Session 1: Joint session with the Synoptic Gospels: The relationship between John and the Synoptics
During this joint session we welcome Mark Goodacre and George van Kooten who will each present their view of the relationship between John and the Synoptic Gospels. They will in turn respond to each other’s views. After their contributions, there will be ample opportunity for the audience to engage in the debate as well, so please do join us for this special session.
Session 2: Johannine Literature
David Woods, University College Cork, ‘Jesus’ Calling of Nathanael in its Roman Context (John 1:43-51)’
Controversy surrounds the significance of Jesus’ identification of the tree under which he saw Nathanael as a fig tree (John 1:48). Kusio has recently surveyed the traditional interpretations of this verse to conclude that the fig tree is described as such in allusion to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in Gen 2-3, often identified as a fig tree in Second Temple and early Christian discussions of this topic (NTS 2026). I argue that more attention needs to be paid to the Roman cultural context, which suggests that the fig tree symbolizes the Roman state and, therefore, earthly power. It does so through allusion to a key incident in the myth of the founding of Rome, when the shepherd Faustulus discovered the twins Romulus and Remus being nursed by a wolf under a fig tree. Jesus calls Nathanael from under the fig tree in much the same way that Faustulus rescues the twins from under a fig-tree, but Jesus is the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14) who leads Nathanael to his new spiritual kingdom, whereas Faustulus sets the twins on the path to a life of violence and deceit.
Session 3 – Johannine Literature
Amy White, ‘Interrogating Love in John 21:15-17: Correcting an Overcorrection?’, Emmanuel Theological College
The two Greek words for the verb love in John 21:15-17, ἀγαπάω and φιλέω, have been the focus of much debate in scholarship. The view that these words convey different kinds of love was taken up in the 19th and early 20th centuries. However, scholarship has since turned away from this view and has widely argued that these terms are synonymous. The pendulum has swung so far in this direction that dissenting voices in modern Johannine scholarship are few and far between. This paper will examine key arguments for ἀγαπάω and φιλέω functioning as synonyms in John 21 and will respond to each argument in order to show that this widely accepted conclusion should be further scrutinised. Close attention to the use of these words in John 21 and the whole Gospel suggests that there is semantic difference between these verbs. Identifying this difference does not return us to the definitions of the past, but seeks to understand John’s selective use of these terms in relation to obedience to divine command.
Paulus de Jong, Dutch Baptist Seminary, Free University, Amsterdam ‘Jesus’ revelation to “Israel” in John’s Gospel’
At the outset of John’s Gospel, John the Baptizer explains that he baptizes with water so that Jesus “might be revealed to Israel” (John 1:31). This paper argues that the term Israel serves a specific narrative function in the Fourth Gospel, referring not simply to the Ioudaioi but to the reunification of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms.
In this regard, Philip’s identification of Jesus as “the son of Joseph” (John 1:45) is particularly significant. In Israel’s scriptural traditions, Joseph is the father of Ephraim, the dominant tribe of the Northern Kingdom, and both “Joseph” and “Ephraim” frequently function as shorthands for the Northern Kingdom in the prophetic literature. Building on this background, I argue that the Cana cycle (John 2–4) portrays the ministry of Jesus, the Son of Joseph, as extending beyond the territory traditionally associated with Judah to encompass the regions of the former Northern Kingdom as well.
Furthermore, I contend that the Fourth Gospel’s designation of Jesus as “the King of Israel” can be read in light of this theme of reunification. Rather than presenting Jesus merely as the king of the Jews or of the Southern Kingdom, John intentionally depicts him as the King of all Israel. In short, the revelation of Jesus to “Israel” in the opening chapter anticipates a broader narrative thread about the reunification of the divided kingdom under the kingship of Jesus.