| Johannine literature | |
|---|---|
| Collection ofNew Testament writings traditionally attributed toJohn the Apostle or the Johannine community | |
.jpg) | |
| Information | |
| Religion | Christianity |
| Author | TraditionallyJohn the Apostle Modern scholarship suggests multiple authors |
| Language | Koine Greek |
| Period | c. AD 90–110 (Gospel & Epistles) c. AD 95 (Revelation) |
| Books | |
| Full text | |
 Gospel of John at English Wikisource | |
| Part ofa series of articles on |
| John in the Bible |
|---|
 |
| Johannine literature |
| Authorship |
| Related literature |
| See also |
Johannine literature is a modern collective term for fiveNew Testament writings that early Christian tradition linked in various ways withJohn the Apostle or a related circle of teachers: theGospel of John, the threeJohannine epistles (1 John, 2 John, and 3 John), and theBook of Revelation. The designation identifies a literary family with shared vocabulary and theology without implying single authorship, and it reflects how ancient readers grouped the texts while acknowledging distinct voices within them.[1][2][3][4]
Current scholarship usually dates the Gospel and Letters to the final decades of the first century, often AD 90–110; some pursue earlier signs and editions, while recent scholarship increasingly views the gospel as a literary unity by a single author.[5][6][7][8][9] Revelation is most often dated within the reign ofDomitian (AD 81–96) because of its address to seven assemblies inRoman Asia and its critique ofimperial cult imagery, though a minority advocates an earlier context in the late 60s underNero orGalba.[3][10][11][12]
Patristic witnesses variously attribute the corpus to John, yet modern scholarship largely distinguishes the author of Revelation from the writers behind the Gospel and Letters. A a Johannine school or community that produced the latter documents and preserved the voice of an Elder figure has been proposed, but the idea of a Johannine community has been increasingly challenged, and there is no consensus among scholars today.[4][1][3][13][14] Debate continues over how the materials relate to the historical John the Apostle, but the prevailing view separates theseer of Patmos from the Evangelist and explains the similarities among the Gospel and Letters through shared tradition and collaborative redaction.[4][5]
The five writings converge on core motifs ofJesus as the revealer sent from the Father, the witness of theSpirit, contrasts oflight and darkness, and communal tests of love and truth, even as their genres generate different emphases, from the Gospel's narrative irony to Revelation's apocalyptic visions and the Letters' boundary setting exhortations.[2][8][3][10] The works combine theological coherence with internal diversity that continues to shape scholarly interpretation.[1][15]
.png)
Johannine literature is traditionally taken to include the following five writings.[1][2]
The Gospel of John is a narrative Gospel that combines public signs and extended discourses to present Jesus as the incarnate Word who reveals the Father.[2][5] 1 John reads as a sermonic circular that reinforces confession of the Son, obedience, and love in the face of schism.[8][16] 2 John is a brief admonitory letter warning a chosen congregation about itinerant deceivers and urging hospitality governed by truth.[8][17] 3 John is a personal letter commending faithful emissaries, censuringDiotrephes, and modeling the networked authority of the Elder.[17][16] Revelation is an apocalypse in epistolary form that addresses seven assemblies with visions of judgment, worship, and the renewal of creation.[3][10]
Scholars describe theGospel of John as unfolding in aBook of Signs (John 1–12) followed by aBook of Glory (John 13–20), where seven public signs lead into extended discourses and culminate in passion and resurrection scenes. The Gospel also contains seven "I am" sayings, concluding withThomas's confession "my Lord and my God," a title also used byEmperor Domitian (AD 81-96).[2][6][7][5]
When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" He who was dead came out, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. Jesus said to them, "Free him, and let him go."John 11:43-44[18]
Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will not be hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty."John 6:35[19]
The narrative layers dramatic irony, misunderstanding, andinclusio, so that themes voiced in the prologue reappear in closing testimonies and the Beloved Disciple's witness frames the plot.[2][6]
Jesus answered him, "Most certainly, I tell you, unless one is born anew, he can't see God's Kingdom." Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born?"John 3:3-4[20]
Scholarship has turned against positing hypothetical sources for John,[21] with most today finding the existence of a singlesource for the miracles in John unlikely.[22] Many scholars argued the gospel was written by multiple hands due to aporiae or seams such as 6:1 and 14:30, yet the proposals remain contested and no single model has won consensus, and the model of John as a product of multiple editions by a school of writers is in retreat.[7][5][23]
This is the disciple who testifies about these things, and wrote these things. We know that his witness is true. There are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they would all be written, I suppose that even the world itself wouldn't have room for the books that would be written.John 21:24-25[24]
1 John lacks a conventional epistolary opening and reads like a homily with cyclical argumentation that revisits motifs of confession, obedience, and love to reinforce communal assurance.2 John and3 John adopt brief letter forms that identify the sender as the Elder, combine greetings, travel plans, and commendations, and show how the Johannine network negotiated hospitality and doctrinal boundaries.[8][16][17]
