who recognizes Jesus on the shore and makes him known to Peter, Jn. 21:7).

The Johannine Jesus is presented as knowing what is in the hearts and minds of persons, and he reportedly knows what will happen to him (Jn. 1:48; 2:24-25.; 4:1-3, 16-19; 5:6, 42; 6:15, 64; 13:1; 16:19).

Fulfilled understandings are also mentioned, suggesting earlier misunderstanding and later fuller understanding: the prophecy about rebuilding "this temple" in three days (Jn. 2:22), the Jewish leaders do not understand that the one whom Jesus claimed had sent him was the Father (Jn. 8:27), the disciples did not realize that his entering Jerusalem on a donkey fulfilled the Zechariah prophecy (Jn. 12:16) and at the last supper no one around the table understood what Jesus was saying to Judas (Jn. 13:28), the disciples did not recognize Jesus on the shore (Jn. 21:4); later, though, fuller understanding was revealed.

Several theophanic associations are presented linking the theophanic words of the I Am to Moses before the burning bush (Ex. 3:14) and some of the absolute I-Am sayings of Jesus in John: as part of the sea-crossing narrative (the very words of the Septuagintal rendering of Exodus 3:14 are uttered by Jesus: Egō eimi; mē phobēsthe, leading to the receiving of Jesus into the boat and the wondrous landing, Jn. 6:19-21), the bold declaration of Jesus before the Jewish leaders ("Before Abraham was, I Am," which was clearly interpreted as blasphemy, as the Jewish leaders picked up stones to kill him-the standard penalty for blasphemy, Jn. 8:58-59), and the ironic presentation of the soldiers in the garden (having come to arrest him, the soldiers ask for Jesus of Nazareth, to which Jesus replies "Egō eimi!" at which they fall to the ground as though before the burning bush or Isaiah's theophanic encounter in the Temple, Jn. 18:5-8).

Proleptically, it is declared that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, the second Paraklētos will disclose further meanings to Jesus' disciples about his teachings and their meanings at later times (Jn. 14:26; 15:26; 16:8-15).

Now some of these features may simply be factors of an artistic and mimetic imitation of reality, but arguing that all of them had to have been still begs the question, Why? Communicating with the reader would be one answer, but if it is not the only answer, the alternative inference is that such features were part of the Johannine tradition's development, which leads to consideration of its epistemological origins. At the very least, the final aspect of spiritual encounter and remembrance is a likely reflection upon what Franz Mussner called the "gnoseological terminology" of the Fourth Evangelist's historical reflection. Given that such words as "seeing," "hearing," "coming to know," knowing," "testifying," and "remembering" are words used for describing the "historical reason" of the Fourth Evangelist, his Gospel deserves to be interpreted as a work of anamnesis moving from individual to corporate reflection and experience. Put otherwise, while the Johannine Jesus speaks in the evangelist's language and thought forms, later reflections imply reflections upon earlier impressions and experiences. Therefore, the ongoing inspirational work of the Paraklētos functions to bring new meanings and understandings to earlier perceptions and experiences.

This being the case, the evangelist (or whoever was responsible for the developing of the Johannine tradition) recrafted the Johannine material to be relevant in later situations as befitted the needs of the evolving situation. Indeed, references to discover and new meanings can be inferred throughout the Johannine narrative, and the surplus of meaning continues to be extended to each of at least seven crises within the seven decades of the Johannine tradition's development. In particular, crafting a presentation of Jesus who 1) indeed supersedes the ministry of John the Baptist (for the sake of his followers in later generations), 2) is remembered as the authentic northern Prophet testifying to God's grace and truth among the religious authorities of Jerusalem, 3) is then advocated apologetically as the Messiah fulfilling the typology of the Mosaic Prophet among Jewish family and friends in a setting among the mission churches, 4) advances by the Kingdom of Truth in contrast to Roman emperor worship under Domitian, 5) actually suffered and died-as a challenge to docetizing tendencies among Gentile Christians, 6) leads the church by means of his accessible Spirit as a corrective to rising institutionalism in the name of Peter, and 7) sets the record straight in dialogue with parallel gospel traditions on such matters as the significance of miracles and the delay of the Parousia.

Indeed, it is nearly impossible to distinguish the words of Jesus from those of the Johannine evangelist (and even those of John the Baptist-cf. Jn. 1:15-18 and 3:22-36), so it is an obvious fact that the teachings of the Johannine Jesus come to the reader as the evangelist's paraphrastic presentation of the Lord's discourses. Despite the fact that at least 17 memorable sayings are shared between Mark and John, none of them are identical, and derivation in one direction or another is implausible. Therefore, the Johannine tradition cannot be said to be derivative from Mark, and the most likely inference is that it represents and autonomous Jesus tradition developing in its own individuated way. Regarding the origin of the I-Am sayings two Synoptic features cast light on the likely origins of these sayings: theophanic associations with Jesus' use of the phrase egō eimi and metaphorical images embraced and developed in their own Johannine directions.

