Tuesday, December 15, 2009

The Radical Reformation: George Huntston Williams


a. Desiderius Erasmus. The humanist of Rotterdam, who in 1516 entered the service of Charles as royal counselor at the Burgundian court in Brussels, and for this purpose was relieved by the pope in 1517 of his responsibilities as Augustinian canon, went through the Lutheran revolt from the same apostolic prince as the arbiter of Christian humanism for both sides. It is not so well recognized that he was also a patron of the Radical Reformation. We may confine our reference to those features in the personality and work of Erasmus which have special significance for our narrative.

In the very year that Erasmus accepted his post as Burgundian counselor he published his epoch-making Greek New Testament with a classical Latin translation, and significantly began his long series of patristic editions with his first volume of his favorite, Jerome. Henceforth, the northern humanist was to do for the ancient Christian sources what his more classically oriented col¬leagues among the Italian humanists had been doing for the discovery, preservation, and publication of Greek and Roman literature. The works of Jerome were completed in nine volumes by 1518, of Hilary of Poitiers in 1523, of Epiphanius in 1524, of Irenaeus (so important for the Radical Reformation) and of Augustine in 1526, and of Chrysostom in 1530. Erasmus was to die supervising the printing of the works of Origen in the same town, Basel, where in the same year, 1536, Calvin (so at variance with both Erasmus and Origen on the questions of free will and predestination) would be bringing out his Institutes.

A notable feature of Erasmus' critical edition of the New Testament was the elimination from the traditional text of 1 John 5:7 of its initial Trinitarian phrase, "There are three that bear record in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." Not discovering it included in his Greek manuscripts or cited by the early fathers of the church, Erasmus expunged the verse current in the Vulgate translation. Moreover, in commenting on the Gospel of John, Erasmus observed that the term "God" in the New Testament, without further specificity, should be construed to apply to God the Father. Because of Erasmus, I John 5:7 was to be omitted from the older Anabaptist vernacular versions of the Bible."

Erasmus, trained in the school of the Devotio Moderna, was not philosophically inclined, but belonged, generally speaking, to the scholastic Moderni (nominalists). Becoming specific on the dogma of Nicaea and the Fourth Lateran Council, he declared, "According to dialectical logic [in the context of nominalism], it is possible to say there are three gods, but to announce this to the untutored would give great offense.” In his Latin version of the New Testament he eschewed, in the Prologue to John's Gospel, the Vulgate Verbum for the Greek Logos, and, under the guise of improved classical elegance, substituted for it the philosophically denuded and theologically neutral sermo. All the while, he insisted that he was disposed to leave theological subtlety on the doctrine of the Trinity to one side, remarking in his edition of Hilary of Poitiers, later to be employed by Servetus:
Is it not possible to have fellowship with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, without being able to explain philosophically the distinction between them and between the Nativity of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit? If I believe the tradition that there are three of one natura[!], what is the use of labored disputation? If I do not believe, I shall not be persuaded by any human reasons....You will not be damned if you do not know whether the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son has one or two beginnings, but you will not escape damnation if you do not cultivate the fruits of the Spirit, which are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, long-suffering, mercy, faith, modesty, continence, and chastity....The sum of our religion is peace and unanimity, but these can scarcely stand unless we define as little as possible, and in many things leave each one free to follow his own judgment, because there is great obscurity on these matters.
Not only in his stress upon the New Testament and ancient Christian sources and in his casualness about the Nicene-Lateran formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity, but also in other doctrines and attitudes, Erasmus would be presently ap¬pealed to by diverse leaders of the Radical Reformation. This was true of his opposition to the monastic vow and his reconcep¬tion of marriage (Ch. 20), his understanding of both Baptism and Communion (Ch. 2.1), his (qualified) pacifism, and his insistence on the practical freedom of the will. It must suffice in the present chapter to round out the picture with something on the last two features.

In his Querela Pacis, published the year after his Greek New Testament, Erasmus combined evangelical, classical, and pruden¬tial arguments for the restraint of war and the limitation of even the so-called "just" war.” He appealed to the Stoic idea of the harmony of the spheres, to the example of the irrational beasts that are never predatory on their own kind, and to the Stoic-patristic ideal of the unity of mankind, among whom reason and equity should prevail; and he vividly pointed up the futility and the inhumanity of actual warfare, as in his Dulce bellum inexpertis of 1525..

His conviction about man's capacity to use his own resources and specifically his free will to work out his own salvation was expounded in his first explicit attack on the predestinarianism of the Reformation in 1524, Diatribe de libero arbitrio, to which Luther replied in his celebrated delineation of the bondage of the will in the realm of salvation (1525). So deeply was Erasmus disappointed in the turn which Luther's reform was taking that he sadly declared: "I shall bear therefore with this [the medieval] Church until I shall see a better one.”

Erasmus nevertheless hoped he would be able in his program of returning to the sources so to freshen this church that, while it would retain an allegiance to the bishop of Rome, it would also be brought close to the ancient apostolic pattern and would then indeed constitute a "Third Church," different alike from the Renaissance-corrupted papacy of his own day and the belligerent and predestinarian Reformation church with which Erasmus could not make common cause. The "Third Church," with its slightly eschatological overtone, might be taken, if not as the slogan, at least as the program of Catholic Evangelism.

b. Erasmianism in Spain. Cardinal Ximenes, who had variously demonstrated his learning, his soldierly virtue, and his zeal for reform (for example, his opposition to Leo X's great indulgence, and his swift implementation of the meager reforming and educational canons of the Fifth Lateran Council [Ch. 1.3.a] even before its adjournment), on two occasions sought unsuccessfully to persuade Erasmus to make an extended visit to Spain. But Erasmianism, reinforced by certain impulses from local human¬ism and Illuminism, spread in Spain without the personal visit.

At the older Universities of Salamanca and Valladolid, and especially at Alcala, the new foundation (1508) of Cardinal Ximenes, Biblical, classical, and grammatical studies had been flourishing well before the impact of Erasmus. Six professors of philology taught at Alcala, where according to Erasmus, the most signal accomplishment of European scholarship were being made, foremost among them the Complutensian (=Alcalan) Polyglot Bible, the Greek New Testament in 1514, the Hebrew text in 1517. Ximenes, the instigator, died just eight days after Luther posted his theses.

Erasmus' works were apparently not available in Spain before 1516. The first definite notice in 1518 is of the Institutio prin¬cipis christiani. In 1520 a Spanish translation of his Querela Pacis appeared. Spanish interest in his works rapidly increased when he was learnedly attacked by one of the Polyglot trans¬lators, Diego Lopez Zuniga, for certain features of his New Testa¬ment. Erasmus' edition differed from the Spanish in stressing the pre-eminence of the original Greek text, whereas in Alcala the Greek text was printed facing the Latin of the authorized Vul¬gate. In spite of numerous attempts by his opponents to prove him a Lutheran, Erasmus sustained his reputation in Spain, espe-cially when Charles arrived with a suite of Flemish humanists in 1522, and it was further enhanced when the De libero arbitrio (1524) revealed the point at which humanism, with its return to the sources, and reformation, by solafideism, parted company. In Spain as elsewhere it was recognized that Erasmian philosophia Christi was quite different from Lutheran justification by faith.

Thus differentiated, the Erasmian third party, in Spain as elsewhere in Romance lands, did not easily come apart in the tension between Rome and Wittenberg.

In many cases indigenous Illuminism and cosmopolitan Eras¬mianism found in Spain the same patron, as, for example, the Marquis of Villena, Don Pacheco, to whom John de Valdes dedicated his first extant work. Erasmus and the Illuminists coincided in their interpretation of the death of Christ as a glorious, not a sorrowful, event, and spurned the practice of meditating on the sufferings of the crucified Lord. In his anno¬tations to the New Testament, Erasmus says:
Jesus wanted his death to be glorious and not sad; he did not want us to weep over it, but to adore it, because he voluntarily faced it for the salvation of the whole world....If Christ had wished us to grieve at his death after the vulgar fashion, why, when he was carrying his cross, did he reprove the daughters of Jerusalem?
These words were censured by the Sorbonne as impious, and the Spanish Inquisition condemned a similar tendency among the Illuminists.

c. The Erasmian Brothers Valdes and Michael Servetus. The hope of a Catholic Europe to save itself from shipwreck on the rocks of nationalism and religious particularism was expressed by twin followers of Erasmus, Alphonse and John de Valdes, born near Toledo in the same year as the Emperor, 1500. Significantly, it was Spain, which had never been a part of the Holy Roman Empire, that was after 1517 the headquarters of the attempt to preserve the theory and the usages of the Empire as a universal society symbolically embracing all Christendom.

The two brothers played an important part, one in the ad¬ministrative, the other in the religious, life of Charles's realms. Sons of a distinguished family, they profited by an education under the Italian humanist Peter Martyr d'Anghiera (1457-1526). In 1520, Alphonse saw Charles crowned Emperor at Aachen, and returned to Spain full of enthusiasm for the new ruler. He recognized in the Lutheran movement a threat, not so much to the church, as to the Empire. In 1524, Alphonse was engaged by Charles as imperial secretary while his brother John was still studying at the university in Alcala. Sometime between 1527 and 1529, Alphonse published with John's collaboration two dialogues (between Mercury and Charon; between Lactancio and an Archdeacon) which were proimperial and antipapal in tone, justifying the sack of Rome by imperial troops and castigating the vices of the higher clergy: "To be a bishop means to wear a white surplice, to say mass with a mitre on one's head, and gloves and rings on one's fingers, to command one's clerics, to protect one's incomes, and spend them at will, to have many servants, to be anointed with salve, and to give benefices.” In 1531 a Spanish inquisitor would point out that the pages in Mercurio y Caron on the life of perfected Christians had made Alphonse suspect of affinity with the Alumbrados.

In 1529, John published, at Alcala, A Dialogue on Chris¬tian Doctrine, actually a meditation on the Lord's Prayer, his only religious work of which the original Spanish text survives. In it an idealized archbishop of Granada discusses with two interlocutors (one of them the monk Eusebio, who is really Valdes) the seven petitions of the Lord's Prayer. The archbishop begins by acknowledging the legitimacy of certain Illuminist practices, namely, praying without audible words, books, or beads, so long as this is a matter of spontaneous preference rather than a conventicular requirement. In commenting on the first petition, "Hallowed be thy name," Valdes enunciates a basic principle of Catholic Evangelism: "God's name is sanctified, when we sanctify ourselves." He does not interpret the petition for daily bread eucharistically, regarding it rather as "the heavenly bread" of grace, "from which eat only those to whom God has forgiven their sins." In a passage which anticipates his distinctive doctrine of the atonement (to be elaborated by Bernardine Ochino and then Faustus Socinus), a passage which incidentally throws light on the ethos and religious temper of his day, Valdes writes:
And something else should be kept in mind here: we are not worthy to have our sins forgiven just because we forgive our debtors, those who offend us, but because God wanted to forgive us through his in¬finite goodness and mercy; under these conditions we are forgiven. So, it is necessary to forgive our neighbors in order that God may forgive us, but let us not think that God forgives us because we forgive, be¬cause this will amount to attributing to ourselves what should be at¬tributed only to God. I know some people that, even though thinking of themselves as very holy and wise, when they feel some enmity against somebody, not wishing to forgive them, they do not pray this part of the Pater Noster, but skip it.
Concerning the persistence of evil and temptation even among those who regularly pray, Valdes expressly refers to Erasmus' recovery of the meaning that makes the most sense of the seventh petition: "Erasmus, in his translation of the New Testament, says: ‘Deliver us from the evil one,' that is, from the devil." There is also, even in this early work, a phraseology which sug¬gests the spirit of Luther as much as the leaven of Erasmus.

Valdes' Dialogue was immediately the occasion of a suit against him, but, because of the influence of his family and the favor of the Erasmian party, he was not directly condemned. His de¬tractors thereupon started a second action against him, and he left for Naples, as yet free of the Spanish Inquisition. The Dia¬logue was condemned in his absence.

The twin brothers Valdes were not alone among educated young Spaniards who pinned their hopes for a rejuvenated Europe on the young Charles, himself moved by a sense of Catholic destiny. After the sack of Rome in 1527, Charles resolved to make another attempt to rally the papacy to its ecumenical duties by accepting papal confirmation of his imperial dignity at a coronation in Bologna. On this festive occasion, there was present besides Alphonse de Valdes another thoughtful young Spaniard in the imperial suite, Michael Servetus.

At the age of fourteen, Servetus had come under the patron¬age of John de Quintana (d. 1534), a Franciscan, a doctor of the Sorbonne, and a member of the Cortes of Aragon. Quintana was a man of irenic spirit, prepared to make attempts to reconcile the Lutherans to the Roman Church. He enabled Servetus to spend the years 1528-1529 studying law at the University of Toulouse.