TheBook of Revelation presents itself as an apocalypse and a circular letter addressed to seven assemblies inAsia Minor, opening with a prophetic commission and embedded messages to each city. Its visions recycle scriptural imagery from Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah, and interpreters debate whether the seal, trumpet, and bowl cycles recapitulate the same period or map a more linear sequence through the End, a discussion that shapes how the book's structure is charted. Revelation's Greek exhibits Semitic interference, abrupt shifts, and deliberatesolecisms that distinguish it from the Gospel and Letters while serving its visionary rhetoric.[3][10][11][25]
Commentaries compare theGospel of John with theSynoptic Gospels on chronology and content due to its unique style and structure.[26] John distributes Jesus's ministry across threePassovers, places thetemple action near the outset, and develops long dialogues with figures such asNicodemus and theSamaritan woman at the well. The synoptic accounts concentrate the ministry into a single pilgrim Passover, foreground parables and exorcisms, and place thetemple demonstration in the final week, so scholars describe John as preserving an independent stream that still sharespassion andfeeding traditions with the synoptic accounts.[2][6]
Johannine writings reworkIsrael's Scriptures through christological interpretation. The Gospel invokes creation motifs fromGenesis in its prologue, frames Jesus as Wisdom who tabernacles among humanity, and repeatedly citesIsaiah to interpret signs and rejection. Revelation intensifies the pattern by weaving visions fromEzekiel, theBook of Daniel, and theBook of Zechariah into throne scenes, trumpet sequences, and the depiction of theNew Jerusalem, while echoingwisdom traditions in its hymns and personifications.[27][3][10]
The Gospel and1 John gained wide authority by the late second century, as figures such asIrenaeus and theMuratorian fragment quote or list them.[4]2 John and3 John circulated more narrowly and were sometimes grouped with disputed writings, while theBook of Revelation was embraced in the Latin West yet questioned by eastern catalogues reported byEusebius.[4][28] Later fourth century summaries, includingAthanasius's Festal Letter of 367, confirmed the inclusion of all five writings in the mainstream canon.[4]
Second-centurySethian authors in Egypt and medieval dualist movements such as theBogomils andCathars extendedJohn's authority toapocryphal narratives and revelatory discourses that circulated outside thecanonical corpus, often casting the apostle as a witness tohidden teachings orvisionary journeys.[29][30][31] TheseJohannine apocrypha span settings from second-centurygnostic communities to medievaldualist movements, showing how diverse groups appropriated John to articulatetheology,liturgy, and communal authority outside the canonical frame.[30][31]
Apocryphal works associated with John include:
Irenaeus (AD 130-202) writes that John, the disciple of the Lord, issued his Gospel atEphesus inAsia, and the same tradition links John to Revelation and to a network of teachers who remained active into the time ofTrajan (AD 98-117).[32][4]
Late first centuryAsia Minor featured major port cities ofEphesus,Miletus,Smyrna, andPergamon, which hosted extensive networks of Jewish diaspora synagogues and promoted theimperial cult. In these urban centers, public festivals, commerce, and temple patronage intertwined, so minority groups negotiated identity amid pressures to honor Roman power while maintaining their own worship practices.[1][3] The Johannine writings address believers situated in this environment, balancing engagement with synagogue communities and resistance toimperial ideology.[10]
The Gospel hints at synagogue tensions through the rare termaposynagogos ("expelled from the synagogue") in John 9:22, 12:42, and 16:2.Martyn interprets these verses as echoes of real exclusions connected to confession of Jesus asMessiah, whereas studies by J. Andrew Doole andAdele Reinhartz argue that the evidence does not prove a uniform or empire wide policy and may reflect rhetorical dramatization of local disputes.[33][34][35]
Most scholars place the composition of theGospel of John and1 John in the last decade of the first century,[36] with some proposing earlier signs and later discourse expansions, and a final editorial hand that framed the epilogue inJohn 21, though Johannine scholarship has experienced a synchronic turn, and the unity of John 21 with the gospel is also commonly acknowledged.[5][6][7][37][38][39] 2 John and 3 John are often dated around the same period because they presuppose the schism described in 1 John and address travel and hospitality within the same network.[8][16]
Revelation is usually dated to the reign ofDomitian (c. 81–96) on the grounds of its letters toseven churches in Asia and its critique of imperial cult imagery, a view supported by Koester, Bauckham, andDavid Aune.[3][10][25] A minority argues for a context in the late 60s during the time ofNero orGalba, pointing to references to the temple and the number of the beast. Commentators such asRobert H. Mounce summarize the evidence for this earlier scenario while noting its limited following.[11]
TheRylands Library Papyrus P52 (c. 125), an early manuscript discovery, preserves a portion of John 18, whilePapyrus 66 (early third century) andPapyrus 75 (early third century) attest to extensive circulation of the Gospel and its stability across Egyptian copyists.[4][5] These witnesses support a late first century origin for the Gospel and show that Johannine writings were disseminated beyond Asia Minor within a few generations of their composition.
Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 150-215), as preserved byEusebius, calledJohn a "spiritual Gospel", which signaled a theologically charged reception that prized contemplation and christological depth.[40]Origen (c. AD 185-254) opened his commentary by ranking John as the "first fruits" of the Gospels and linked thePrologue to the work of creation and wisdom.[41]Augustine (AD 354-430) shaped Latin reception with extensiveTractates on the Gospel of John andHomilies on the First Epistle of John, where he grounded moral teaching incaritas and repeated the maxim "Love, and do what you will".[42][43] These early church writings shaped how later Greek and Latin scholars interpreted the Gospel and 1 John, cementing their importance.[4]
In the 4th century,Pro-Nicene theologians drew onJohn 1 andJohn 10 for language about theSon and theFather and developed patterns of reasoning that Ayres describes as distinctly "pro Nicene".[44] TheFarewell Discourse and theParaclete sayings influencedtrinitarian reflection and catechesis, whilemonastic andmystical authors developed a spirituality of "abiding" that Louth and Schneiders trace throughLectio divina and communal practice.[45][46][47]
Koester and theOxford Handbook of the Book of Revelation note uneven acceptance in theGreek East and the book's absence from theByzantine lectionary, yet they also document its use as prophecy addressed to seven assemblies and as a circular letter for worship and warning.[48][49] Medieval Europe generated commentary cycles and illuminatedApocalypses that translated visions into civic and monastic settings, a tradition mapped by Emmerson and Bernard McGinn.[50]Reformation era assessments diverged sharply.Martin Luther's early preface calledRevelation "neither apostolic nor prophetic", while laterProtestant andCatholic readers harnessed its symbols for polemic, consolation, and reform.[48][50]
TheBeatus tradition of illuminated manuscripts emerged inmedieval Spain during the 8th-10th centuries, whileEnglish Apocalypse manuscripts flourished in the 13th-14th centuries, using illustrations alongside texts.[50] Biblical phrases such as "Worthy is the Lamb" and the Prologue's language of light and word entered Westernhymnody andoratorio, and musicologists document sustained borrowing from John and Revelation across liturgy and concert repertoire.[51]
Boyer describes how Americanpremillennial anddispensational traditions read Revelation'sbeasts,millennium, andNew Jerusalem as a program for "end time" chronology and piety.[52] Wessinger's handbook surveysmillennial groups that invoked Revelation to interpret crisis and to organize communal discipline and hope.[53]
The five works traditionally attributed to John use different methods of attributing authorship, and later tradition disambiguates several figures named John.