Theophanic Associations With Jesus' Self Presentation

While it must be maintained that the Johannine presentation of Jesus as speaking in "I am" discourses is distinctively Johannine, it cannot be said that Jesus is not presented as making such statements in the Synoptics. Even in Mark, where there are only four egō eimi sayings, two of them appear as Jesus sayings that are also laden with christological meaning. The first statement occurs as a declaration by Jesus at the sea-crossing event. As in the case of John 6:16-21, Jesus is presented in Mark 6:45-52 as also appearing, being interpreted (differently), and just before the storm subsided, declaring the same words: Egō eimi! Mē phobēsthe! Whether some event such as this happened in history will be impossible to ascertain beyond its attestation in the gospel traditions. What cannot be denied, however, is that the Johannine and Markan differences of interpretation appear to be rooted in differing perceptual impressions of the ambiguous appearance of Jesus, leading to differing presentations of the outcomes, leading to entirely different theological interpretations: with Mark's involving an epiphany connected with Jesus' calming the waves, and with John's involving a theophany connected with Jesus' calming the disciples.

The point here is not to argue that a miraculous sea delivery actually happened (although there are no mentions of disciples having drowned on the Sea of Galilee during the ministry of Jesus due to a storm or otherwise); it is to say that given the fact that Jesus' ambiguous words (identical to the Septuagintal rendering of the words of Yahweh before Moses at the burning bush in Exodus 3:14) are experienced in radically different ways between the Markan and the Johannine renderings-one as an identification ("Don't' worry, it is not a ghost-as some of you might have perceived-It is I, Jesus. Do not be afraid!"), and the other as a theophany ("I Am! Fear Not!")-it cannot be argued that Jesus is never remembered as speaking with such language in other gospel traditions. It could even be that such words were never uttered with either christological or theophanic intended meanings, and that the Markan reference might have been closer to the surface meanings involving Jesus' attempt to comfort his distraught disciples. The point is that all it would have taken is for an eikonic impression, associating the words with the burning bush theolegōmenon would have been enough to create a categōry of interpretation in the cognitive framework of the Johannine originative tradition.

The second passage in Mark where Jesus uses egō eimi language with reference to himself occurs climactically at the tribunal before. Again, the reference is not developed theologically in Mark, although it does draw a demand from the high priest to have Jesus put to death due to blasphemy (Mk.14:63-64). In Mark as well as John, Jesus is accused of blasphemy and threatened with death directly after declaring in the absolute sense: Egō eimi! The plot then thickens, laced with subtle irony. When Pilate asks Jesus if he were indeed "the Christ, the Son of the Blessed," Jesus declares "Egō eimi!" (Mk. 14:62; see also Matt. 26:63-64 and Lk. 22:67-70). A bit later Pilate asks Jesus if he were the King of the Jews, and he simply declares, "You have said so." (Mk. 15:2; Matt. 27:11; Lk. 23:3) John follows this pattern of claming Pilate's attestation, and in John 18:33-38 Pilate is presented as asking four questions: "Are you the King of the Jews?" "Am I a Jew?" "Are you indeed a King?" "What is Truth?" These attestations might not have been intended as theophanic references-either by Jesus, if something like this might have been uttered, or by Mark as a narrator-but it cannot be said that theophanic associations are totally absent from Mark and the Synoptics. It is also a fact that in the Johannine rendering of the trial before Pilate Jesus also uses egō eimi with reference to his messianic identity, while being different enough that Mark is obviously not the source of John's tradition. After Pilate asks whether he were a king, Jesus replies, "I am (egō eimi); and my Kingdom is one of Truth." (Jn. 18:37) Again, the point is not to argue that Jesus actually used "I Am" language before Pilate in his historical trial before a Roman procurator, although this might have been the case-certainly corroborated by two independent and differing accounts of a converging detail and the other two Synoptic incorporations of Mark. It is to point out that Mark's tradition also includes a climactic and significant "I Am" saying, challenging the assumption that John's distinctive presentation of such language as a self-reference of Jesus was essentially unique.

Matthew also contains several egō eimi sayings of Jesus with reference to his identity and mission. In Matthew 11:29, Jesus declares "I am meek and lowly of heart," and at the end of Matthew (28:20) Jesus declares "I am with you till the ends of the earth." Interestingly, Jewish leaders accuse Jesus before Pilate in Matthew of having uttered an I-Am statement: "he said, 'I am the Son of God.'" (Matt. 27:43) In all three Synoptic gospels false prophets will come claiming "I am the Christ," (Matt.24:5; Mk. 14:62; Lk. 21:8), but they are to not be deceived. Luke adds an important I-Am saying at the last supper, where Jesus declares "I am among you as one who serves." (Lk. 22:27). As in Mark, Matthew and Luke contain theologically significant I-Am sayings of Jesus, which while not presented in extended metaphors as in John nonetheless convey powerfully a sense of mission and identity conveyed by Jesus about himself. Even the accusations by the Jewish leaders that Jesus has uttered a blasphemous I-Am saying shows that John is not unique in the presentation of Jesus' conflicts with the religious authorities.

Again, what the two passages in Mark document is the fact that Jesus is presented as speaking of himself with absolute egō eimi terminology in the earliest of the Gospels, followed by Matthew and Luke, not just in the latest of the Gospels, John. And yet the Markan and Johannine interpretations of such a phrase appear to never have shared identical interpretations of it. Especially in the theophanic associations emerging in the sea-crossing, whether Jesus intended such a meaning or not, the Johannine interpretation of Jesus' I-Am language appears to have developed in its own distinctive directions, as becomes evident elsewhere in the narrative. Likewise, the use of egō eimi with a predicate nominative appears in both Matthew and Luke in theologically significant ways, showing that while John is distinctive, it is not unique. Therefore, in the light of the Synoptic presentations of Jesus using I-Am language with reference to himself, John's presentations of the same show a distinctive approach to the matter, plausibly having its own development. Here the cognitive impression in the thinking of the evangelist or his tradition came to impact also the ways he developed the Jesus story, impacting it in several ways.

