Aposynagōgos and the Historical Jesus in John: Rethinking the Historicity of the Johannine Expulsion Passages, by Jonathan Bernier (Brill, 2013), 182 pages.
As the title suggests, Jonathan Bernier’s McMaster University PhD thesis, Aposynagōgos and the Historical Jesus in John, is a reconsideration of the Johannine expulsion passages found in John 9:22, 12:42, and 16:2. Bernier’s central thesis is both exegetical and hermeneutical. With respect to the former, Bernier argues that these expulsion texts reflect an informal mechanism for expulsion, which occurred sometime around 30 CE, and are not correlated to the later Birkat ha-Minim (a formalized legislative method of explosion).
The hermeneutical implications for this conclusion result in a rejection of the two-level reading of John (one level that tells the story of Jesus while the other level reflects the concerns of the Johannine community). Those familiarly with J. Louis Martyn’s History and Theology in John will recognize that Bernier is offering a direct challenge to Martyn’s original (and seminal!) thesis and to any recent iterations.
[J. Louis Martyn argued that the aposynagōgos passages reveal the concerns of a much later Johannine community, who were systematically expelled from the synagogue through the mechanism of the Birkat ha-Minim. Thus John should be read with an eye to both the story of Jesus and to the concerns of this later community]
The first chapter functions as an introduction to both the history of research and the structure of Bernier’s study. Having outlined the major trends in the study of John, Bernier classifies the Martynian tradition along two lines; the classical and neo-Martynian approaches. Both ‘schools’ would agree that these passages cannot refer to historical events in the time of Jesus and as a consequence John’s gospel should be read on two levels.
The classical Martynians, however, contend that the expulsion passages refer to events in the late first century, while the neo-Martynians suggest that these explosion passages do not refer to any historical event. This forms the scholarly backdrop to Bernier’s study, and while acknowledging the work of Edward Klink, Bernier offers a Post-Martynian alternative that sees these expulsion passages as references to actions taken against ‘Christians’ in 30 CE.
Integral to understanding the culminating argument of this thesis is the work of Ben Meyer (and Bernard Lonergan). In contrast to the methodology often utilized in Jesus studies known as the ‘criteria of authenticity’, Meyer preferred the term ‘index’ over ‘criterion’ (since the criteria proposed by the historical critic is not ‘requisite to the inference of historicity’, and the presence of indices favor historicity while their absence do not suggest non-historicity).
Indices can be established through both oblique and direct patterns of inference. Oblique patterns of inference interact with the narrative indirectly, providing no definition of intentionality nor are they dependent upon a such a definition. Direct patterns of intentionality refer to the explicit intentions of the writer towards factuality, the plausibility of the writer to possess knowledgeability, and the degree to which the writer is free from suspicion or fraud.
Chapters two through four address various oblique patterns of inference in order to demonstrate the thesis’ plausibility, while chapter five considers direct patterns of inference in order to conclude that the thesis is not only plausible, but probable.
The second chapter investigates the Martynian tradition’s use of the Birkat ha-Minim, namely, that the Birkat was the formalized method of expelling Jewish Christians from the synagogue due to their association with the Johannine community. Although Bernier here agrees with the Neo-Martynians, who argue that the Birkat ha-Minim is not in view in John 9:22, 12:42, and 16:2, Bernier breaks from the Neo-Martynians’ on hermeneutical grounds (i.e. the two level reading).
Seizing upon the work of Runesson (along with Levine and Binder), who identifies a dual institution understanding of the synagogue (an Official [Municipal] Synagogue located in the land of Israel and a Non-official [Association] synagogue located in the land of Israel and the Diaspora), Bernier notes that John 9:22 and 12:42 are located in and around Jerusalem and therefore could refer to either official (municipal) or non-official (association) synagogues.
Bernier argues that the aposynagōgos texts have in view the municipal synagogue, therefore expulsion would indeed incite the type of fear depicted in John’s account. Moreover the Pharisees (as apart of a broader coalition) are the specific party who directly threatened the removal of Jesus’ followers from the synagogue, apart from any formalized decree. This naturally leads to a discussion regarding the motivations for expelling Jesus’ followers in chapters three and four.