The Gospel invokes the unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved", later identified withJohn the Apostle orJohn the Evangelist, while Revelation introducesJohn of Patmos as its seer.2 John and3 John name their sender as "the Elder", a title that some patristic authors associated withJohn the Presbyter.[2][8][54]
Irenaeus reported that the apostle John published the Gospel atEphesus and linked him with Revelation and teachers active until the reign ofTrajan.[32][4]Papias of Hierapolis, as quoted byEusebius, listed both a John among the Twelve and another John called the elder, a tradition that later interpreters used to distinguish the Evangelist from the Elder.[54]Dionysius of Alexandria, whose observations Eusebius transmits, appealed to differences in vocabulary and syntax to argue that Revelation could not come from the same hand as the Gospel and Letters.[28]
Modern scholarship generally agrees that theGospel of John and theBook of Revelation stem from different authors, citing contrasts in Greek style, imagery, and theology.[3][10] 20th century scholarship largely posited a Johannine school or circle that composed the Gospel in editorial stages, but recent scholarship tends to view John as the product of a single author, and the existence of the Johannine community has been challenged.[6][7][5][55][56]
The Elder who signs 2 John and 3 John is often identified as a leader within that circle whose teaching shaped 1 John. Arguments for this view point to shared vocabulary, antichrist polemic, and the emphasis on hospitality and truth across the Letters.[8][17][16] Others, includingCharles Hill and Francis Moloney, defend closer authorship ties to the apostolic John and treat the Elder as another title for the Evangelist, while a minority view, exemplified by Hugo Méndez, regards the Elder as a literary persona that lends authority to composite writings.[4][2][13]
As with other features of the Johannine corpus, stylistic similarities exist alongside variation, so debates about attribution remain open even while most scholars distinguish the seer of Patmos from the Evangelist.[2][8]
Since the mid-twentieth century scholars described aJohannine community that produced the Gospel and Letters and that negotiated conflict with local synagogue authorities and internal dissenters.[5][33][16] This interpretation, which saw the community as essentiallysectarian and standing outside the mainstream of early Christianity, has been increasingly challenged in the first decades of the 21st century,[57] and there is currently considerable debate over the social, religious, and historical context of the gospel.[58] Scholars includingAdele Reinhartz and Robert Kysar have challenged the idea of a Johannine community, and there is no consensus among scholars today.[59][60][61]
Raymond E. Brown condensed the evidence into a four phase sequence: an initial mission to the synagogue, a stage of confrontation marked by theaposynagogos notices in John 9:22, 12:42, and 16:2, an internal split in which former members depart as narrated in 1 John 2:18–19, and a final consolidation visible in 1 John, the commissioning of the Beloved Disciple in John 21, and the commendation ofDemetrius in3 John 12.[62]
Martyn developed a two-level drama reading that intertwines Jesus's ministry with the later experience of the Johannine believers. He related the expulsion episodes in John 9 and 16 to the debatedBirkat haMinim petition that may have sharpened synagogue boundaries, while stressing how the narrative gains rhetorical force from those parallels.[33] Later reassessments, including studies by J. Andrew Doole and Adele Reinhartz, accept that the Gospel registers social strain yet question whether the Birkat was uniformly applied or chronologically prior to the Gospel's final form.[34][35][63]
Harold W. Attridge and Hughson Ong describe the Johannine network as a community of practice or school with porous boundaries, a model that fits the travel logistics and hospitality disputes reported in3 John 9–10.[64][65] Hugo Méndez goes further, arguing that the Gospel and Letters fashion a literary persona through pseudonymous correspondents, so that the secessionists of 1 John and the elder's opponents in 3 John function as rhetorical interlocutors rather than transparent reports of a discrete congregation.[13]
Despite divergent models, discussion turns on the same textual markers: theaposynagogos refrain in John 9, 12, and 16, the secession and testing language in 1 John 2:18–27 and 4:1–3, and the contested authority reflected in 3 John 9–12.[33] These passages ground historical reflection while underscoring both the cohesion and fragility that the Johannine writings seek to address among their circles of readers.[8][16][34]
Scholars often speak of a shared Johannine voice, one that calls for abiding, bears witness, and keepseschatological hope alive, at the same time they stress that the Gospel, the Letters, and Revelation weave these motifs into pastoral situations that differ in scope and urgency. The thematic sketches that follow,Christology,dualism and symbolism,pneumatology, eschatology, andecclesiology, trace how this common vocabulary is translated into narrative artistry, communal guidance, and apocalyptic imagination across the Johannine corpus.[1][66]