There, Servetus, as a Spaniard brought up in contact with Moriscos and Marranos, was taunted with charges of heterodoxy in the militantly orthodox university. He thereupon devoted much of his time to Biblical studies in an effort to reinforce his own orthodoxy in respect to Christology and the doctrine of the Trinity, theologically the chief points of controversy between Christendom and the two Semitic religions which, until 1492, had been so prominent. This research led him to the unexpected discovery that the doctrine of the Trinity was nowhere clearly enunciated in the Bible. It is also very likely that even at this early date he was at work on the problem of great concern to many earnest Spanish Catholics as to why the sacramental water of baptism so often had no potency with the Marranos, a problem which lie would eventually solve in advocating complete immersion at Jesus' baptismal age of thirty (Ch. 11.1).

When Quintana was appointed chaplain to the Emperor in 1529, he took Servetus with him to Bologna for the reconciliation with Clement VII and for the double coronation. On 22 February the pope placed the iron crown of Lombardy on Charles’ head, and two days later, on precisely his thirtieth birthday, in a kind of epiphany of the last Christian head of the disintegrating corpus christianum, Charles received the imperial diadem, while the Count Palatine, the only German prince present at the liturgical investment, carried the Reichsapfel. Never had this ancient symbol of universal Christian dominion been more aptly descriptive of a Holy Roman Emperor’s global sway than at the coronation of the ruler of two hemispheres. And yet, within four months he would be confronting at Augsburg in the heart of Christendom that determined opposition of princes and divines who, in their support of Luther, had but recently taken the name Protestant. Within the decade, from his election as Emperor to his coronation, Charles had seen, without realizing it, that the Christian globe itself had become irrev-ocably severed into two hemispheres.

Servetus, whose legal studies had originally, as with Alphonse de Valdes, inclined him to favor the Emperor as at once the symbol and the executor of a united Christendom, was dismayed to see Charles humble himself before Pope Clement, who was "borne in pomp on the necks of princes…and adored in the open streets by all the people on bended knee, so that those who were able to kiss his feet or slippers counted themselves more fortunate than the rest, and declared that they had obtained many indulgences, and that on his account the infernal pains would be remitted for many years. O vilest of all beasts, most brazen of harlots!”

Disappointed in the Emperor, Alphonse died of the plague in 1532, while John de Valdes and Servetus turned to a spiritual reform. Servetus, following the Spiritual Franciscans, predicted that the papacy would have to be destroyed as a precondition of the restoration of Christianity; he left Quintana and the imperial court, finally reaching Basel, where he lived for ten months with its Reformer John Oecolampadius.

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Christ and Christianity: studies in the formation of Christology

Chapter 5:
The Incarnation in Historical Perspective
Reginald H. Horace, Robert Kahl

Who is Jesus Christ for us today? Modern Christian theologians, not least among them Albert Mollegen, have wrestled painfully with this question. Of course, there are many who think the ques¬tion was settled once for all at Chalcedon, including those clerics who have rushed into print to condemn "Molle" of heresy.1 All he had done was to insist that you cannot say "Jesus is God" except in a carefully nuanced way and with judicious qualifications. As a bald statement, it can lead one all too easily into docetism, Apollinarianism, or Eutychianism. And when one tries carefully to provide the necessary nuances and qualifications, it is quite inappropriate to level accusations of adoptionism or Nestorianism.

Systematic Christology operates with three major sets of data: the witness of the New Testament writers, the formulations of Nicea and Chalcedon, and the intellectual and cultural situation of the present day. Like all human existence, these three sets of data are historically conditioned, and to understand them we must set them in their historical situation. And, so far as the New Testament and the Christology of the councils are concerned, their findings have then to be translated into another, namely, contemporary, situation. This means among other things that just as the Nicean and Chalcedonian definitions cannot be dumped down as they are for our uncritical acceptance (though as catholic Christians, Episcopalians would certainly accept what those definitions meant), so, too, they cannot be used as the presuppositions for the exegesis of the New Testament. For example, we cannot understand the history of Jesus of Nazareth if we start out with the assumption that Jesus is God and man or the God-man. We may certainly want to affirm that at the end, when we have done our exegesis, as a confession of faith. But that is another matter.

The Prayer of Jesus

Accordingly, we will examine the Christologies of the evangelists from a quite limited perspective. We will start with Jesus of Nazareth as a first-century Jew who prayed. That he did so is the claim of all the evangelists and of nearly every stratum of the gospel tradition.2 It is therefore a historical datum that passes the criterion of multiple attestation.

The gospel traditions and the redaction of the evangelists develop this historical fact of Jesus' prayer in different directions. Mark has Jesus pray in moments of crisis. He prays after the day of successful healings in Capernaum. For the Marcan Jesus this represents a crisis: the continuation of the Capernaum ministry would expose him to the temptation of presenting himself in terms of a theios aner [divine man]. Simon, as the mouthpiece of that Christology,3 tries to call Jesus back but, strengthened by his prayer, Jesus rejects the temptation. Again, Jesus prays after the feeding of the five thousand, a critical moment which again exposed him to a similar temptation. Finally, he prays at Gethsemane, and embraces the cross against all other alternative Christologies.

In the first instance, Luke appears to extend the crisis prayers. Jesus prays at his baptism,4 before the call of the Twelve,5 and during the transfiguration.6 Luke elaborates the Gethsemane prayer, perhaps drawing upon his special tradition.7 The third evangelist, however, has carefully dismantled the polemical thrust in Jesus' prayer as portrayed by Mark.8 Unlike Mark, Luke has no qualms about presenting Jesus as a "divine man". His whole ministry is carried out in the power of the Spirit and—closely connected with the idea of “spirit”—by the dynamis [power] of God. This "power" is drained from him through his miraculous activity.9 Such notions account to Luke's redactional addition of a reference to Jesus' prayer after the healing of the leper,10 and again after the feeding of the multitude. Mark had used Jesus' quest for privacy as part of his messianic secrecy motif. For Luke, the quest for privacy is a means of refreshment and strengthening for ministry. It is through his prayer that the Lucan Jesus operates as the channel of God's presence and action.

The Fourth Gospel has the most developed theology of Jesus' prayer. The major example is in the high priestly prayer of John 17, a more elaborate form of the type of prayer featured in the special Lucan material. But the most important reference to Jesus' prayer is in John 11:41b-42.
At first sight, this seems to say that Jesus had no need to pray at all, but did so only to impress the bystanders, a not very attractive picture, indeed a rather offensive one. Bultmann, however, has given a most helpful interpretation of this passage which deserves far more notice than it has received:

Jesus' prayer therefore is the demonstration of that which he has constantly said about himself, that he is nothing of himself. But does it not, thereby, become a spectacle, a farce? It is obvious that Jesus' words in vv. 41 are not heard by the bystanders; they only see his attitude of prayer, and in this situation they must understand his prayer as one of request. Are they deceived? No, for it is the request of one who stands in perfect unity with the Father. That he stands before God as a petitioner is shown by the fact that the Father's attitude to him is described as akouein (ekousas mou, you have heard me); if he knows that the Father constantly hears (pantote mou akoueis), it is implied that he, the Son, never steps out of the attitude of the petitioner, but continually holds fast to it. For this reason he does not need to be quickened out of a prayerless attitude to make petition by means of a particular act; rather when, in a particular situation, he recalls to consciousness his relation to God as that of one who makes requests, his request must immediately change to thanks. For he who knows himself to be perpetually in the attitude of a petitioner before God cannot do other than recognize himself as a man to whom God perpetually gives gifts. But correspondingly, he cannot know himself as one perpetually heard if he does not know himself as one perpetually asking. The character of this communion with God is clearly delineated by this: He does not need to make petitions like others, who have to rouse themselves out of their attitude of prayerlessness and therefore godlessness; for he continually stands before God as the petitioner and therefore as the receiver.11
On this interpretation Jesus’ vocal prayer is the surfacing of an inner, hidden activity which is going on all the time. It is the continuous traffic between the Father and the Son, between heaven and earth, which Nathanael will see as he witnesses the earthly life of Jesus. For he will see the heavens opened in Jesus' prayer (as they were first opened at the baptism!) and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man (John 1.51). It is the ground base, the cantus firmus, of all his words and deeds. It is in this inner, hidden activity that the relation of the Father and the Son is continually actualized. Hence Jesus' overt prayer is a public manifestation of that ongoing relationship. That is why it demonstrates to the bystanders that the Father sent the Son. For the sending of the Son, while inaugurated in Jesus' initial call, has to be constantly renewed in his prayer.

The Fourth Gospel contains many references to the relationship between the Father and the Son. In the light of John 11.41-42 these should be interpreted on the background of the Johannine understanding of Jesus’ prayer.

First, John the Baptist bears testimony to the inner significance of Jesus' baptism: "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven and it remained upon him" (John 1:32). The evangelist sees no conflict between the initial assertion that the Word became flesh and the later statement that the Spirit descended on Jesus only at his baptism. This suggests that the two events are identical. In the Spirit's descent upon Jesus the Word begins to be enfleshed. But again, this enfleshment is not a once-for-all event. The Spirit inaugurates the Father-Son relationship through which the Son is called to speak the words and do the works of the Father. The Son responds in obedience to this call and is empowered to fulfill this mission. The Spirit "abides" upon11b Jesus. That is to say, the relationship of the Father and the Son is continually actualized again and again in the career of the Son. After this inaugural event, not related but attested by the Baptist, Jesus is introduced on the stage of history by a succession of titles. He is the elect of God (1:14); the Lamb of God (1:36 cf. 29); Rabbi (1:38); Messiah (1:41); Son of God; King of Israel (1.49); Son of man (1.51). All of these titles may be regarded as expositions of the hearing of the baptismal call, for they expound the witness of the Baptist (1.19-34) and the acceptance of that witness by some of the Baptist's followers (1:35-51).

History and Mythology in the Fourth Gospel
The ensuing dialogues and discourses include among other themes an exposition of the Father-Son Christology, and therefore of the relationship which according to chapter 1 was inaugurated in Jesus' initial endowment with the Spirit and which, as we have seen from John 11.41b-42, is constantly renewed in his prayer.

The Father "sent" the Son.12 Much of the "sending" language is clearly susceptible, even in the Fourth Gospel,13 to a historical interpretation, as it is in the synoptic tradition (e.g., Matt 15.24: Luke 4:43). For John the Baptist was also sent from God (John 1:6: cf. 1.38), and after his glorification the Son sends his disciples as the Father had sent him. "From God," "from above" (3:31), and "from heaven" (3:31c) need not by themselves mean more than the source of the Son's historical authorization. This authorization is alluded to in contexts which make it quite clear that its source lies in the historical event of the baptism.

Whether John 3:31-36 is still part of the Baptist's speech or is an appended Johannine meditation, it serves as comment on Jesus' baptism. This discourse identifies the Son's sending with his endowment with the Spirit (3:34) in language derived from the heavenly voice of the baptism. References to the authorization of Jesus are also expressed in language derived from the tradition of the Son of man's enthronement at his exaltation: the Father gave all things into his hands (3.35= cf. 5:22). It is this historical authorization, responded to in obedience, that enables the Son to speak the words (i.e., the Johannine discourses) and to do the works (i.e., the Johannine signs) of the Father. Even the language which speaks of the Father's sending the Son "into the world" (3:17) is open to a historical interpretation, since the disciples themselves are likewise sent into the world after the accomplishment of Jesus' historical mission (John 17:18). The historical nature of the sending and its baptismal connection comes out clearly even in John 6. For the Father's "sealing" of the Son (v. 27) is unquestionably baptismal. This is particularly surprising and significant in the chapter which, as we will see, introduces for the first time an unmistakably mythological Christology.

Like the language of sending, that of the Son's "coming" is patient of a historical interpretation.14 For the Baptist also "comes" (1:7, 31), just as "another" may come in his own name (5.43) as thieves and robbers have come before the Son (John 10.8, 10) and as wolves will come after him (10:12). Even when it says the Son came "from above" and "from heaven," this is capable of referring in the first instance to his historical authorization (3:31).

The language which speaks of the Father's "giving" the Son (John 3:16) is likewise historical. Its roots lie in the early kerygmatic (para)didonai [hand over] formula which spoke of the Son's being delivered up (reverential passive) in the passion (Mark 9:31, etc.; Rom. 4:25). In the Fourth Gospel this (para)didonai is extended to cover Jesus' history in its totality.

Side by side with this historical language there begins to appear at John 3:13 another type of language which is distinctly mythological. We hear there of the "descent" of the Son of man from heaven. But it is in the bread discourse of John 6 that this mythological thought is developed.