In the third chapter Bernier turns to consider the potential correlation between the aposynagōgos passages and Jesus’ messianic identity. After identifying the ongoing influence of Bultmann’s understanding of John’s Gospel upon Martyn and the Martynian tradition as a whole, Bernier questions why the rhetoric surrounding Jesus’ messianic status is deemed to be a priori inconceivable during Jesus’ lifetime and therefore non-historical (e.g. Bultmann and Martyn on John 9:28b).
Since, for Bernier, the history-of-religions school (following Bousset), which claimed that non-Jewish Hellenistic traditions were the main source for early Christian belief, has largely been refuted, the framework offered by Hurtado (“A Taxonomy of Recent Historical-Jesus Work”) and Dunn (Jesus Remembered) proves more fruitful. Such an approach sees the significant amount of data that present Jesus in Jewish-messianic terms not as obstacles to be overcome, but as the only lens through which to understand Jesus’ life.
So if one is confronted with a significant stream of Jewish messianic interpretations then ‘one has good reason to accept as probable the thesis that such data came to be data about Jesus precisely because Jesus was someone whose life was conducive to such messianic interpretations’ (90). Such a messianic interpretation of Jesus’ life would likely have contributed to the conflict located within the aposynagōgos narratives.
The fourth chapter develops more fully why such messianic overtures would incite the degree of conflict depicted in John. In order to develop this chapter, Bernier uses the emerging sub-field known as ‘empire-criticism’, which seeks “to contextualize biblical texts within the ancient imperial contexts in which they were produced and first received…” (94).
It is here argued that Jesus and his followers were targeted, in part, as a result of a warranted fear of Roman intervention and that the aposynagōgos passages reflect these fears. This is made explicit in John 11:47b-54, where fear of lethal Roman intervention as a result of Jesus potentially amassing followers (‘…the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation’) is explicitly said to fuel motivations for the death of Jesus (‘…from that day they made plans to put him to death.’)
The fifth chapter addresses various direct patterns of inference in John’s Gospel, namely, intentionality, knowledgeability, and veracity. If these patterns can be determined, a judgement of plausibility can be converted into probability with respect to historicity [Bernier is here employing the ‘social history of knowledge’ approach as developed by Gerhardsson, Byrskog, and Bauckham, which prioritizes the study of historical particularities (the Gospels) before developing ‘analytical syntheses that might legitimately be informed by…theoretical apparatuses…” (112)].
After outlining the Johannine references that have reference to factuality (1:14, 2:19-22, 14:26, 19:35, 20:30-31, 21:24-25 and 1 John 1:1-3), Bernier concludes that John simply intends factuality. With respect to knowledgeability (whether John was in a position to gain knowledge about Jesus) Bernier highlights, as a first principle of historical examination, the importance of eyewitness testimony as the authoritative custodians of the tradition in question.
The conclusion offered at this point is that if John either relies upon an eyewitness or draws from eye witness testimony (see Appendix B for internal data on John’s eyewitness status), then the reports may be considered reliable (i.e. “a general rather than detail-rich description” 132). Lastly, there is every indication that John intended the aposynagōgos passages to simply be read as reports about the life of Jesus.
Bernier’s final chapter presents a summary of the study as a whole through the presentation of three significant contributions. First, Bernier has challenged the Martyn reading of John. Although jettisoning a two-level reading does not necessitate a rejection of any Johannine Sitz im Leben, the allegorical approach is both circular and without explicit textual warrant (see 18, 24-25). Second, with respect to the philosophy of history, those who study the New Testament are encouraged to employ the approach developed by Ben F. Meyer and Bernard Lonergan known as ‘critical realism’, especially the oblique and direct patterns of reference. Third, this study offers a detailed study of the aposynagōgos passages with the overarching conclusion that the references found therein refer to historical events sometime around 30 CE.
***NB Master Students – For those interesting in reading a well argued and carefully structured thesis, I would highly recommend Bernier’s work. Especially if you are a MA student seeking PhD work, sit down with this text and enjoy a lesson in structural organization, erudite research, and relevant academic interaction. Moreover, if you are at all interested in studying all things Johannine, the bibliography section will be a key resource for academic preparation.***
Find it here on Amazon.
One comment