First, on a more theologically innocent narratological level, Jesus is presented as identifying himself to his disciples and others by means of using I-am language (4:26; 8:24, 28; 13:13, 19; 18:5, 6, 8, 37). In 13:13 and 13:19 Jesus emphasizes his servant form of leadership. Especially in 8:24 and 28 the emphasis is upon accepting the authenticity of Jesus' mission-believing that he is truly sent from God. Note, however, the messianic associations in 4:26 and 18:37, and the highly ironic presentation of the arrest of Jesus in 18:5-8. Despite falling to the ground before his theophanic self-identification, the soldiers with their little torches and lamps get up, dust themselves off, and arrest the burning bush-I mean, Jesus! The theophanic irony here is indeed palpable.

A second feature of the Johannine development of the absolute use of the egō eimi phrase relates to the presentation of Jesus as he becomes engaged in religious debates. On one hand, describing the origin of Jesus-whence he comes as a factor of his identity and authenticity-comes through clearly in his controversies with the Jewish leaders (7:28, 29, 34, 36; 8:16, 23; 10:36; 12:26). He is from the Father and from above-an authentic prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:15-22). This culminates in debates over origins with the Jewish leaders in John 8, where Jesus declares unequivocally, "Before Abraham was, I Am!" (Jn. 8:58) Here there can be no mistake; the claim is interpreted as blasphemy, and theophanic association is bluntly emphasized by pointing out that the Jewish leaders sought immediately to kill him by stoning-the penalty for blasphemy according to Leviticus 24:16; 1 Kings 21:10, 13 (Jn. 8:59).

A third feature of the Johannine involves Jesus' instructions to his disciples regarding his departure and his pastoral care for them in the face of adversity. In 14:3 Jesus promises to prepare a place for them in the afterlife, and in John 13:33 he describes his departure to a place they cannot yet come. In John 16:32 Jesus assures that despite being abandoned he is not alone but that he has overcome the world, and in John 17:11, 14, and 16 he declares that he is not of the world, leading up to the promise that his disciples will be with him, where he is (Jn. 17:24) that they might be one with him as he is one with the Father. Here the pastoral emphasis upon the departure, destiny, and fellowship of Jesus with his followers-in the world but not of it-provides consolation and encouragement to hearers and readers in later generations.

A fourth feature shifts the use of the I-am language to one of Jesus' followers as an aspect of associative identification. While this passage does not exactly present the formerly blind man in any sort of messianic role-and certainly not a theophanic one-he does play the role of the typological Johannine witness. Obverse John the Baptist's witnessing to Jesus by declaring the negative egō eimi (Jn. 1:20, 21, 27; 3:28; see also the Synoptic presentation of the Baptist's negative egō eimi in Matt. 3:1; Mk. 1:7; Lk. 3:16), the formerly blind man employs in John 9:9 the idenfiticational egō eimi as a response to the questioning of his identity. And in His response is parallel to that of Jesus in the arrest scene, where he affirms-and does not deny-that he is indeed the one whom they seek. In that sense, the blind man associates himself with Jesus in declaring forthrightly his identity, even at the risk of peril. As it was for the Lord in the garden, so it is for his faithful disciples who, in facing danger or martyrological alienation, are invited to figuratively embrace the Cross and ingest the flesh and blood of Jesus (Jn. 6:51-63). For clinging to the flesh profits nothing; only the willingness to suffer and die with Jesus is to abide in the veracity of his word.

From these narratological employments of I-am language in John it can be seen that the eikonic impression made upon the Fourth Evangelist at some earlier point has become a meaningful phrase in the furthering of the missional narrative regarding Jesus, his agency, and his reception. Not only do the theophanic associations with the term demarcate a distinctive Johannine set of first impressions at the sea-crossing appearance, but they continue as a feature of dramatic irony in the arrest scene, and they become accentuated in the scandalization of Jesus in his description of his divine agency before the Jewish leaders in chapter 8. From there, the use of the term continues to play a "significant" role-signifying the character of Jesus' agency and describing his mission. The term even becomes a means of meaningful association for disciple-faithfulness, and it thereby comes to further the narrative in its own distinctive Johannine way.

Metaphorical Developments within a Meaningful Rubric

Just as it cannot be said that the Synoptic Jesus never employed absolute I-am language, so it cannot be said that the Synoptic Jesus never employed the metaphors used within the Johannine I-Am sayings where the predicate nominative is used. While the adaptations may be Johannine, the sayings cannot be claimed to have originated in-and-only-in the later traditional developments; such imagery apparently was employed by the Jesus of the Synoptic and Johannine traditions alike. Therefore, in bi-optic perspective, these theologically rich metaphors can be clearly identified as central components to Jesus' teaching about his mission and the character of God's workings in the world.