First, the Johannine Jesus speaks of the bread that came (comes) down from heaven (6:32-33). Next, he identifies himself with this bread in the first of the seven "I am" savings (6:41, 45). Finally, he drops the identification formula and speaks ostensibly of himself as a mythological being who came down from heaven (6:38, cf. v. 41). This usage is echoed later in the high priestly prayer (17.5). As a result, all the previous historical language becomes ambiguous. Is the apparently historical language to be interpreted mythologically?15 How are the historical and the mythological to be reconciled?

Traditional orthodoxy has unconsciously solved this problem by transposing Johannine mythology into the metaphysical conceptuality of Nicea and Chalcedon and then interpreting the historical language in metaphysical terms. But this fails to do justice to the historical quality of that language and creates an insoluble problem of which it was blithely unaware. For why should the eternal Son need to be endowed with the Spirit at his baptism if he already existed in two natures? Why should he receive a historical authorization, and why should he pray to the Father if that prayer was not ordinary human petition but a prayer which was constitutive of his christological role?

When Bultmann recognized the mythological character of the ascent-descent language and discovered its source in his pre-Christian Gnostic Redeemer Myth, he correctly perceived the problem created by the juxtaposition of the two languages, historical and mythological. The solution he offered was to invoke the pre-Pauline and Pauline Christology of kenosis.16 This answer, however, was unacceptable because the Fourth Gospel presents the incarnation not as a kenosis or krypsis (concealment) of the divine glory but precisely as its manifestation.17 Kasemann rightly saw this but unwittingly fell back on the procedure of traditional orthodoxy, and allowed the historical language once more to be swallowed up by the mythological. Thus he accused the Fourth Gospel of a "naive docetism”.18 The Johannine Christ strode about the earth like a god. He was a heavenly being who briefly touched down on earth, assuming a human guise merely to reveal his glory, and went back to heaven. Luise Schottroff went further and accused the fourth evangelist of an out-and-out Gnostic-docetist Christology.19 Once again these solutions fail to give due weight to the historical language.

How then will we solve the dilemma? It is significant that the mythological language begins with the identification of Jesus with the bread from heaven, the heavenly manna. As Raymond E. Brown has shown,20 this typology is rooted in the wisdom tradition. By identifying himself with the bread from heaven, the Johannine Jesus presents himself as the spokesman and embodiment of the divine wisdom. This is the clue to the descent-ascent saying in which the Johannine Jesus speaks in the first person (John 6:38). The ego here is the ego of the divine wisdom. It is also the clue to such sayings as "before Abraham was, I am" (8:58). One can understand this startling claim if it is a saying of the heavenly wisdom, a pronouncement of the kind one would expect to find on the lips of wisdom in the sapiential literature of the Old Testament and Apocrypha.21 This interpretation is exactly the same as that proposed by M. J. Suggs22 for the Matthean invitation, "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me: for I am gentle and lowly of heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light" (Matt. 11:28-30). Jesus' historical humanity is not absorbed by the wisdom mythology. It remains unimpaired. As a man he is called by God to the historical mission of incarnating the wisdom/logos in his word and work. He responds to that call by his continuing prayer. His words and deeds are thus the words and deeds of the Father. When he speaks, he speaks as the Father's wisdom which speaks through him, and when he acts, his deeds are the works of the heavenly wisdom.

This gives a typically Johannine two-level character to all the self predicates of Jesus. In some sayings, the historical sending and coming sayings, the primary ego is that of the historical Jesus. But they acquire a second level in reference to the coming of the wisdom/logos into the world from heaven in and through the sending and coming of the historical Jesus. This explains, for instance, the symbolic interpretation of the footwashing as a parable of the Son's coming from God and returning to him (John 13:3), a saying which speaks both of the mission and crucifixion of Jesus and of the entry of wisdom into the world and her subsequent return to heaven. This two-level meaning further explains such sayings as "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) and "he who has seen me has seen the Father" (14:9). It further explains the six great "I am" sayings which follow upon the initial self identification of Jesus with the bread from heaven (8:12; 10:7, 11; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1). The "I am" sayings are properly self-predicates of wisdom, whose spokesman and embodiment, however, is Jesus. They involve a kind of communicatio idiomatum [sharing of attributes]. What is predicable of wisdom is predicable of Jesus and vice versa.

It is significant that the bread discourse forms the crucial turning point in John’s christological interpretation. It is here that the mythological background of Jesus' historical mission comes first to the fore, and the two-level character of all of Jesus' self-predications is exposed. It is here that the first "I am" saying occurs.

Friedrich Gogarten23 correctly perceived the two-level char¬acter of Johannine christology. He observed that there are two events, an event between God and Jesus in history, and an event between the Father and the Son in eternity. These events are one and the same. We would slightly amend Gogarten's formulation, for the Father-Son relationship appears on the historical side. We prefer to say that the historical event of call and response be¬tween the Father and the Son reflects the eternal relationship be¬tween God and his heavenly wisdom. The point of intersection between the two levels is Jesus' baptism and his ongoing prayer.

John’s Gospel and the Patristic Christology
John's two-level Christology is the equivalent in historical terms of the metaphysical doctrine of the two natures. The Nicean doctrine of the deity of the preexistent Son is a translation into metaphysical terms of the Fourth Gospel's mythological proclamation of Jesus as the incarnation of the preexistent divine wisdom. We are entitled to recognize these later creedal affirmations as legitimate attempts to translate the historical and mythological languages of the New Testament into the metaphysical language of the fourth and fifth centuries. What cannot be permitted is the insistence that the metaphysical language must be used as a presupposition for the exegesis of the New Testament. John's Gospel must not be interpreted in the light of the later metaphysics; the later metaphysics must be interpreted in the light of John's Gospel.

There are two remaining difficulties. The Nicene Creed locates the Incarnation at the nativity: "And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary." John's Gospel, as we have seen, regards the incarnation as a historical process inaugurated at Jesus' baptism. "The Word became flesh" is a comment on the whole history which the evangelist is about to relate, beginning with the baptism and running through the signs and discourses which are to follow, and culminating in Jesus' glorification through his passion.24 How does one relate John to Nicea? The second difficulty is, how does one avoid an adoptionist interpretation of Johannine Christology? The second question can be answered without serious difficulty. The Johannine Christology is emphatic that the whole history of Jesus rested on the divine initiative. God called Jesus for his mission at the moment of his baptism. This call was constantly renewed in Jesus' prayer. The second question is more serious, and the answer will depend on an investigation of the infancy narratives and on a relation of their Christology to that of the Fourth Gospel.

1. See Dr. Mollegen's letter to the editor in The Living Church (May 11, 1975) and the subsequent correspondence.

2. References to Jesus' prayer occur in the pre-Marcan tradition (Gethsemane, a christological story compiled from various materials including the Lord's Prayer), Q (the Lord's Prayer—what Jesus taught his disciples he must first have prayed himself), Special Luke (Jesus' intercession for his disciples, Luke 22:32), the pre-Johannine tradition (the "Johannine Gethsemane" John 12.27-28, also modeled on the Lord's prayer). For the connection between Jesus' baptismal call and his use of Abba, see J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology, I (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971), 51-56, 67-68.

3. See T. Weeden, Mark: Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress press, 1971), passim. One need not accept Weeden’s thesis in the extreme form in which he stated it. Although mouthpieces of a theios aner Christology during the earthly ministry, the disciples are converted to Marcan orthodoxy at the resurrection (Mark 9:9; 14:28; 16:7).

4. Luke 3:21. If Q contained a baptismal narrative (so Streeter, Taylor, and more recently J. M. Robinson, "Basic Shifts in German Theology,” Interpretation 16 [1962]: 76-97; esp. 82f.), it would be consistent with the Gattung of Q if it began with sayings of Jesus about his baptism, which appoints him the spokesman of the divine wisdom. See J. M. Robinson and H. Koester, Trajectories Through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 71-113.

5. Luke 6:12, either Lucan redaction or from Special Luke (T. Schramm, Der Markus-Stoff bei Lukas [Cambridge: Cambridge Uni¬versity Press, 1971], 113).

6. Luke 9:28. Again this may be Special Luke rather than Lucan redaction. So Schramm, Markus-Stoff, 136-39.

7. So Streeter, Taylor. One does not need to accept their proto-Luke theory. Luke in any case had special passion traditions which he supplanted from Mark.

8. Especially see Luke’s redaction of Jesus’ flight, Mark 1:35-38 = Luke 4:42-43. In Luke it is not Simon, the Marcan mouthpiece of "divine man" Christology, but the crowd that pursues Jesus. In Luke the flight is motivated not by a rejection of false Christology but by the de-sire to extend the activities of the theios aner further afield. Luke accord¬ingly shifts Mark 1:35 to 5:16 where it better serves that Christology.

9. This idea was already present in Mark's miracle source (Mark 5:30), but Mark toned it down by shifting the emphasis to the woman's faith.

10. See above, n. 8.

11. R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971), 408. Translation modified.

11b. Cp. Mar 1.10: "...the Holy Spirit like a dove coming down into [eis] him." Amplified Bible. Ehrman says that "it is worth noting, however, that both Matthew and Luke changed the preposition to epi [upon]". Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, p 141-43.

12. Apostello [set apart, sent] in reference to Jesus is unequivocally historical prior to 6:38 in: John 3:34 (see below); 5:36, 38; 6:29. Pempo [sent] occurs prior to John 6:38 in reference to Jesus' historical sending at 4:34, where "doing the will" refers to Jesus' historical activity; 5:23-24, 36 (in the context of the Father's witness, which began with the voice at the baptism, continued in Jesus' prayer, and surfaced at the "Johannine Gethsemane," John 12:28).

13. Especially if the prologue was added subsequently to the composition of the Gospel. See B. Lindars, The Gospel of John, Century Bible, rev. (London: Oliphants, 1972), 76f.

14. Erchomai [come, go] is dearly historical at 1.15, 27 (the Baptist's witness). 3:2 refers to the source of Jesus' authorization, not to a mythological origin. Cf. 4:25.

15. After John 6:38, “apostle” occurs in an ambiguous sense at 7:29; 8:42; 10:36; 11:42; 17:3. Sometimes the primary reference is still historical (e.g., 10:36 occurs in a context which alludes to Jesus' baptismal consecration). Pempo [sent] is ambiguous at 6:38, 39, 44, where the context suggests a primary reference to Jesus' descent from heaven, and at 7:18, where the primary reference is historical (Jesus' baptismal authorization). 8:16, 29 occur in a context which alludes to the Father's witness, and are therefore primarily historical, as also is 9:4. In 12:44 the allusion is primarily mythological as v.46 shows, but in 12:49 historical (Jesus' obedience to the Father's commandment). Erchomai [come, go] is primarily historical at 7:27-28 (7:41); 10:10b. It is ambiguous at 8:14, 42, and 18:37, though the preceding reference to Jesus’ birth suggests here historical mission. The references to Jesus' "coining into the world" at 9:39 and 11:27 arc primarily historical; those at 12:46 and 16:28 are primarily mythological. Erchomai is ambiguous at 8:42, but with a primary reference to Jesus’ authorization.. At 13:3; 16:28, 30; and 17:8 it is primarily mythological.

16. Bultmann, Gospel of John, at 1:14. (Cf. idem, Theology of the New Testament, vol. 2 (New York Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1955), 40-49. Bultmann loves to speak of the "paradox" of the Word becoming flesh.

17. The doxa [glory] of God is manifested (phaneroo) in Jesus' ministry: John 2:11: cf. 1:14; 11:4 (12:41?); 17:22 (7:24?).

18. E. Kasemann, The Testament of Jesus, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968), 8-13.

19. L. Schottroff, Der Glaubenden und die feindliche Welt (Neukirchen: Neukirchner Verlag, 1970). This one-sided interpretation can appeal to the fact that during the second century prior to Irenaeus it was the Gnostics who appreciated the Fourth Gospel; see W. von Loewenich, Das Johannesverstandnis im zweiten Jahrhundert, BZNW 13 (1932); W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971); E. M. Pagels, The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973)

20. See R. E. Brown, The Gospel of John, Anchor Bible 29 (Gar¬den City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1966), 272-75.

21. In this literature, wisdom activated Israel's salvation history including Abraham (Sir. 44:19-21). There are frequent self-predicates of wisdom in this literature, beginning with Prov. 8:24. See Bultmann, Gospel of John, 327 n. 5. Bultmann rightly sees that Jesus is speaking not in his own capacity but as a spokesman of the Gnostic revelation. His assumption, however, of a pre-Christian Gnostic redeemer myth has been shattered by the researches of Colpe and others. See Robinson, "Basic Shifts," and W. Meeks, The Prophet-King, SNT 14 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967), 12-17. For the Gnostic redeemer myth we now substitute the Palestinian Hellinistic-Jewish wisdom myth.

22. See M. J. Suggs. Wisdom, Law and Christology in Matthew’s Gospel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971), 71-97.