Johannine writings frame salvation as life from above that the Father gives through the Son and in theSpirit. They stress revelation, witness, and the call to believe, and they define communal identity through love, obedience, and discernment of truth. Symbolic language, especially in thesigns, and narrative misunderstandings invite readers into deeper recognition of Jesus and his mission.[37][6][8]
Johannine Christology opens with thePrologue (John 1:1–18), where the Word (λόγος) preexists with God (πρὸς τὸν θεόν), shares the divine identity, and becomes flesh (σὰρξ ἐγένετο) to dwell among humanity.[5] The passage joins incarnation to revelation of glory (δόξα) as the only Son who interprets the Father, establishing the pattern whereby the Gospel's signs disclose divine presence in the Son.[67]
Across the narrative Jesus interprets his mission through the absolute "I am" (ἐγώ εἰμι) declarations and the predicate sayings that associate him with life, light, and shepherding.[68] These claims, alongside titles such asLamb of God,Son of Man,Messiah,Son of God,Kings of Israel and Judah, andLord, embed Jesus in Israel's Scriptures while presenting his glorification in the cross and resurrection as the hour when the Father's glory is manifested.[69][70]
The Johannine Letters protect this confession by insisting that every spirit must acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (ἐληλυθότα ἐν σαρκί) and by applying tests of truth based on confession, ethical practice, and love.[8] They warn against deceivers labeledAntichrist and link abiding in God with confessing the incarnate Son, thereby counteringdocetic tendencies and safeguarding the community's christological boundaries.[16]
Revelation employs apocalyptic imagery to portray Jesus as the faithful witness, firstborn of the dead, and ruler of kings, and to enthrone the slain yet standing Lamb (ἀρνίον ἐσφαγμένον) beside God.[3] Hymns and visions show the Lamb sharing divine worship while leading judgment and renewal, offering a complementary picture to the Gospel's dialogues by emphasizing victory through sacrificial suffering and royal authority over the nations.[10][71]
Johannine writings work with a pronounced dualism of light and darkness, truth and falsehood, above and below, yet they resist the rigid determinism found inQumran dualism.[72] The contrasts invite decision rather than portray predestined factions, and they remain open to transformation through belief and abiding in the Son.[73] The Letters extend this moral dualism by measuring discipleship through obedience, love, and confession, so that walking in light becomes a communal vocation.[8]
Irony and misunderstanding operate as narrative strategies that draw readers into deeper insight with characters such asNicodemus and theSamaritan woman at the well misconstrue Jesus's words about birth, water, or worship, allowing the narrative to reveal layered meanings that point beyond literal categories.[6][74]
Recurring symbols,living water, thebread from heaven, thevine and branches, theGood Shepherd, and the temple body, translate the identity of Jesus and the life he imparts into tangible images.[72] These symbols interweave sacramental resonances with scriptural echoes, shaping a spirituality of abiding and mission for the Johannine communities.[2][5]
Revelation amplifies the dualism through cosmic pairs such as heaven and earth, thebeast and the Lamb,Babylon and theNew Jerusalem, or theharlot and thebride.[3] The imagery sustains pastoral exhortation by urging assemblies to resist imperial pressure, worship the enthroned Lamb, and hope for the descent of the holy city.[10][71]
The Gospel promises anotherParaclete, theSpirit of truth, whose functions span teaching, reminding, witnessing, guiding, and convicting.[37] In theFarewell Discourses the Paraclete teaches and recalls Jesus's words for the disciples (John 14:26), bears witness alongside them (15:26–27), guides into all truth and glorifies the Son (16:13–14), and convicts the world regarding sin, righteousness, and judgment (16:8–11).[67] The language portrays the Spirit as the continuing presence of Jesus that interprets revelation for the community and empowers its testimony.[75]
The Johannine Letters articulate this pneumatology through the language of anointing (χρῖσμα) that teaches believers from within (1 John 2:20, 27) and through the mandate to test the spirits (4:1–3).[8] Confession that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, coupled with practices of righteousness and love, becomes the criterion for discerning the Spirit of truth from the spirit of error, thus safeguarding the community against deceivers.[16][75]
Revelation presentsthe Spirit as the prophetic voice addressing each church with the repeated appeal, hear what the Spirit says to the churches (Revelation 2–3).[3] The visions culminate with the Spirit and the bride inviting the thirsty to come (22:17), underscoring the Spirit's role in sustaining worship, perseverance, and eschatological hope amid imperial pressure.[10][71]
The Gospel expresses realized eschatology in which eternal life is already present for those who believe, yet it balances this with future expectations.[76] Jesus's words about resurrection on the last day (John 6:39–54; 11:24–25) and his promise toreturn (14:3) keep a future horizon alongside the believer's present participation in life, judgment, and mission.[77][78]