In cognitive-critical perspective, the logical inference is that given the development of a perceptual set, where Jesus is associated with I-Am sayings, such a rubric appears to have become an organizing principle within which to gather clusters of Jesus' teachings about his ministry and his mission. Here the Isaiah tradition may have played a role as Yahweh's self-identification as the one who watches over and cares for Israel may also have been in the background for the memory and perception of the evangelist. Or, if some of this went back to Jesus, it could have been a factor of Jesus' approach to his teaching ministry, but such is not the claim of the present essay. At the very least, the I-Am rubric became a meaningful category of organization for the Johannine evangelist, and this may have included originative as well as developing histories of the Johannine tradition.

Regarding its originative history, parallel imagery within the Synoptics is apparent with relation to the nine Johannine I-Am metaphors: bread, light, gate, shepherd, resurrection, life, way, truth, and vine. "Bread" as a subject and metaphor occurs in John (artos, Jn. 6:26-58) the Synoptics in a variety of ways. First, it is the subject of the only miracle in all four gospels (Luke only represents one of Mark's sea-crossing miracles, opting for the one in Mark 4:35-51 rather than Mark 6:45-52; cf. Lk. 8:22-25). Second, after crossing the sea, the disciples are discussing the fact that they had forgotten to bring bread, whereupon bread and leaven are developed as references to the teachings of Jesus versus those of the Sadducees and the Pharisees, and what Jesus can provide (Mk. 8:14-21; Matt. 16:5-12; Lk. 12:1). Third, as the memory of Jesus as a producer of bread is a strong one in all four canonical traditions, it even presents itself in Q, rendered as the object of Satan's first temptation-challenging Jesus to turn stones into bread (Matt. 4:1-4; Lk. 4:1-4). In response to Satan's first temptation, the Jesus of the Q tradition brings Deuteronomy 8:3 into the picture, and emphasizes the word that proceeds from the mouth of God-a clear reference to Torah, revelation, and the Revealer.

While two feeding miracles and sea crossings and the discussions of "bread" are scattered throughout the Synoptics these subjects and reports are presented as a coherent unity within John 6. a) One feeding and one sea crossing are presented instead of the two in Mark and Matthew (Matt. 14:13-21, 22-23; Mk. 6:32-44, 45-52; Jn. 6:1-15, 16-21). b) The discussion of the meaning of the feeding follows in John as it does in Mark 8 and Matthew 16, with contrasting parallels between the teaching and ministry of Jesus and the bread of Moses or the leaven of the Pharisees. c) The Johannine equivalent to a the first temptation is rendered with a greater sense of realism than Q; the crowd comes to Jesus asking for a second feeding, and even a sign that they might believe-touting Jesus with Scripture (Ex. 16:4; Ps. 78:24). d) Jesus overturns the temptation, also citing Scripture in John (Is. 54:13; Jn. 6:45), and other temptations are also challenged by Jesus (fame, triumphalism, etc.). e) Associated with Peter's confession, Jesus' followers are invited to choose the way of the cross (Jn. 6:51-70; Mk. 8:27-38), and obeying the will of the Father is the "bread" and nourishment of the Lord (Jn. 6:27; 4:32-34). The point is that the Johannine and Synoptic developments of "bread" imagery show striking parallels, but they are different enough to obviate their being independent developments of similar motifs, plausibly going back to an earlier originative source-possibly the teachings and ministry of Jesus.

The second I-Am metaphor, "light of the world" (phōs, Jn. 8:12; 9:5) is found in the exact form as it is in the Synoptics, but the reference is different. In Matthew Jesus emphasizes that his disciples are the "Light of the World" (Matt. 5:14-16), but in John the emphasis is upon Jesus being such. From this fact two implications arise: first, something of this language may have gone back to Jesus, appropriating Zion's being a source of blessing to the nations (Is. 9:2; 42:6; 49:6; 60:1, 19). Second, however, the contrast between John and the Synoptics is perhaps even more significant. In the Synoptics, Jesus is presented as inviting his followers to take up the mantle entrusted to the children of Abraham to be a blessing to the nations (Gen. 12:1-3) by means of their faithful witness. The Johannine rendering, however, brings the focus to bear on the christological aspect of illumination, and Jesus' disciples are invited to witness to that "light" (as did John the Baptist, Jn. 1:6-8), which, coming into the world enlightens all (Jn. 1:9). This might even reflect a Johannine dialectical engagement with the Markan tradition, emphasizing a Christocentric understanding of the enlightenment theme, but the theme appears to have existed before John, and given the Johannine individuated perspective, plausibly before Mark.

The third I-Am metaphor, "the gate to the Sheepfold" (thura, Jn.10:7, 9), has a parallel in Matthew 7:13-14 and Luke 13:23-24, where the narrow gate that leads to salvation is contrasted to the broad gate that leads to destruction. These passages, probably derived from the Q tradition, are also connected with the Matthean warning against false prophets who deceive the flock as false prophets who come in sheep's clothing but are inwardly ravenous wolves (Matt. 7:15). The primary similarity between Synoptic and Johannine presentations of "the gate" is the narrowing of valid options for those who would authentically respond to God. In contrast to competing Jewish leaders and authorities, the way of Jesus is credited with being the narrower-yet-better way.