23. F. Gogarten. Demythologizing and History (London: SCM Press, 1955), 72. The German title, Entmythologisierung und Kirche, carried a primary allusion to Bultmann’s controversy with the Lutheran orthodoxy of the fifties, but suggested also a contrast between historical thinking and the metaphysics of patristic orthodoxy.

24. C. K. Barrett in conversation (May 1975) expressed the opinion that the aorist egeneto (John 1:14) must be punctiliar. But in Hellenistic Greek, that aorist can also be “complexive”, i.e., expressing "linear actions which (having been completed) are regarded as a whole” (F. Blass & A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Tr. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chirago Press, I96I), 33.

Friday, November 27, 2009

Jesus as God by Murray Harris

My Lord and My God! (John 20:28)

John 20 contains four resurrection pericopes: the discovery of the empty tomb (vv. 1-10), the appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene (vv. 11-18), the impartation of the Spirit to the disciples (vv. 19-23), and the confession of Thomas (vv. 24-29). In this latter pericope the climax is reached when, in response to the invitation of Jesus to touch his wounds and the directive to display faith (v. 27), Thomas utters the words “My Lord and my God” (v. 28) and Jesus declares those who believe without seeing to be "blessed" (v. 29).

Four aspects of verse 28 call for attention. There is the grammatical problem (how is "my God" to be construed?), the historical problem (did Thomas actually make this confession?), the theological issue (what are the sources, meaning, and theological significance of Thomas's confession?), and the literary issue (what is the significance of the Thomas episode in the Fourth Gospel?).

A. The Grammatical Problem
The crucial phrase “my God” has been understood in several ways.

1. Predicative
a. Referring to God the Father: "Thomas answered him: (Jesus, you are) my Lord; (Father, you are) my God."

On the first view each half of Thomas's affirmation is directed to a different addressee: "my Lord" to Jesus, "my God" to the Father, either as indwelling Jesus[1] or as dwelling in heaven. This decidedly aberrant interpretation is rendered implausible by the presence of kai [and], by the absence of a distinguishing vocative (Jesus or Father), and by the frequent conjunction of “lord” and “god” in various combinations in the LXX in reference to one person. In addition, the immediate context (vv. 24-27, 29) contains numerous references to Jesus, but none to the Father, so that a sudden apostrophe is highly improbable, especially since the whole statement is introduced by "and said". Finally, the repeated "my", so far from necessarily indicating two distinct addressees simply reflects the repetition of the pronominal suffix with copulated nouns in Hebrew and Aramaic and has the effect of personalizing Thomas's response.

b. Referring to Jesus: "Thomas answered him, `My Lord is also my God’."
E. A. Abbott (Grammar §2050), who at first defended the translation[2] "My Lord is also my God," adduced several lines of evidence in favor of his contention that "lord" would have been used if the vocative had been intended (Grammar §2049). (1) The one LXX instance of a vocatival ‘the Lord’ (viz., Ps. 35:23) is explicable by its special context. That is, "my Lord" conforms to the preceding vocatival nominative ("my God"). Apart from this one exceptional use, "Lord" is never vocatival in the LXX, although the vocatival expressions "God" and "my Lord and my God" (e.g., 2 Kings 19:19) are common. (2) In Classical Greek the vocatival nominative is (a) accompanied by ‘to him’ or ‘he’, (b) idiomatic, like the English "You, Mr. cricketer, Mr. Yorkshireman," or (c) found only in poetry (e.g., ‘the words’). (3) While using ‘lord’ freely, the papyri never have a vocatival, ‘the Lord’. (4) The Latin versions have dominus (not domine).

Abbott paraphrases the verse thus: “My dear Lord—is actually none other than my God." Thomas here "speaks about his Master in the act of it replying to his Master.”[3] Instead of continuing after "my dear Lord" with "has indeed risen from the dead" or "has been indeed restored to me," Thomas expresses his inspired conviction, in a moment when he was overcome by joy and amazement, that his Lord had become to him one with his God. According to Abbott, the omission of esti might have been prompted by the evangelist's desire to force his readers to think out the full import of the confession, while the emphatic kai (and) is frequent in John (§§2050-51).

First, one must admit that, judged by the usage of Classical Greek, the LXX, the NT, or the papyri, the use of “Lord” as a vocative is uncommon. But that “Lord” may be a nominative of address in Johannine usage is evident from John 13:13 and Revelation 4.11; that it may be applied to Jesus is clear from the former verse. Second, it is extraordinary to treat not as adjective when (a) it stands between two articular nouns in the same case, each modified by ‘of me’, and (b) esti is lacking. Third, there are at least two reasons why the evangelist may have written ‘the Lord’ rather than "lord". (a) In comparison with "lord", which is not infrequently used in the Gospels in the sense “sir!”,[4] the vocatival ‘the Lord’ is more formal and respectful, more sonorous and emphatic in tone (cf. John 13:13), and therefore would be appropriate when a disciple was addressing his Lord.[5] For John "lord" perhaps represented too mundane a usage, being often followed by a request for help[6] or a question.[7](b) Although the nominative used in a vocatival sense was established Greek idiom,[8] John's two uses of "the Lord" in this sense (viz., John 13:13; 20:28) may owe something to the Semitic vocative,[9] expressed by the articular nominative in Hebrew (GKC §126e) and the emphatic state in Aramaic (Rosenthal §43). Fourth, it has not always been observed that Abbott later reversed his preference and took kai. to mean "and" (not "also"): "Thomas said to him [the words], ‘My lord-and my God’,” the vocatival "the Lord" being "exceptional Johannine usage.”[10]

2. Exclamatory: "And Thomas exclaimed: `My Lord and my God!"'
a. Referring to God the Father

Another interpretation, associated with the names of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Faustus Socinus, proposes that Thomas's cry was an exclamatory statement, expressing his astonishment and his praise to God for the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus:[11] "Praise (or, glory) be to my Lord and my God!" Accordingly, “my God” sheds no light on the view of Jesus held by either Thomas or the evangelist.

Insuperable objections attend this Socinian interpretation. (1) It renders the preceding (ἀπεκρίθη…καὶ εἶπεν, “answered…and said”) αὐτῷ (“to him”= Jesus) inexplicable (cf. Bauer 227). Why would John (or Thomas) introduce an indirect expression of praise to the Father by a phrase that directs the ex hypothesi [by hypothesis] praise to Jesus? The least he might have expressed in this case would be something like "he said blessed be the Lord and my God" (cf. Ps. 17:47 LXX [Engl. 18:47]; 143:1 LXX [Engl. 144:1]); "he said my Lord and my God" (cf. Matt. 13:28; Rom. 11:33). (2) It is clear from the ‘me’ after ‘to see’ in verse 29a and the parallelism between ‘to believe/have faith’ in verse 29b (where ‘in me’ must be inferred) and ‘to believe/have faith’ in verse 29a, that ‘in me’ (or a phrase of similar import)[12] is to be supplied with ‘to believe/have faith’. Verse 28 is therefore most naturally understood as an expression of Thomas's belief in the risen Jesus as his Lord and God. (3) All the previous uses of ‘the Lord’ in John 20 (viz., vv. 2, 1.1, 18, 20, 25; cf. v. 15) refer to Jesus. In the literary artistry of the chapter, there seems to be a marked progress in meaning (but not in referent) from Mary Magdalene's "my Lord" (v. 13) to Thomas's , “my Lord and my God” (cf. v. 17). (4) The preceding and following verses emphasize the relationship of Thomas to Jesus: Thomas said (v. 27), ‘the word was Jesus’ (v. 29). It would be unlikely that the oratio recta [direct speech] that follows the intervening ‘Thomas answered and said to him’ (v. 28) would not be directed to Jesus.

b. Referring to Jesus
If Thomas's ejaculation is a statement about Jesus (and not a cry addressed to him), one must supply some such expression as (to him) ‘it is’. F. C. Burkitt paraphrased the confession thus': "It is Jesus Himself, and now I recognize Him as Divine" (48). But once again the presence of ‘to him’ is fatal to this interpretation.[13] Also, to understand Thomas's cry as a simple exclamation of surprise is to rob the cry of the ingredient of direct, personal encounter that is demanded by the context.

3. Vocatival, Addressed to Jesus: “In response Thomas said to him, ‘My Lord and my God!’”

Several observations support the interpretation that Thomas's words are vocatival and addressed to Jesus. This view prevails among grammarians, lexicographers,[14] commentators and English versions.

a. “Answered ...and said” implies a response to Jesus on the part of Thomas. While this phrase, representing the Biblical Aramaic [as in Dan 2:5, 8, 26; 3:14; 5:17] or the Hebrew need not mean more than "he spoke up" (BAGD 93c), given the context and the presence of “answered him” indicates that the oratio recta “my Lord and my God” is the response of Thomas to Jesus' invitation (v. 27). Thomas is not here replying to a formal question[15] ("Thomas replied," JB) but is reacting to a challenge to his faith ("Thomas said in response," NAB1) in the form of a gentle command of Jesus (v. 27).

b. “Said to him” (v. 28) is clearly parallel to “he says to Thomas (v. 27) and “he said to him” (v. 29) on the one hand and “saying...to him” (v. 25) on the other. In each case there is a speaker (or speakers), a statement that immediately follows, and a person addressed.[16] The whole phrase “Thomas answered and said to him” may be rendered, "In response Thomas said to him.”[17] What follows will be not simply an assertion or ejaculation made in the hearing of Jesus but an exclamation actually addressed to him.[18]

c. The articular nominative of address is an established NT usage (BDF §147), although the pre-Christian papyri seem to lack instances of this enallage of case (N. Turner, Syntax 34). It should be observed that the elements of harshness, superiority, and impersonality that sometimes attach to the use of the idiom in Classical Greek are lacking in the almost sixty NT examples.[19] One finds “the God” rather than “my God” (cf. Matt. 27:46)[20] because the expression is parallel to and therefore influenced by “my Lord”.[21] The article is used with “god” not merely because a vocatival nominative is commonly articular in Hellenistic Greek but in particular because when a possessive pronoun follows a vocatival nominative, the noun is always articular (cf. Abel §42g; C. F. D. Moule, Idiom Book 116).

I conclude that “my God” is neither predicative nor simply exclamatory. It is neither an assertion made about the Father or Jesus, nor is it an ejaculation referring to the Father that was made in the presence of Jesus or referring to Jesus but not addressed to him. Rather it is an exclamatory address, an exclamation specifically directed to Jesus as its subject and recipient.

B. The Historical Problem
The historical issue may be stated thus: Does the christological confession of Thomas simply reflect the church's liturgy or the theology of the Johannine circle in the 90s without having a historical Sitz im Leben Jesu, or was the confession actually made by Thomas in the 30s and then incorporated into the emerging liturgical traditions of the church?

In the resurrection narratives of the Gospels, as in the records of the pre-resurrection ministry of Jesus, C. H. Dodd distinguishes two types of pericopes that originally stood as independent units of oral tradition: the “concise”, which report the bare essentials of what occurred or what was said, and the "circumstantial," which report arresting details and traits of character in order to heighten interest.[22] While the story of Doubting Thomas (John 20:26-29) formally belongs to the class of concise narratives, it represents (according to Dodd) an intermediate type. Since it depends for its intelligibility on the connecting passage, 20:24-25, which itself presupposes 20:19-23, it could never have been an independent pericope. Thomas is not individualized in the way Mary Magdalene is. He typifies and acts as spokesman for disciples who doubt (cf. Matt. 28:17; Luke 24:37-41).[23] Viewed thus as a dramatization of incredulity, this pericope, including the confession of verse 28, is a Johannine creation. The evangelist has expunged the reference to the disciples' doubt that was found in his source before verse 20 so that in a separate episode (vv. 24-29) he might personify apostolic doubt (Brown, Gospel 2:1031-32).

Such a theory would seem difficult to sustain on stylistic grounds. Of the 51 characteristics of Johannine style isolated by F. M. Braun (1:401-3) only two are in evidence in the Thomas pericope (John 20:24-29), viz., the expression “answered and said” (v. 28) (or equivalent), which is found some 33 times in the Fourth Gospel but only twice in the Synoptics,[24] and partitive “from” (v. 24), found 31 times in the Fourth Gospel and 26 times in the Synop­tics.[25] This would suggest that the evangelist is here dependent on tradi­tional material. Yet indications of John's editorial work are not lacking. The pericope builds on the previous episode (vv. 19-23) in the notes of time ("eight days later") and place ("once more in the house," "although the doors were locked," v. 26; cf. v. 19).