Revelation advances a prophetic eschatology oriented to pastoral encouragement for first century assemblies. Its visions denounce imperial violence, call churches to endurance, and climax in the hope of aNew Heaven and New Earth where God dwells with humanity (Revelation 21–22).[3] The imagery sustains worship and witness rather than supplying a predictive timetable.[10][79]
Johannine ecclesiology develops a communal identity that centers on abiding in Christ, keeping thenew commandment to love one another, and remaining united in witness.[80] The Gospel portrays disciples as branches in theTrue Vine (John 15) and shapes leadership through service,foot washing, and shared testimony, suggesting a network of communities formed around relational loyalty rather than hierarchical control.[81][82]
John 21 depicts complementary roles as Peter receives a pastoral commission to tend the flock while theBeloved disciple embodies enduring witness.[80] The interplay models diverse forms of leadership that converge in sustaining the community's mission without erasing individual callings.[83]
The Letters employ boundary setting language to maintain communal integrity. 1 John links authentic fellowship to confessing the incarnate Son, practicing righteousness, and extending love, while 2 John and 3 John warn against deceivers and highlight tensions with leaders such asDiotrephes who refuse apostolic representatives.[8] These texts present discernment, hospitality, and discipline as essential to safeguarding unity.[16][17]
Revelation's messages to the seven assemblies offer case studies in local church life by combining affirmation, critique, and promises tailored to each civic context.[3] The Spirit's word diagnoses complacency, compromise, or endurance, exhorting believers in places such asEphesus,Sardis, andLaodicea to renew love, resist idolatry, and hold fast amid pressure, thereby framing corporate faithfulness as an ongoing task.[71][84]
Craig R. Koester's commentary and theOxford Handbook of the Book of Revelation presentRevelation as anapocalypse, prophetic book, and circular letter, and they identify aDomitianic date in the mid 90s as the prevailing position while noting alternative chronologies.[3][49] Essays in theOxford Handbook of Johannine Studies treat theGospel andEpistles as layered compositions that emerged from aJohannine network rather than a single author.[1]
Jörg Frey argues that the narrative is a theological construct shaped across multiple stages of composition, which leaves any earlier "signs source" conjectural.[85] William B. Bowes reexamines John's knowledge of theSynoptic Gospels and finds that assuming familiarity withMark clarifies several overlaps and divergences.[86] Stan Harstine contrastsdiachronic and synchronic approaches and treats thePrologue as a lens for reading the Gospel's rhetoric.[15]
Richard Bauckham links the Gospel's witness language to the figure of theBeloved disciple and treats it as evidence for historical reliability.[87]Craig S. Keener frames the canonical Gospels, including John, as ancient biographies whose memory practices could preserve reliable testimony.[88] Narrative scholars such as R. Alan Culpepper and essays in theOxford Handbook of Johannine Studies read the witness theme as a theological device within a crafted narrative rather than verbatim reporting.[6][1]
Adele Reinhartz reads the language as a programmaticanti Judaism rather than a precise record of expulsions.[35] J. Andrew Doole reviewsSecond Temple andrabbinic evidence for the term "aposynagogos" and concludes that it does not document a uniform policy of exclusion.[34]
Alicia D. Myers reads1 John as opposing christological error and deficient practice within a network aligned with the Gospel, contributing to ongoing debates about the identity of thesecessionists addressed in the letter.[89]Judith Lieu emphasizes that the letters mark boundaries through confession and love without supplying a full portrait of the opponents.[8] Hugo Méndez, Elizabeth J. B. Corsar, and other contributors to a 2024 volume edited by Christopher W. Skinner and Christopher Seglenieks question whether the Johannine writings reflect a historical community at all and treat the opponents as literary constructs.[13][90][91][92]
Koester and contributors to the Oxford Handbook of the Book of Revelation present the work as an apocalypse addressed toseven assemblies inRoman Asia and favor a mid 90s setting underDomitian. Ian Paul makes the same case while integrating apocalyptic and epistolary features, whereas Jonathan Bernier restates proposals for composition underNero in the late 60s.[49][3][93][94][12]
Martinus C. de Boer, Stan Harstine, and Craig R. Koester employ approaches fromhistorical criticism, probing sources and provenance, tonarrative andrhetorical analysis, as well asintertextual and social scientific frameworks — their works illustrate how applying these methods shapes distinct scholarly reconstructions of John's Gospel, the Epistles, and Revelation.[1][15][49]
{{citation}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help){{citation}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help){{citation}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link){{citation}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)