As in John 10, the connection in Matthew and Luke is also very close to the fourth I-Am metaphor, "the good shepherd" (poimēn, Jn. 10:11, 14), which likewise has clear parallels to Synoptic parables on the shepherd and the sheep (Matt. 18:10-14; Lk. 15:3-7). Even in considering the differences between the ways Matthew and Luke employ the Q parable about the shepherd (the emphasis in Matthew is upon the Father's seeking the lost desiring that none should perish; the emphasis in Luke is upon greater rejoicing in heaven over one repentant sinner than 99 self-righteous ones), the Johannine parallels are impressive. The Johannine Jesus emphasizes a) the nurturing character of the good shepherd's work, b) the contrast between the authentic Shepherds and those who care only for themselves (and not the flock), and c) the authentic shepherd's willingness to sacrifice or to lay down his life for the sheep. The christological thrust of the Johannine emphasis is thus dual: an emphasis on responding in faith to Jesus as the authentic shepherd of Israel, and the presentation of Jesus as the model shepherd-an example to Christian leaders in later times, calling them to be willing to suffer for the flock if required by the way of the Cross. Again, the Johannine tradition crafts the shepherd motif in ways suitable for its developing situation and needs, but the originative history of the theme appears to have gone back to a source earlier than the Synoptic and Johannine traditions: plausibly Jesus.

The fifth I-Am metaphor, "the resurrection" (anastasis, Jn. 11:25), is also not unique to John as a prevalent gospel motif. Indeed, the Synoptic Jesus also emphasizes the resurrection in his teachings, and the Sadducees come challenging Jesus in all three Synoptic accounts (Matt. 22:23-33; Mk. 12:18-27; Lk. 20:27-40) regarding whether or not there was indeed life after death. In Jesus' response, God is not the God of the dead, but of the living (Mk. 12:27), emphasizing the resurrection and the life. There is also the Synoptic account of the raising of Jarius' daughter (Matt. 9:18-26; Mk. 5:21-43; Lk. 8:40-56), but in John the emphasis is placed upon Lazarus' having been dead for four days-a bolstering of the wonder when compared to Jesus' command to secrecy in Mark (Mk. 5:43). Again, John's development of the motif is autonomous and distinctive, but it is different enough to suggest that its origin preceded the Synoptic presentation of the motif.

The sixth, seventh, and eights I-Am metaphors, "the way," "the truth," and "the life" (Jn. 11:25; 14:6), are also found in the Synoptics as well as John. In Matthew 21:28-32 Jesus mentions "the way of righteousness" (hodos) as that which his audience rejected, and "the way that leads to destruction" is added in Matthew 7:13-14 to the Q passage on the narrow gate as the easy path. John the Baptist indeed comes preparing "the way" for the Messiah in all four gospels (Matt. 3:3; Mk. 1:3; Lk. 3:3-4; Jn. 1:23), and in all three Synoptic gospels Jewish leaders seek to trap Jesus on paying tribute to Caesar with false flattery, declaring that Jesus indeed teaches "the way of God in truth" (alētheia, Matt. 22:16; Mk. 12:14; Lk. 21). Likewise, the scribe affirms Jesus' speaking a truth (Mk. 12:32) in his describing of the greatest commandment as consisting of the love of God and neighbor. On life (zōē), the narrow gate is what leads to it in Matthew 7:14, and the "rich young ruler" came to Jesus asking what he must do to inherit eternal life (Matt. 19:16; 10:17; Lk. 18:18). In the discourse that follows, Jesus describes how those who have left family, home, and security for the sake of the Kingdom will inherit eternal life (Matt. 19:23-30; Mk. 10:23-31; Lk. 18:24-30). Impressively, the way, the truth, and the life cohere even within the Synoptic associations of Jesus and the way of the Kingdom, especially contrasted to inauthentic alternatives typified by the rich, the scribes, and the Pharisees.

The ninth I-Am metaphor, "the vine" (ampelos, Jn. 15:1, 4, 5) occurs in the Synoptics on the lips of Jesus at the last supper, where he declares that he shall not drink again of the "fruit of the vine" again until the day when he drinks it anew in the Kingdom of God (Matt. 26:29; Mk. 14:25; Lk. 22:18). Here the associations with the Johannine setting-also at the last supper, and emphasizing abiding communality with the Lord, are impressive. Matthew also contains two distinctive vineyard (ampelōn) parables (the late-coming laborers, Matt. 20:1-8; the two sons in the vineyard, Matt. 21:28-32), both emphasizing grace and faithfulness with implications for community and discipleship. In all three Synoptic gospels, the parable of the vineyard and the killing of the owner's son is used to prefigure the rejection and death of Jesus at the hands of the Jewish leaders (Matt. 21:33-46; Mk. 12:1-12; Lk. 20:9-19).

As is the case with the absolute uses of the phrase egō eimi in the teachings of the Synoptic Jesus, the metaphorical and predicate nominative uses of the phrase are equally present. Indeed, every single one of the nine I-Am metaphors in John are found in close association with the teachings of Jesus in the Synoptics, despite being presented in radically distinctive ways. It is also the fact that several of these Synoptic sayings are grouped together (shepherd and gate; the way, the truth, and the life), and in John and the Synoptics alike, they primarily occur in association with two major concerns. First, they connect the ministry and person of Jesus with great typological metaphors for Israel. Just as the Torah is associated with being the bread of God (Deut. 8:3), Zion is a light unto the nations (Is. 42:6; 49:6; 60:1), Israel's leaders are to be good shepherds for the flock (Ez. 34), in the Day of the Lord each one will sit down under his own vine and fig tree (Is. 36:16; Mic. 4:4; 1 Ki. 4:25) and Yahweh will plant a hedge around his beloved vineyard Israel (Is. 5), and the way and truth of Moses and the Prophets will further the life promised to Abraham and David as authentic Israelites aspire to become a nation of vision.