Since the Thomas episode displays this distinctive lack of Johannine stylistic characteristics, it is therefore unlikely to be purely a Johannine creation that was prompted by theological motives. Rather it embodies a pre Johannine tradition unused by (or perhaps unknown to) the Synoptists in which Thomas was given a place of prominence. And since Thomas's confession is integral to the episode, forming its climax (along with v. 29), it too must be considered tradition and not a Johannine creation. It is scarcely conceivable that the evangelist would have inherited this Thomas tradition in a form similar to 20:24-27 (ending with the dominical rebuke: "Stop disbelieving; have faith!") and then added as his own contribution the climactic response of Thomas (v. 28) for which that dominical rebuke merely serves as a foil.[26] Verse 28 stands or falls with verses 24-27, the whole pericope (vv. 24-29) being either a Johannine creation or (as I have argued) a pre-Johannine tradition.

If, then, neither the episode as a whole nor the christological confession in particular may be traced to the theological creativity of John, they must derive from an earlier written source or an earlier oral tradition. This does not, of course, prove the historicity of the confession (v. 28) but it does establish that one should not look to the fertile and creative theological imagination of John for the original impulse behind the confession and it leaves open the possibility that the ultimate source of this pre-Johannine tradition was an actual encounter between Thomas and Jesus after the resurrection. I must now discuss the grounds for believing that the Thomas episode is rooted in history (without addressing the wider issue of the historical reliability of the Fourth Gospel in general)[27] and deal with the objections to the episode's historicity.

1. Grounds for the Historicity of the Thomas Episode

a. It is difficult to believe that the early church would have invented an incident in which Jesus publicly reproves "one of the Twelve" (John 20:24) for his disbelief (v. 27b) and even after his confession of faith (v. 28) gently chides him for demanding visual evidence for the reality of the resurrection (v.29a) in addition to the verbal testimony he had already received (vv. 18, 25).[28] Moreover, there is a close verbal correspondence between John 4:48 (where Jesus condemns sign-seeking; cf. John 2:23-25) and John 20:25 (where Thomas demands signs)[29].

To render v. 27b by "do not become unbelieving”[30] is to overlook Thomas's own admission of unbelief in verse 25: “Unless I see…I will not believe" implies that he did not then believe because he had not yet seen.[31] The phrase should be translated as "stop being an unbeliever,”[32] "do not persist in your disbelief,”[33] or "doubt no longer”[34] implying Thomas's state of unbelief. And in verse 29a, whether it be construed as a question (as in RSV)[35] or a statement (as in NEB), there is not only an implied commendation for belief (which becomes explicit in v. 29b) but also an implied reproof for believing only after seeing, for rejecting the oral testimony of the witnesses to the resurrection.

b. Similarly, is it credible that one of the Twelve would be pictured as obstinately incredulous by the creative pen of some early Christian? The fact that Thomas finally confesses does not lessen the improbability that anyone would create and put into Thomas's mouth a demand (v. 25) that reflects obstinacy and self-assertiveness.

The evangelist records Thomas's unwillingness to believe as a vigorous denial ("I will certainly not believe"),[36] not simply as a polite refusal ("I shall not believe"). And what Thomas refused to believe for a week were the oft-repeated and detailed reports[37] of Mary Magdalene (vv. 17-18) and his trusted fellow disciples (v. 25a) con­cerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus. But he was not merely demanding that Jesus should appear to him personally to confirm the truth of others' testimony. In his insistence that he should touch as well as see the wounds of Jesus, he was seeking a privilege denied to Mary Magdalene (v. 17)[38] and not afforded to the other disciples (v. 20: "He showed them ...they saw the Lord") or at least not sought by them (Luke 24:39).[39]

c. The incident as recorded contains several other indications of verisi­militude that are unlikely to be fabrications: the note regarding Thomas's absence from the previous meeting of the disciples (v. 24; this is an essential ingredient of the whole episode); the fact that Thomas had neither tell nor been excluded from the company of the Ten (v. 26a) in spite of his rejection of their uniform and repeated testimony; the recognition that locked doors made an appearance of Jesus antecedently improbable ("in spite of the fact that the doors were locked,[40] Jesus came and stood among them," v. 26b); and the specific indications (v. 26a) of time ("eight days later") and place ("once more in the house"), which cannot naturally be interpreted symbolically.

d. Thomas's response to the testimony of the other disciples (John 20:25) is formulated in light of the invitation of Jesus reported in Luke 24:39. That is, "I refuse to believe it unless I see the mark of the nails on his hands and put my finger right into the mark of the nails and put my hand right into his side” presupposes the invitation, "See my hands and my feet—it is I myself; handle me and see." This complementarity that falls short of a precise verbal correspondence (witness John's "hands and side" and Luke's "hands and feet") argues for the historicity of Thomas's word in verse 25. Clearly It camas had listened carefully to the full report of the disciples concerning the appearance of Jesus (Luke 24:36-43 = John 20:19-23).

e. There is a remarkable consonance between the character of Thomas expressed in the earlier episodes of the Fourth Gospel involving him (viz., 11:16; 14:5) and the personal traits exhibited in his encounter with Jesus recorded in John 20. In John 11:16 Thomas acts as spokesman for the disciples in saying, "Let us go [with Jesus into Judea to Lazarus], that we may die with him [Jesus]." Here Thomas expresses that intense desire for the uninterrupted companionship of Jesus and that willingness to die with him rather than abandon his cause, which at least partially account for his presence with the Ten one week after the resurrection in spite of his persistent unbelief (John 20:24-26). In John 14:5 Thomas responds to the simple assertion of Jesus, "You know the way to where I am going," by posing the question, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" His faith could not advance beyond what he "saw" (cf. John 20:25). "How can we be expected to recognize the route if your destination remains unclear to us?" In addition, one finds in these earlier stories a streak of pessimism (John 11:16b) and a combination of forthright honesty and intellectual obtuseness (John 14:5) that are clearly reflected in John 20:25. Admittedly, this consistent picture of Thomas in the Fourth Gospel could have originated in a skillful evangelist's creative literary artistry, but the presence of certain negative elements in each portrayal of Thomas suggests rather that the Johannine depiction of Thomas corresponds to reality.

f. Finally, it may be noted that if the apostle John is the author of the Fourth Gospel[41] this Thomas episode will reflect eyewitness testimony.

The cumulative effect of these observations is to heighten the probability that John 20:24-29 embodies accurate historical reminiscence.

As for the historicity of the christological confession itself (v. 28), first it seems arbitrary to acknowledge the historicity of the pericope in general but to deny the confession to Thomas, for within the pericope verse 28 is pivotal. Verses 24-27 look forward to verse 28 as their climax and without it (in the pre-Johannine period of the tradition) they would simply have stood as an ugly torso, an indictment against one of the Twelve ("Do not persist in unbelief! Become a believer!," v. 27)—hardly a pericope worth enshrining in oral tradition! Similarly, verse 29 looks back to and presupposes verse 28, which then has the effect of defining "belief” as the recognition and confession of the lordship and deity of Jesus Christ (cf. v. 31). Second, if addressing Jesus as “the Lord said” was characteristic of the primitive Palestinian church (1 Cor. 16:22),[42] why should a personal version of this address (“my Lord”) be denied to a member of the Jerusalem church? It is not a necessary cor­ollary of this view that Thomas's understanding of the lordship of Jesus in A.D. 30 was identical with the Johannine view at the time of writing.[43] Third, if “lord” came to be an appropriate title to apply to Christ after the resurrection (Phil. 2:9-11),[44] there is no reason to deny either its suit­ability on the lips of one of the Twelve immediately after the resurrection with a christological sense or therefore the possibility that theos too was an opposite term of address at that time (assuming that "lord" and "god" cannot be distinguished with regard to the status designated; see below, §C.2.c).

2. Objections to the Historicity of the Thomas Episode
a. It is claimed that in this pericope Thomas simply is the personification of the attitude of doubt shared to some extent by all the early disciples. The details of the narrative are literary rather than historical.[45]

In reply, it cannot be said that, simply because a person epitomizes an attitude or embodies an ideal, that figure must be fictitious. In any case Thomas does more than perform the negative role of dramatizing incredulity. He also represents those whose secure faith is hammered out on the anvil of vigorous skepticism. And his doubt was not complete, for he gathered with the disciples on the Sunday after he had publicly expressed his unwillingness to believe without tangible proof of Jesus' resurrection (John 20:19, 24-26) and his demand to see and touch before believing implied that he would believe after seeing and touching. The term “Twin” (v. 24) does not mean "doubter," symbolizing his character, but is the natural Greek equivalent (just as “Thomas” is a Greek transliteration) of the Aramaic "twin," and may have been the name of Thomas that had cur­rency among Greek-speaking Christians in Asia Minor.

b. The final verse of the pericope underscores the apologetic origin of the whole story. At a time when few eyewitnesses remained alive, it became inevitable that people came to faith apart from a personal encounter with the Jesus of history or his contemporaries. The survival of Christianity depended on "believing without seeing" (Suriano 314-15).
But apologetic value and historical reminiscence are not mutually exclu­sive categories. The apologetic significance and interest of a narrative do not in themselves demonstrate a writer's creativity but rather his judicious selection of an apologetically valuable story that may or may not be rooted in history.[46]

c. Perhaps the most serious objection is the assertion that Thomas's confession is too developed christologically to be possible in A.D. 30 and is anachronistic if the pericope is historical. Time must pass before any Jew could accommodate a divine Christ within the theological framework of monotheism.[47]

Now it is true that John 20:28 is more elevated and comprehensive than other christological confessions addressed to Jesus during his ministry. But one must not arbitrarily restrict the influence of the resurrection on the development of Christology.[48] Just as the title “lord” came to be used of Jesus in a titular sense after and because of the resurrection (Phil. 2:11),[49] so the title “god,” the Septuagintal equivalent of the generic appellative, might well have been recognized as a suitable title by which to address Jesus once his divinity had been confirmed in the eyes of his fol­lowers by his resurrection.[50] Certainly no Jew would have regarded “god” as a less appropriate term of address to the Deity than “lord”. That is, if one admits “lord” as a post resurrection title of Jesus, on what grounds can one deny the possibility that “god” too was employed in addressing Jesus imme­diately after the resurrection?

d. How is it that Thomas's gloomy unbelief could be so quickly trans­formed into ecstatic faith?[51]
Several reasons may be given for this dramatic change in Thomas's atti­tude. (1) Thomas had been psychologically and spiritually prepared for a sudden emergence from the shadows of doubt into the light of faith by his week-long reflection on the reports of Mary Magdalene (v. 18) and the other disciples (v. 25). One reason he had rejected their testimony about the resurrection may have been his recognition (as he recalled Jesus' prophecies of the event) of the far-reaching implications of belief that Jesus had risen from the dead.[52] (2) The appearance of the risen and trans­formed Jesus would have seemed to Thomas a personal and gracious reply to his earlier semi defiant assertion, "Unless I see...I will never believe." (3) The personal invitation of Jesus to Thomas ("put your finger here and examine my hands; put out your hand and place it in my side," v. 27) was couched in terms that implied Jesus' preternatural knowledge of the lan­guage Thomas had used in rejecting the testimony of the other disciples that they had seen the Lord (v. 25).[53] It was this combination of more than human graciousness and knowledge, along with the sheer joy that comes from the relief of tension and uncertainty, that elicited Thomas's sublime confession. (4) Thomas became reassured of his Lord's continuing love through the accommodating manner of Jesus and his gentle yet firm rebuke (v. 27). (5) However, the ultimate stimulus behind Thomas's confession was the work of the Spirit (cf. Matt. 16:15-17; 1 Cor. 12:3). Although not present with the other ten disciples on the evening of the resurrection day, Thomas would hardly have been thereby deprived of the benefit of the "insufflation" (v. 22).

How may we summarize this issue of historicity? I have given reason for believing that the Thomas episode (vv. 24-29) embodies a pre Johannine tradition that the evangelist has blended into the previous pericope (vv. 19-23) by adding the references to time and place necessary for the flow of the narrative. As it stands, the pericope has so many signs, and verisimilitude that its historicity may be confidently assumed, and since the confession in verse 28 is pivotal and climactic in the story it may be reckoned ipsissima verba Thomae [the very words of Thomas]. Certainly the theological sentiments expressed in the confession are in keeping with the post resurrection setting of the narrative.

C. The Theological Issue

1. The Sources of Thomas's Cry
The meaning given to Thomas's devotional cry will be largely determined by one's appraisal of the originating impulse behind the confession and the source behind its particular formulation. At least five different (but not necessarily mutually exclusive) impulses or sources have been proposed.

a. Apologetic or Polemical
The confession arose as a defensive counterblast to the grandiose claims made by the imperial cult on behalf of Domitian (A.11. 81-96) who was called dominus et deus noster (Suetonius, Domit. 13:2; Mastin, "Cult").[54] This view presupposes that the Fourth Gospel was composed and published in the 90s of the first century A.D. and that the Thomas episode is not historical. Both assumptions are at least open to question.[55]

b. Liturgical
This expression of belief in the deity of Christ arose from the veneration of the “lord” in worship (Bousset 317, 322 n. 309, 330-31) or, more generally, this confession of faith may have had a liturgical origin or at least setting.[56] R.E. Brown (Gospel 2:1048) discerns in Thomas’s words a combination of a covenantal confession (“you are my God”, Hos. 2:23 [25, LXX]; conf. John 20:17) and a baptismal profession (“Jesus is Lord”). While the liturgical setting of John 20:19-29 is unmistakable,[57] this does not necessarily imply the liturgical origin or shaping of the confession.

c. Theological
The christological affirmation, like the Thomas scene in general, is the product of Johannine theology and expresses the identity of the Jesus of history (“my Lord”) with the incarnate Logos (“my God”; cf. John 1:1; Dodd, Interpretation 430-31). Questions have already been raised about this radical discounting of the historicity of the Thomas epi­sode. It is true that the theological import of the affirmation remains intact whether or not the incident is historical, but it is of crucial signif­icance whether the theology is that of Thomas or solely that of the evan­gelist and his circle.

d. Septuagintal
The combination "lord and god” used in Christian worship probably arose directly from the common Septuagintal conjunction "the lord God" (Deissmann 361, citing Ps. 85:15 LXX [Engl. 86:15]; 87:2 LXX [Engl. 88:1]). Given the frequency of this OT formula and comparable phrases involving emwv and “my” (see next section), it is likely that OT usage influenced, either consciously or unconsciously, the particular choice of terms found in John 20:28, whether or not Thomas actually uttered these or similar words.

e. Experiential
Personally confronted by the risen Lord after a traumatic week of uncertainty as he wrestled with the implications of the report that Mary Magdalene and his fellow apostles had delivered to him, Thomas suddenly finds his doubt put to flight and sums up his new, liberating conviction, born of experience, in the worshipful cry, "My Lord and my God!"

As noted above, these suggested origins of Thomas's affirmation are not mutually exclusive.[58] The one indisputable influence is the Septuagint. Not only is there the “lord the God” (3 examples)[59] that Deissmann cited, but also (more pertinently) “lord and my God” (20 examples),[60] “lord God” (14),[61] and “your lord God” (1),[62] and also the frequent expressions “my lord God”[63] and “my lord God”[64] and those instances where “you” (3)[65] or “in you” (or “and you”) (10)[66] accompanies a phrase such as “my god” or “my lord God”. The closest LXX parallel to John 20:28 is Psalm 34:23 [Engl. 35:23]: “my Lord and my God”. The inverted order in John 20:28 may be due to the frequency of “my lord God” in the LXX. Another close parallel is Psalm 5:3 (LXX (Engl. 5:2]; cf. 83:3 LXX [Engl. 84:2]), which has the vocatival “my Kingdom and my God”.

My suggestion regarding the genesis of Thomas's confession is this. In his attempt to depict the significance of the risen Jesus for himself personally, Thomas used a liturgical form ultimately drawn from the LXX, which later came to serve admirably as the crowning christological affirmation of the Fourth Gospel, as a confessional formula in the church, and as a rebuttal of the imperial cult.

2. The Meaning and Theological Significance of Thomas's Cry
a. The Implications of an Exclamatory Address and of µou [my]
No one will contest that an exclamatory address differs in form from doctrinal statement, yet it seems arbitrary to say that Thomas addressed Jesus as his Lord and God but did not believe that Jesus was his Lord and God. That is, there is a formal but not a material difference between saying "my Lord and my God!" and "Jesus is (or, you are) my Lord and my God." In addition, one may legitimately extrapolate from Thomas’ words the fact that he believed Jesus to be his Lord and his God because in verse 29a Jesus commends him for "believing," for having confessed his faith in his exclamation addressed to Jesus. From this viewpoint verse 28 is the last of a series of confessions scattered through­out the Gospel.

But does the presence of "my" prevent one's affirming that, for Thomas and John, Jesus was Lord and God in an absolute sense? Probably not. The effect of “my” is to convert perception into faith (cf. Schlatter, Johannes 362) and to personalize Thomas's response, just as Jesus had approached him personally in the presence of the other disciples (v. 27).[67] One could not affirm that Jesus was "Lord and God" only for Thomas or John without calling into question the evangelist's choice and use of this saying as the summation of his Christology and his whole purpose in writing. It was pre­cisely because Jesus was believed to be universally Lord and God that John was motivated to write and carefully placed this significant devotional cry at the end of his Gospel[68] as the point of confession to which he wished to lead his readers. The theological significance of Thomas's response would differ little or not at all had the vocative been “the God” or thee instead of “the God of me”. The repeated “my” does not convert into a functional asser­tion what otherwise would be an affirmation of deity. That is “my Lord and my God” should not be read as "for me [or, in my experience] you are Lord and God". As it is, one might para­phrase the sense, "O Lord and God, I worship you."

b. The Meaning of "lord"
As already noted, it is unnecessary to insist that if the Thomas episode is historical the understanding of Thomas as he uttered the words “my Lord and my God” must correspond to the Johannine perception of the theological import of the confession. On the other hand, it seems invidious to place a priori limitations on the theological insight of one like Thomas who was illumined by the Spirit. What must remain improbable is that John would use Thomas simply as a mouthpiece for a christological affirmation that in fact had not been used in the church before (or much before) time of writing.

Certainly “lord” here means more than "sir" or "master," as the conjunction with “God” conclusively indicates.[69] And if the phrase were merely a synonym for the Jesus of history[70] (as in John 20:13; cf. 20:2), the “my” and the following “and” would become inexplicable. Because it is followed by “my God”) and because it cannot be construed as a nominative ("my Lord [Jesus] is also my God"),[71] the phrase must be accorded a religious signifi­cance.[72]

Given the pre-Christian Jewish custom of reading “lord” for synagogue worship,[73] “my Lord” could conceivably mean, "You represent for me the presence of Yahweh," but scarcely, "To me, you (personally) are Yahweh.”[74] But more is implied than mere representation. Thomas was addressing Jesus as one who shared Yahweh's authority and functions and exercised Yahweh's rights.[75] It was a case of “just as…the Father [sent] me” (cf. John 20:21). Jesus deserved human worship as the one in who was vested the ultimate authority to forgive sins (John 20:23; cf. Mark 2:1-10), the one who dispensed the Holy Spirit to his followers (John 20:22) and commissioned them to divine service (John 20:21), the one who by virtue of his resurrection possessed "the keys that unlock death and Hades" (Rev. 1:18, Moffatt), and the one who was to climax his resurrection by ascension to the Father (John 20:17).[76] Now it is true that Thomas was not present at the appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene and the disciples, but it is inconceivable that the report of Mary to all the disciples and of the disciples to Thomas should not have included, along with the central announcement "I (we) have seen the Lord" (John 20:18, 25; cf. v. 20), a rec­itation of all Jesus said and did on each occasion. I am not suggesting that Thomas necessarily realized at the time that the resurrection and ascension of Jesus involved his elevation to cosmic dominion that would be recalled in Christian worship (Eph. 1:20-22a; Phil. 2:9-11; 1 Pet. 3:22). But a percep­tive understanding of the theological import of the words and deeds of Jesus after his resurrection, not to speak of those during his ministry, would have led Thomas to recognize (during his week of intense thought) that if Jesus had in fact risen from the dead he was indeed “lord” par excel­lence, Lord of both physical and spiritual life.[77] The meaning of “my Lord” on the lips of Mary Magdalene (John 20:13) differs altogether from its significance for Thomas. For Mary “lord” was a courteous and tender appellative, referring to the deceased Jesus. For Thomas it was an exalted and confessional title of address, referring to the risen Jesus. The radical, new ingredient that explains the difference between the two uses of the same phrase was the resurrection.

c. The Meaning of “god”
Although in customary Johannine and NT usage (the) “God” refers to the Father, it is impossible that Thomas and John would be personally equating Jesus with the Father, for in the immediate historical and literary context Jesus himself has explicitly distinguished himself from God his Father (John 20:17). Clearly, then, “god” is a title, not a proper name.[78] Nor is it fitting to argue that, since John aimed in his Gospel to prove merely the messiahship of Jesus (John 20:31), “my God” of verse 28 cannot mean "my God" but must bear a diluted, descriptive sense such as "my divine one,”[79] as in F. C. Burkitt's paraphrase, "It is Jesus Himself, and now I recognize Him as divine" (48). As elsewhere in John, the title “the Son of God” which is in opposition to “the Christ” in John 20:31, denotes more than sim­ply the Davidic Messiah. The Gospel was written to produce belief that Jesus was the promised Jewish Messiah and that this Messiah was none other than the “one and only” Son of God who had come from the Father (John 11:42; 17:8), who shared his nature (John 1:1, 18; 10:30) and fellowship (John 1:18; 14:11), and who therefore might appropriately be addressed and worshiped as “my God”.[80] Unique sonship implies deity (John 5:18; cf. 19:7).

Following the term “lord” used as a religious title with rich Christology overtones, the title “god” could scarcely bear a less exalted sense. It is inadequate, therefore, to say simply that Thomas (or John) recognized that God was active in and through Jesus, or that, in Jesus the eschatological presence of God was at work. Jesus was more than God's man appointed to become a redeemer, more than some superhuman being who was a legitimate object of worship, more than the "inhistorized" divine Agape. As used by a monotheistic Jew in reference to a person who was demonstrably human, “god” will denote oneness with the Father in being (cf. John 10:30),[81] not merely in purpose and action.[82] In other words, Thomas’ cry expresses the substantial divinity of Jesus.[83] Thomas has penetrated beyond the “signs”—the appearance of the risen Jesus—to its implication, viz., the deity of Christ.[84] While not couched as an ontological affirmation (“you are my God”), the apostle's exclamatory address has inescapable ontological implications. Even as it is expressed, the confession embodies less functional than ontological truth: Jesus was wor­shiped by Thomas as a sharer in the divine nature, not simply as a media­tor of divine blessing.

From this viewpoint, John 20:28 represents an advance on John 1:1. Jesus not only already was “god” at the beginning of creation (John 1:1). At the time when Thomas spoke and John wrote, it could be said (by impli­cation), "Jesus is Lord and God." According to John, the essential deity of Christ was a present fact as well as a past reality. On the other hand, “the word was god” in John 1:1 shows that whereas one may rightly affirm that Jesus became “lord” (in the full sense of the term) through and after the resurrection (Acts 2:36; Phil. 2:9-11),[85] the same cannot be said con­cerning Jesus as “god”. That is, before his resurrection Jesus was “lord” de jure [in principle] but “god” de facto [in fact]; after his resurrection, he was both “god” and “lord” de facto.

That Thomas's cry was not an extravagant acclamation, spoken in a moment of spiritual exaltation when his exuberance exceeded his theo­logical sense, is apparent from two facts. First, the evangelist records no rebuke of Jesus to Thomas for his worship. Jesus' silence is tantamount to consent,[86] for as monotheists Jews considered the human acceptance of worship as blasphemous.[87] Thomas was not guilty of worshiping the creature over the Creator (cf. Rom. 1:25).[88] Indeed, Jesus' word to Tho­mas—“believed” (John 20:29a; cf. “but...”believe” in v. 27)[89] implies the acceptance of his confession,[90] which is then indirectly commended to others (v. 29b).[91] Second, John has endorsed Thomas's confession as his own by making it his final and climactic christological affirmation before his statement of purpose, verse 31. The author found in Thomas's cry a convenient means by which he might bring into sharp focus at the end of his Gospel, as at the beginning (John 1:1, 18), the ultimate implications of his portrait of Jesus.[92]

D. The Literary Issue

It has been argued that John 20:28 forms the climax and pivot in the Tho­mas episode. But what role does this episode play in the whole Gospel? What value did the evangelist place on Thomas's confession as a vehicle for his own christological thought?

Not only the position of the Thomas story as the last of the four resurrection pericopes in John 20 but also its content suggests that it is climactic within the chapter. The reader is expectant. It was the second time that the disciples had met behind locked doors "in the house," the second time that Jesus "came and stood among them" and pronounced the blessing, "Peace be with you." The disciples were meeting a week after the resurrection had occurred presumably to review together their individual appraisal of the Easter events and because their experience a week earlier had led them to expect a special blessing from the Lord on the first day of the week. But if a dominical commissioning (v. 21b) and an insufflation of the Spirit (vv. 22­-23) had marked the first appearance of Jesus, what would mark the second appearance? The author answers: the recognition by Thomas of the deity of Christ (v. 28) and the delivery of the last and greatest beatitude (v. 29).