A second feature worth, noting involves the ways this imagery is employed as a means of convincing Jesus' discussants of the authenticity of his mission. Whereas the intensity of Jesus' debates with Jewish leaders is clear in John, it is also evident in the Synoptics, and most of Jesus' self language in the Synoptics likewise is presented as a defense of his agency from God. At this point, the Matthean and Johannine rhetorical embellishments of these motifs are especially apparent, and the plausible inference is that the First and Fourth Evangelist bolstered earlier associations into claims of Jesus, seeking to win adherents to the Jesus movement among Jewish family and friends. A good part of these references, however, may have gone back to Jesus. What is distinctive about the Johannine rendering is the particularly Christocentric emphasis upon each of these associations. In that sense, he seeks to create a cognitive crisis in the experience and perception of his hearers and readers, leading to an encounter with his central subject-Jesus.

The Rhetorical Crafting of the Johannine I-Am Tradition

Working from the later Johannine material to its earlier stages of development, the following inferences may be made regarding the crafting of the Johannine I-Am tradition for rhetorical purposes. Here, a cognitive-critical shows how that the presenting of Jesus and his ministry by means of I-Am metaphors and claims functions to prepare the reader to develop both a keen sense of Jesus' conveying the numinous Presence of God long after his earthly ministry, and likewise a keen sense of divine provision in later generations. Here the creative and constructive work of the Evangelist can be clearly inferred, and we see many ways in which his paraphrastic adaptation of Jesus-sayings into I-Am forms effectively furthers the apologetic and rhetorical purposes of the Johannine Gospel. Following are several observable developments

First, the later I Am sayings appearing in John 6 emphasize Jesus' being the life-producing bread, whose flesh was given for the life of the world. The hermeneutical significance of Jesus' being the bread of life is that those who partake of this bread will find eternal nourishment despite potential temporal adversity, suffering, and death. As John 6 was likely part of the supplementary material added to the first in edition of the Gospel (along with the Prologue, eyewitness references, and chapters 15-17 and 21), it brings together some of the earliest and latest material in John. No fewer than four or five of the seven crises in the Johannine situation can be inferred in this one chapter. The main feature here, though, is that during the reign of Domitian, Jesus adherents would be called upon to refuse emperor worship out of loyalty to Christ and his followers, at times to their peril. Here the feeding of the multitude has been spiritualized to connote the existential nourishment resulted from embracing the Way the Cross. Therefore, to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus was an invitation to martyr-willingness first, and communal representations second. On this point a good number of sacramental discussions have foundered.

The other I Am metaphor developed in the later Johannine material is the image of the vine and branches. The emphasis here is likewise the point that staying with Jesus and abiding in him is the only way to retain one's life-producing relationship with him and his community of faith. In the face of adversity as a factor of Roman emperor worship, or as a factor of community defections back into the Synagogue (1 Jn. 2:18-25), the living way is made clear: remaining with Jesus is the only viable way forward. These metaphors, however, have clear Jewish associations rather than Hellenistic ones. Just as Israel's nourishment is contingent upon primatizing the true bread of Yahweh (Deut. 8:3), so Israel's vitality is contingent upon not only remaining in the protected vineyard of Yahweh (Is. 5) but in abiding in the Messiah as a branch is connected to the vine.

Second, in the metaphorical I Am sayings of the first edition material, the organizing commonality of these sayings also betrays the fact that each of these images connotes a typological idealization of Israel. Just as Zion is a light to the nations and a city on a hilltop, Jesus is the light of the world. Just as Israel's leaders are exhorted to be faithful shepherds of the flock, Jesus is presented as the authentic shepherd who gives his life on behalf of the sheep. Likewise, he is presented as the gate for the sheepfold. Just as Israel's Prophets, Moses and Elijah, bring the covenant of life and raise the dead, Jesus is himself the resurrection and the life. And, whereas the way of Moses, the truth of Scripture, and the life of Abraham's offspring are presented as legitimations of Israel' cultic and legalistic institutions, Jesus embodies the Jewish ideal that the revelational power of the life-giving Word of God is the only way forward. While these metaphors were embraced and developed further by second and third century Hellenistic Christians, sometimes earning the pejorative appellative "Gnostics," the primary rhetorical thrust in the Johannine text at less in common with speculative mysticism than with Jewish-Christian apologetic. Jesus is held to be the archetypal Jewish Messiah precisely because he fulfills an impressive cluster of typological images for the ideal Israel.