A second indication of the climactic function of verses 24-29 in John 20 is found in a special use of "Lord". The designation of Jesus as “the Lord” is rare in John 1-19 (only four uses),[93] although “lord” (of Jesus) is common,[94] whereas in John 20 some six examples of “the Lord” occur.[95] Mary Magdalene uses “my Lord” in 20:13 to describe her deceased Master but in 20:28 Thomas uses the same phrase in addressing his risen Lord. This delicate but crucial distinction in the import of the phrase “my Lord” (which occurs nowhere else in the Gospel) illustrates the movement of the chapter towards its climax, the personal acknowledgment of a personal, resurrected Lord.

Standing at the end of John 20 immediately before the author's statement of the purpose of his Gospel (vv. 30-31), the narrative about Thomas might naturally be thought to represent the climax of the whole Gospel as well, were it not for the following chapter that also deals with certain resurrec­tion appearances of Jesus.

Many scholars are convinced, however, that regardless of whoever authored and added chapter 21, chapter 20 originally stood as the conclu­sion of the Gospel,[96] the evangelist envisaging no sequel at the time chap­ters 1-20 were written.[97] There are several compelling reasons for this view[98] (1) Verse 28 forms a christological climax to the whole Gospel, reflecting 1:1. (2) Verse 29 creates a link between the text of the Gospel and the readership that would naturally be found at the close of the Gospel. Would a further recitation of appearances (chap. 21) be expected to follow the recorded blessing on those who believe without seeing (20:29)? (3) Verses 30-31 review the purpose of the recorded signs of "this book," a statement suitable for the conclusion of the Gospel. (4) Chapter 20 as a whole is a self-contained literary unit that needs no supplement.

But whether one adopts this prevailing view or argues that the evangelist himself added chapter 21 as an integral part of the Gospel or as an Epilogue that balances the Prologue (1:1-18),[99] one may justifiably conclude that he regarded the words of Thomas addressed to Jesus as the final pinnacle of his Gospel and the zenith of his Christology.

Such a conclusion is confirmed by the author's strategic placement in his Gospel of those verses in which Christ is designated as “god”. Not only the Prologue, but the Gospel as a whole, is enclosed by these literary "bookends." The Prologue ends (1:18) as it begins (1:1), and the Gospel ends (20:28) as it begins (1:1), with an assertion of the deity of Jesus.[100] We move from “god” (1:1) to “only-begotten god” (1:18) to “my God” (20:28); from Jesus Christ as a participant in the divine essence to his being "the only Son, who fully shares the Divine nature" to his being the God who is worshiped by believers; from the preexistent Logos who eternally enjoyed active communion with the Father (l: la-b) to the incarnate Son who always resides in the Father's heart and on earth revealed him (1:18) to the resurrected Lord who may be rightfully hailed by his devotee as "my God." That is, for John, Jesus is appropriately designated “god” in his preexistent, incarnate, and post resurrection states.[101] Of all the titles used of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, "god" would therefore seem to represent the culmination.[102]

E. Conclusion
One week after his resurrection, and because of a resurrection appear­ance, Jesus was adoringly addressed by Thomas with the exclamation, "My Lord and my God!”, a confessional invocation that not only marks the cli­max (along with the accompanying beatitude) of the Thomas pericope and John 20, but also forms the culmination of the entire Gospel. Just as Israel had honored Yahweh as “Lord our God” (e.g., Ps. 98:8 LXX [Engl. 99:8]) and Christians honored the Father as “our Lord and our God” (Rev. 4:11), so now people were to "honor the Son, even as they honor the Father" (John 5:23), by addressing him with the words “my Lord and my God”. In uttering this confessional cry Thomas recognized the lordship of Jesus in the physical and spiritual realms as well as over his own life (“my Lord”) and the essential oneness of Jesus with the Father which made his worship of Jesus legitimate (“my God”). As used in this verse, “lord” and “god” are titles, not proper names, the first implying and the second explicitly affirming the substantial deity of the risen Jesus.

[1] Thus Artemonius, as cited by Bengel 2:494.

[2] It is not widely recognized that Abbott later expressed a preference for the traditional view; see below.

[3] Grammar §2050 and n. 2. In a later work Abbott remarks on John 20:28 thus: “The Jewish Shema declared that Jehovah was God and One; this Johannine Shema seems intended to suggest that the Lord Jesus and God are also One.” (Contributions §3578c).

[4] For example, of persons other than Jesus, Mat 21.30; Lu 13.8; John 12.21.

[5] Cf. Gildersleeve and Miller 1. §12; N. Turner, Syntax 34. One may compare the Marcan preference for r`abbi, (9.5; 11.21; 14.45) over kurie (‘lord’, only at 7.28) when disciples are addressing Jesus.

[6] Mat 8.25; 14.30; 15.25; Lu 11.1.

[7] Luke 9:54; 10.40; 12.41.

[8] See Gildersleeve and Miller 1:4-5, who, however, appear to distinguish between an anarthrous nominative (often preceded by w) used as a vocative (§12) and an articular nominative in opposition to an expressed or unexpressed vocative that is identical with the subject of the verb (§13), Abel (§42.(g)) depicts the anarthrous vocatival nominative as typical of Classical Greek, the articular vocatival nominative as more common in Hellenistic Greek, although both are found in the NT.

[9] Cf. BDF §147.(3); W. Foerster, TDNT 3:1086.

[10] Grammar §§2679-82 (this change of viewpoint was anticipated in one of his earlier footnotes, 95 n.3). Citing Origen’s reference (in commenting on John 13:13) ὑμεῖς φωνεῖτε με· ὁ διδάσκαλος,. Abbott (Grammar 521 n. 3) suggests that “it is quite possible that in xx.28 the original was EIPENAYTOTOOKYPIOS and that the second TO has been omitted.” He seeks to justify his proposal by noting the frequent interchange of ὁ and ὼ in the first century and the liability of τὸ scribal corruption when it was used in this or a similar way or when it was prefixed to interrogatives (e.g., Matt. 19:18; Gal 4:25).

[11] Cf. TDNT: “And Thomas exclaimed: ‘My Master, and my God!”

[12] One might supply oti egegermai ek vekpwv (cf. Rom 10:9) or "into my name" (cf. John 3:18).

[13] Winer has the curious comment: “Jn. 20:28, though directed to Jesus (unto him), is rather exclamation than address” (183).

[14] Thayer 366 s.v. “lord”; BAGD 357b; W. Foerster, TDNT 3:1086.

[15] As in John 1:48, where the same phrase occurs.

[16] In only 3 cases (viz., John 9:20, 36; 12:30) out of the 29 instances of “answered and said to him” (or “answered and said”) in the Fourth Gospel (excluding 20:28) is this phrase not followed by a dative of the person(s) addressed. But even in these cases a dative is clearly implied (in John 9:20, 36 a question precedes the reply).

[17] It is not impossible that “he said to him” is equivalent to “told them” ton kurios autou kai ton theon autou (note especially Gen. 21:33: “Abraham…here he called on the name of the LORD God”). But in no way could “them” be construed with what follows; in any case “them” (or “in them”) is regular Johannine diction for “to him” after “said”.

[18] It is possible, although unlikely, that following the address there is a suppressed statement (“I believe”) or even a suppressed request (“forgive [or help] my unbelief”).

[19] Moulton, Prolegomena 70; N. Turner, Syntax 34.

[20] But the parallel passage in Mark 15:34, following Ps. 21:2 (LXX [Engl. 22:1]), has “my

[21] It has been observed above (§A.1.b) that “the Lord of me” was preferred over “my lord” probably because it was more emphatic in tone and elevated in style, “lord” often meaning merely “sir!” in the Synoptic Gospels (reflecting contemporary usage; cf. Matt. 21:30). Behind the words of Thomas could be the Hebrew which might be rendered in Greek in at least four ways: (1) “the lord of me and the God of me” (cf. Rev. 18:20: “heaven and you saints”…, and the comment of Gildersleeve and Miller 1:4 n. 1), (2) “my lord and god” (cf. Matt. 15:22: “lord son” David), (3) “the lord and my god” or (4) “my Lord and my God” but not (5) “my lord and god”.

[22] Dodd, Studies 102-3 (= “Appearances” 143).

[23] Dodd, Tradition 145-46, 148; Studies 115-16.

[24] For this expression as “an element of genuine biblical G[ree]k”, see F. Buchsel, TDNT 3:945.

[25] These statistics are from Braun 3.1:401-2. If, then, there are only two characteristics of Johannine style in these six verses (John 20:24-29), this represents an average of 0.33 characteristics per verse, a statistic which may be compared with Nocol’s proposed range (25-26) for traditional material found within his “semeia source”, viz., 0.30-0.75, with an average of 0.58 characteristics per verse.

[26] Contra Riem, Studien 259-60, who sees John 20:28 with its reference to "god" as an editorial addition by the evangelist, although the Thomas episode as a whole is traditional material.

[27] For a discussion of the problem of historicity in John, see Brown, “Historicity”; Morris, Studies 65-138.

[28] One of the purposes of the Thomas episode is to show that for subsequent generations of Christians apostolic testimony is sufficient ground for faith in Christ. There is no need to repeat Thomas’ demand for sensory confirmation or incontrovertible physical evidence. Two passages in Paul would seem to form his commentary on the Thomas incident and on the dominical logion found in John 20:29: "faith comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom 10:17) and "by faith…walk by sight" (2Cor. 5:7).

[29] John 4:48; 20:25.

[30] Temple, John 391; similarly H. A. Meyer, John 535; Loisy 511; Bernard, John 2:683.

[31] To render ginou by “become” is certainly not linguistically impossible; in fact, of the 51 uses of gi,nomoa in the Fourth Gospel, 34 may be translated “become” (or an equivalent meaning such as “come into being, be made, take place”). The other 17 (including 20:27) are best rendered by “be” (1:6, 15, 30; 2:1; 3:9; 5:6, 14a; 6:21; 7:43; 8:58; 9:22; 10:16, 19, 22; 12:42; 13:2; 20:27).

[32] Cf. J. N. Sanders 437; Bultmann, John 694 n.1; Moulton, Prolegomena 124-25.

[33] Brown, Gospel 2:1026.

[34] Benoit 269. Significantly D has me isthi. If me linou is rendered, “Do not show yourself [to be unbelieving]” (cf. Zerwick and Grosvenor 346), there is ambiguity as to Thomas’s state of belief.

[35] So, e.g., Lagrange, Jean 518; N. Turner, Syntax 345. Parallelism with John 1:50a, where causal oti [that] introduces a direct question, supports this interpretation. See per contra Beasly-Murray 386.

[36] It is significant that nearly 90% of the NT uses of “you” to express an emphatic denial, a relatively rare construction in Hellenistic Greek (N. Turner, Syntax 96 n.2), are found in Septuagintal quotations and sayings of Jesus (Moulton, Prolegomena 188-92).

[37] “Speak, say” (John 20:25) is probably iterative (“they kept telling”).

[38] On the meaning of me mou aptou (John 20:17), see Brown, Gospel 2:1011-12.

[39] That Thomas did not in fact touch Jesus seems implied by the simple ewpakas in John 20:29 (not ewpakas kai ehelaqwkas; cf. 1 John 1:1), although the invitation of Jesus was genuine, not ironical.

[40] Twv thurwv kekleismenwn is a concessive use of the genitive absolute (cf. 2Cor 2:12).

[41] For a defense of this position, see Morris, Studies 139-292.

[42] See W. Foerster, TDNT 3:1094.

[43] On this point, see further below, §C.2.b.

[44] In Phil 2:10 “Jesus” is a possessive rather than an epexegetic genitive: “lord” is the onoma [rank] given Jesus at his resurrection.

[45] Thus Suriano 309-10, 312; similarly Dodd, Tradition 145-46; Studies 115-16.

[46] Similarly Benoit 285.

[47] “only little by little did they [the disciples] come to a clear formulation of what they had obscurely felt. It needed time to transpose this great mystery into human language. We must therefore distinguish that deep faith, which is very old, preceding even the resurrection and springing into new life very soon after it, from its intellectual formulation, which took longer to come to fruition” (Benoit 286).

[48] See further, chapter XIII $E. While it is true that the confession “Jesus is Lord” (cf. John 20:28) postdates the giving of the Spirit (1Cor. 12.3), it seems arbitrary in the context of John 20 to equate this pouring out of the Spirit with the Lucan Pentecost of Acts 2 when John 20:22 alludes to (at least) an anticipation of that effusion or to the regeneration (note "breathe upon" enegusesen; cf. Gen 2.7; Ezek. 37:9) of the disciples after the resurrection yet before Pentecost. (On the interpretation of John 20:22, see Dunn, Baptism 173-82.) While he holds that “it was the resurrection of Jesus which gave the decisive stimulus to Christological thinking,” especially in regards to the terms “Lord” and “Messiah” (Luke 12.8), Marshall believes that “it took time” for the church to work out the full implications of the title “Son of God” until in the end it was recognized that Jesus might not inappropriately be called “God” (Origins 123).

[49] On the resurrection as the primary influence leading to the application of the title "the Lord" to Jesus, see V. Taylor, Person 49-50.