Third, apart from the uses of the predicate nominative in conjunction with the more memorable I Am sayings in John, several of the Johannine egō eimi sayings emphasize an aspect of identification. In John Jesus declares unless you believe that I am the one I claimed to be, you will die in your sins. Implicitly, the emphasis is upon his identity as the authentic prophet who is predicted by Moses and sent by God according to Deuteronomy 18:15-22 (Jn. 4:26; 8:24, 28; 13:13, 19; 18:5, 6, 8, 37). This is clearest in John 4:26, where Jesus replies to the Samaritan one that he is the one she anticipates as the Messiah Christ. More subtly in John 8:24 and 28, Jesus responds to the Jewish leaders of Jerusalem that unless they believe that he is the one he claims to be (sent from the Father) they will die in their sense (vs. 24), and after the Son of Man is lifted up they will know that he is the one who is sent by the Father (vs. 28). The same sort of identification formula is used at the Last Supper with Jesus' disciples. He claims indeed to be their teacher (Jn. 13:13), and he emphasizes that the fulfillment of his proleptic word will indeed convince his followers that he is the one he claims to be (vs. 19). Deuteronomy 18:15-22 is also the text being fulfilled here, as the means by which the authentic prophet is distinguished from others is said to be the unfailing fulfillment of his word.

The identification formula continues at the arrest scene, as Jesus declares to the soldiers that he is indeed "Jesus the Nazarene" whom they seek (Jn. 18:5, 6, 8), although here it is laced with theophanic irony. On one hand, the large number of solders coming with lanterns and weapons should have seemed formidable, but upon Jesus' declaration, Egō eimi! they fall to the ground. Parallel to the Synoptic wonder attestation, "even the winds and the waves obey him," the Johannine narrative illustrates that even the armed guards who would arrest and kill him fall to the ground before striking association with the theophanic burning bush. The identification formula again comes into play before Pilate later in the chapter. Where Pilate asks Jesus if he were indeed a king in John 18:37, Jesus replies again with multi-leveled irony: "You call me a king, but for this I have come into the world-to bear witness to the Truth." The inauthenticity of Pilate is confirmed by the next exchange. Jesus declares, "My kingdom is one of truth," to which Pilate's alien status is confirmed by his dismayed reaction: "What is truth?" In these scenes irony plays a potent role in the identification of Jesus and the failure to embrace his identity by the Roman authorities.

Fourth, connections between the theological impact of Jesus' signs, especially his feeding the multitude, healing the blind man, and raising of Lazarus, developed as signs and discourses were narrated together. Rather than viewing the development of Jesus' signs narratives and discourses as truncated and separate traditional forms conjoined later by eventual redactors, the signs and discourses appear to have been intrinsically connected with each other. At this point especially, the provisional work of Yahweh's care for Israel in the Isaiah tradition would have provided an associative link. As Yahweh self-identifies his care for his people as "I am Yahweh, the one who heals/rescues/delivers," (using the Hebrew, 'anî hû) extended the use of the phrase to pastoral uses rather than theophanic ones, proper. While some of these literary devices might have been developed later, their conjunction developed quite early in the Johannine tradition and appears to have influenced much of the form and character of the Johannine narration of Jesus' words and works.

Fifth, the theophanic associations with the presence and ministry of Jesus, however, need not have arisen from autocentric emphases of his teaching. Nor do they appear to have evolved gradually later in the tradition. Rather, given the fact that Jesus is presented as making a statement identical to the Septuagintal rendering of Exodus 3:14 (and he may have spoken in Greek, at times, as well as Aramaic) in Mark 6:50; Matthew 14:27; and John 6:20, and given the fact that he is presented with responding to Pilate's question as to whether he were indeed the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One, with I-Am language (Mk. 16:62; Lk. 22:70), the phrase itself cannot be said to have had an origin solely within the Johannine tradition. More plausibly, Jesus' self-referential language became associated with the theophanic words of Yahweh in Exodus 3:14 within the earliest stages of the Johannine tradition, and this perceptual set created a rubric for interpretation, lending itself to gathering other Jesus sayings into Christocentric categories of association. Therefore, as the Johannine tradition developed in its own autonomous ways, the absolute and nominative uses of the I-Am motif became also a meaningful means of articulating the christological meaning and import of the mission of Jesus as the tradition developed.

Conclusion

From the above investigation, a cognitive-critical analysis of the origin and development of the Johannine I-Am tradition reveals the following inferences:

Given John's differences with the Synoptics, especially with regard to the striking I-Am sayings of the Johannine Jesus as contrasted to the Messianic Secrecy of Mark, the tendency is to explain the origin of these sayings as either an insider's access to Jesus, a co-opting of a Gnostic Revelation Sayings source, and the near-total diminishment of any theophanic association with the Johannine phrase, but none of these approaches is entirely satisfactory. A cognitive-critical approach, however, offers a plausible way forward.

Despite John's differences, it cannot be said that the Johannine Jesus uniquely makes I-Am claims; so does the Synoptic Jesus-especially in Mark. This being the case, it also cannot be claimed that Jesus never uttered such phrases about himself, although such self references could have been taken in very different ways. John's presentation is radically distinctive, but it's originative history also appears to have been an autonomous Jesus tradition developing in its own dialectical ways.

The Johannine and Synoptic differences on this matter reflect a bi-optic set of associations as a factor of the Johannine tradition's human source associating at least one I-Am saying of Jesus with a theophanic meaning (the words of Jesus in Mark 6:50 and John 6:20 are identical to the Septuagintal recording of the words of Yahweh from the burning bush), and this created a cognitive heuristic schema of interpretation by which other actions and sayings of Jesus became organized within the Johannine memory.

Despite the fact that John has no parables, all nine of the Johannine I-Am metaphors are found with prominence in the teachings of the Synoptic Jesus. A likely inference, therefore, is that what the Synoptic memory organized in terms of parabolic teaching, the Johannine memory organized in terms of Christocentric teachings and revelation sayings.

Given the fact that the Paraklētos is credited with teaching disciples in later situations and generations gnoseologically, the assimilative function of memory appears to have evoked ongoing connections between the original ministry of Jesus and the evolving needs of the Johannine audiences.Therefore, the teachings of Jesus developed paraphrastically, eventually coming to represent the language and diction of the evangelist, while still retaining contact with the historical root of Jesus' teachings and ministry within Johannine memory and perspective.

Therefore, while the Johannine presentation of Jesus' teachings about himself and the way of the Spirit are highly developed theologically, it cannot be said that they are truncated from the mission and message of the historical Jesus. In some ways, John contributes to a fuller understanding of Jesus' ministry in ways that the other gospels do not, and in these and other ways, John provides a valuable complement to the Synoptic traditions both as theology and history.

As a factor of distinctive sets of first impressions, leading to distinctive schemas of interpretation, resulting in selective memory and formation of associations, providing a resource to be developed in the light of a dynamic and changing socio-religious situation, and as a complement to Mark, cognitive-critical analysis helps make sense of the distinctive Johannine tradition in the light of its emerging character.

Bibliography

Anderson, Paul N., "Cognitive Origins of John's Christological Unity and Disunity," Horizons in Biblical Theology; An International Dialogue 17 (1995), pp. 1-24; also in Psychology and the Bible; A New Way to Read the Scriptures, in J. Harold Ellens and Wayne Rollins (eds.), (Vol. 3; Westport, CT: Praegers/Greenwood Publishers, 2004), pp. 127-48.

___ Disunity in the Light of John 6 WUNT II, 78 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1996); also printed by Trinity Press International in 1997.

___. "The Sitz im Leben of the Johannine Bread of Life Discourse and Its Evolving Context," in Critical Readings of John 6 BIS 22, Alan Culpepper (ed.) (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997), pp. 1-59.

___. Navigating the Living Waters of the Gospel of John: On Wading with Children and Swimming with Elephants (Wallingford, PA: Pendle Hill Press, 2000).

___. "John and Mark-the Bi-Optic Gospels," in Jesus in Johannine Tradition, Robert Fortna and Tom Thatcher (eds.), (Philadelphia: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001), pp. 175-88.

___. "Interfluential, Formative, and Dialectical-A Theory of John's Relation to the Synoptics," in Für und wider die Priorität des Johannesevangeliums Theologische Texte und Studien #9, (Peter Hofrichter Hildesheim; Zürich, and New York: Georg Olms Verlag, 2002), pp. 19-58.

___. J. Harold Ellens, and James W. Fowler, "Cognitive-Critical Analysis-A Way Forward in the Scientific Investigation of Gospel Traditions," in Psychology and the Bible; A New Way to Read the Scriptures, J. Harold Ellens and Wayne Rollins (eds.), (Vol. 4; Westport, CT: Praegers/Greenwood Publishers, 2004), pp. 247-76.

Bakhtin, Mikhail M. The Dialogic Imagination (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981).

Ball, David Mark. "I Am" in John"s Gospel: Literary Function, Background, and Theological Implications. JSNTSup 124. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996

___. "John and the Synoptic Gospels," Expository Times 85 (1973-74), pp. 228-33.

___. "The Dialectical Theology of St. John," New Testament Essays (London: SCM Press, 1972), pp. 49-69.

Brown, Raymond E. "Appendix IV: EGŌ EIMI-I AM," in The Gospel According to John (i-xii) Anchor Bible Commentary, Vol 29 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), pp.533-38.

Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John (trans. by G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. N. W. Hoare and J. K. Riches; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971).

Comfort, Philip W. I Am the Way: A Spiritual Journey Through the Gospel of John. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994).

Dodd, C. H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (London: Cambridge University Press, 1963).

Fowler, James W. Stages of Faith; The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981).

_____. Becoming Adult, Becoming Christian; Adult Development and the Christian Faith (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1984).

Harner, Philip B. The "I Am" of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Johannine Usage and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970).

Holoquist, Michael. Dialogism-Bakhtin and his World (New York: Routledge, 1990).

Loder, James. The Transforming Moment; Understanding Convictional Experiences (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981).

___. The Logic of the Spirit; Human Development in Theological Perspective. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998).

Mussner, Franz. The Historical Jesus in the Gospel of John (trans. W. J. O'Harah; New York: Herder & Herder, 1966).

Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel According to St. John, Vol 1 (trans. Kevin Smyth; New York: The Seabury Press, 1980).

Smith, D. Moody. John Among the Gospels; Second Edition (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2001).

Smith, P.-Gardener. Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938).

Williams, Catrin H. "I am He": The Meaning and Interpretation of "ANI HU" in Jewish and Early Christian Literature. (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1999).

___. "'I Am' or 'I Am He'? Self-Declaratory Pronouncements in the Fourth Gospel and Rabbinic Tradition," Robert Fortna and Tom Thatcher (eds.), (Philadelphia: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001), pp. 343-52.

Return to Homepage

Send messages to webmaster: psybibs@worldnet.att.net
Site designed by
Last updated November 21, 2008