[50] Pseudo-Athanasius perceptively argued that one may deduce from the resurrection of Christ and his victory over death that he is “very Lord and God” (De Incarnatione 45:4).

[51] An objection of Theodore of Mopsuestia (Commentary on St. John’s Gospel 256:29-35), cited by Wiles, Gospel 30-31.

[52] For a fine discussion on what led to Thomas’ confession, see Milligan and Moulton 229.

[53] It is just possible of course, that the disciples had had an opportunity to inform Jesus of the content of Thomas’s indirect challenge to him.

[54] For a more tentative statement of this view, in light of his further proposal that the evangelist’s threefold use of "god"in reference to Jesus (John 1:1, 18; 20:28) may have arisen as a result of controversy between church and synagogue over Christian claims about the person of Jesus, see Mastin, “Christology” 46.

[55] On the Gospel’s date, see J.A.T. Robinson, Redating 254-311, who dates the formation of the Johannine tradition and the proto-Gospel in Jerusalem between 30 and 50, the first edition 50-55 in Asia Minor, while the final form of the Gospel (with the Prologue and Epilogue added) may be dated around 65; on the historicity of the Thomas pericope, see above, $B.

[56] Barrett, John 573, followed by Wainwright, Trinity 63 (=”Confession” 290).

[57] Liturgical features include the gathering of believers on the first day of the week, the Lord’s day (vv. 19, 26; cf. Acts 20:7; Rev. 1:10), the presence of Christ (vv. 19, 26), the blessing (vv. 19, 21, 26), the coming of the Spirit (v.22), the absolution (v.23), the confession of faith (v.28), and the benediction (v.29).

[58] See, for example, the discussions of Barrett, John 572-73, and Brown, Gospel 2:1047-48.

[59] Ps. 9:33 [10:12]; 85:15 [86:15]; 87.2 [88:1]. In this and the following notes, references are to LXX verse numbers; English verse numbers, where different, are bracketed.

[60] 2 Kgdms. [2Sam.] 15:31; 3 Kgdms. [1Kings] 17:21; Esther 4:17 (A); Tob. 3:11; Ps. 7:2,4,7 [vv.1,3,6]; 9:33 (A N2) [10:12]; 12:4 [13:3]; 29:3, 13 [30:2, 12]; 34:24 [35:24]; 37:16 [38:15]; 39:6 [40:5]; 85:12 [86:12]; 103:1 [104:1]; 108:26 [109:26]; Jonah 2:7 [v. 6]; Hab. 1:12 [A]; Isa. 25:1.

[61] 4 Kgdms. [2Kings] 19:19; 1 Chron. 29:16; 2Chron. 14:10 bis [v. 11]; 20:12; Ps. 98:8 [99:8]; 105:47 [106:47]; Isa. 26:12, 13; Bar. 2:12, 19, 27; Dan. 9:15, 17 [A].

[62] Ps. 80:11 [81:10].

[63] For example, Ps. 143:1 [144:1]; Jer 38:18 [31:18].

[64] For example, 2 Esdras [Ezra] 9:9; Ps. 98:9 [99:9].

[65] Jer. 38:18 [31:18]; Bar. 2:15; 3:6.

[66] 2 Macc. 1:27; Ps. 15:2 [16:2]; 96:9 [97:9]; 117:28 bis [118:28]; 139:7 [140:6]; 142:10 (B N) [143:10]; Hos. 2:25 [Engl. v.23]; Isa. 44:17; Jer. 3:22.

[67] It is remarkable that “my”, not “our” , is found, for other disciples were present. Such a pronoun belongs to the confessional style, not to any polemical interest (cf. Kramer 222, speaking of the significance of “our” with “the Lord Jesus Christ”). On “My God” in the OT, see Essfeldt.

[68] On this point see, $D below.

[69] Cf. Bultmann, John 695 n.1; Strathmann, Johannes 259-60.

[70] So Dodd, Interpretation 430.

[71] See above, $A.1.b.

[72] W. Foerster has observed (TDNT 3:1091 and n.266) that in the world contemporary with primitive Christianity there are no instances of a distinction in rank between “god” and “lord” in which “lord” is an intermediary god.

[73] In postexilic Judaism the practice arose of avoiding the pronunciation of the “proper name” of God. Thus the tretragrammaton [YHWH] was replaced (probably early in the third century B.C.) by “Adonai” whenever Scripture was read, recited, or quoted or by “heaven” in free speech (apart from references to Scripture). Subsequently (probably after the early second century A.D.) the use of “Lord” for YHWH was restricted to liturgical reading in synagogue worship, with “the name” being used in other situations involving Scripture, such as private reading or quotation. Even the use of “heaven” in general speech outside Scripture quotations became taboo and was replaced by “the place”=heaven=God), except in certain stereotyped expressions such as “for God’s sake.” This reverential avoidance of the “ineffable name” may have arisen from a particular understanding of the third commandment (Exod. 20:7; Deu 5.11), from the belief that the simple utterance of the sacred tetragrammaton was a capital offence (Lev. 24.16), or from a fear that to pronounce the divine name would be to reduce God to the status of a pagan deity who was addressed by a personal name. Or perhaps later Judaism was simply fulfilling the rabbinic injunction: “Make a hedge about the law” (Pirke Aboth 1:1). On the other hand, “Adonai, YHWH, name” were freely used in the reading or quoting of Scripture, in religious texts, and in prayers, although probably not in free speech. This information is drawn largely from K.G. Kuhn, TDNT 3:92-94. Cf. also SB 2:308-19; Parke-Taylor 79-96.

[74] Behind “my Lord” may lie “Adonai” but not YHWH (which never takes pronominal suffixes).

[75] A careful distinction should be drawn between the Father “the Lord God” (=Adonai YHWH)—a designation never used of Christ in the NT—and Christ as “my Lord and my God”. While distinct from YHWH, Christ shares his status and his nature.

[76] It is unnecessary to assume that the ascension occurs between John 20:17 and 20:19, so that 20:22 is the Johannine Pentecost (see Dunn, Baptism 174-77).

[77] Although “lord” is the distinctive title and name that the NT uses of the resurrected and ascended Jesus (e.g., 2Cor. 5:6, 8; 1Thess. 4:15-17) as universal sovereign and as head of the church, the concept of his being “Lord” doubtless arose during his earthly life as a consequence of his authoritative teaching and divine power (see Mar 11:3; 12:35-37, citing Ps. 110:1; cf. John 13:13-14). That is, the pre-resurrection historical experience of the lordship of Jesus foreshadowed the post resurrection theological confession of Jesus as Lord. But some believe that the disciples advanced beyond Unitarian monotheism even before the resurrection. For instance, Dreyfus affirms that no Jew on his own initiative could conceive of anything as apparently contrary to monotheism as the adoration of a divine being distinct from God the Father, but he finds the stimulus that surrounded this monotheistic obstacle for the early Christians not in the resurrection of Jesus—“it postulated neither divination nor preexistence”(59)—but in the teaching of Jesus himself regarding his preexistence and divinity, teaching that God confirmed by the resurrection (53-71). For a convincing defense of the thesis that NT Christology is best regarded as the development and articulation of “what was already there from the beginning” (3), rather than as an evolutionary process involving the emergence of new species or the accretion of elements alien to the historical Jesus, see C.F.D. Moule, Origin.

[78] So also B. Weiss, “Gebrauch” 331.

[79] This point is made by Brown, Gospel 2:1060.

[80] Fortna, however, finds a tension between the “high Christology” of v. 28 and the “more primitive Messianism” of v. 31 (197-98).

[81] Given John 1:1 and 1:18, it is quite admissible to discern in “I and the Father are one” (John 10.30; cf. 17.11, 22-23; 1Cor 3.8) more than unity of will or purpose but less than identity of person. Equality of divine power (10.28-29) points to unity of divine essence (10.30: “we are one”). Surjansky finds “we are one” a unity of nature and existence (84-87). On the exegesis of John 10:30 in early trinitarian controversies, see Pollard, “Exegesis”.

[82] The inadequacy of Harvey’s “agent Christology” may be seen in his comment on the implications of “god” in John 20.28: Thomas is there portrayed as addressing Jesus as the fully accredited divine agent “to speak to whom was as if to speak to God himself” (Jesus 172; cf. 166; italics mine).

[83] That Thomas here acknowledges the deity of Jesus is recognized, inter alios [among other], by Winkenhauser 344-45; Lagrange, Jean 518; Godet, John 2:424-25; Westcott, Gospel 297; Milligan and Moulton 229; Schulz 246; Wainwright, Trinity 6 (=”Confession” 289); Schnackenberg, John 3:333; J. Schneider, Johannes 324 (“ein Wesen gottlicher Art”); Pollard, Christology 16. It is interesting that in the Acts of Thomas (26) Jesus Christ is described as “Lord and Father god” (cf. “God and our Lord Jesus Christ” in Eusebius, HE 5:28:11; cited by Neufeld 80 n.9).

[84] For John “signs” are miraculous evidences that point to spiritual truths and may prompt faith (compare John 20:25 and 4:48), doubt, or simply amazement. Once he had been convinced of the reality of the resurrected one, Thomas recognized in the resurrection appearances a token of the godhood of Jesus. The word “other” (“signs”) in John 20:30, occurring immediately after the Thomas episode, seems to imply that the post-resurrection appearances are among the “signs” (so also Brown, Gospel 2:1058-59; Mahoney 268-70; see per cotra K. H. Rengstorf, TDNT 7:254-55.

[85] The name “lord” that Jesus received from the Father at his resurrection-exaltation was not only an appellation but also signified an office or rank (onona) which had not been his previously, except de jure, viz., the exercise of the function of “lordship” in the spiritual sphere, cosmic dominion over all sentient beings. See further, Martin 249-83.

[86] Cf. Godet, John 2:425, who rightly observes that Thomas believes not merely in the fact of the resurrection but in the divinity of Jesus.

[87] Note the comment of Josephus on the failure of Herod Agrippa 1 to repudiate the adulation of sycophants when they reverenced him “as superior to mortal nature”: “The king did not rebuke them nor did he reject their flattery as impious” (Ant. 19:345). With this compare the reproof that Paul and Barnabas gave to the people of Lystra when they attempted to offer sacrifice to them (Acts 14:8-18) and the angelic remonstrance (“worship God!”) delivered to John when he “fell down at his feet to worship him” (Rev. 19.9-10). See further Bauckham, “Worship” 322-31, 335.

[88] Cf. Athanasius Orat. C. Ar. 2:23-24 (=PG 26:196-97).

[89] Verse 28 marks the cessation of Thomas’ disbelief in the testimony of others and in Jesus himself as risen, plus the fulfillment of “but…believe” (v.27).

[90] Warfield therefore finds in John 20:28 “an item of self-testimony on our Lord’s part to His Godhead" (Lord 182).

[91] In John 1.50 there is a similar implicit commendation by Jesus of a confession of faith (John 1.49; and note “believed” in 1.50).

[92] The word of the centurion, “Truly this man was the Son of God” (Mark 15.39) represents a similar climax within Mark’s Gospel, having the evangelist’s endorsement as a fitting confession.

[93] John 6.23 (but some Western witnesses omit); 11.2; 13.13-14 (4.1 probably should read “Jesus” not “lord”).

[94] Either in the sense of “sir” (John 4:11, 15, 19, 49; 5.7; 9.36; 12.21) or “Lord” (John 6.34, 68; 9.38; 11.3, 12, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39; 13.6, 9, 25, 36, 37; 14.5, 8, 22).

[95] John 20.2, 13, 18, 20, 25, 28; cf. 21.7, 12; “lord” means “sir” in John 20.15 but “Lord” in John 21.15, 16, 17, 20, 21.

[96] But the Gospel probably never circulated without chapter 21, for no extant manuscript omits chapter 21 and P66 (which may be dated c.200) contains 20:25-21:9.

[97] For a contrary view, se Lagrange, Jean 520 (John 20:30-31, originally the concluding verses of the Gospel, at first followed 21:23 but was displaced to its present position through the addition of 21:24-25 by John’s disciples), and, at greater length, Vaganay (who develops Lagranges’ theory but regards John 21:24 as authentic); also Fortna 7 n. 1, 87-88.

[98] These are adapted from Mahoney 15-16.

[99] See the judicious discussion of Carson, John 665-68.

[100] It is these two examples of inclusio that prevent the dismissal of John 1.1 and 20:28 as merely “isolated instances” within Johannine Christology (the view of Granbery 105).

[101] Cf. Mastin “Christology” 42-43; Carson, Responsibility 147.

[102] So also Cullmann, Christology 308. But H. E. W. Turner (28) goes further: “Even the words of Thomas draw out the implications of the language of Phil 2.6; Tit. 2.13 and possibly Rom. 9.5.”