Matlana: DUALISM IN JOHANNINE GOSPEL

INTRODUCTION: The word ‘dualism’ has been variously used in the history of theology and philosophy, but the basic conception is that of a distinction between two principles as independent of one another and in some instances opposed to one another. As a category within the history and phenomenology of religion, dualism may be defined as a doctrine that conjectures the existence of two fundamental causal principles underlying the existence (or, as in the case of the Indian notion of maya as opposed to atman, the painful appearance of existence) of the world.^{^[1]} Thus in theology God is set over against some spiritual principle of evil or the material world, in philosophy spirit over against matter, in psychology soul or mind over against body.^{^[2]}

In the Fourth Gospel, we find the several beliefs in two worlds assumed: for instance - the world above (a;nwqen) which is both the region from which the angels descend and to which they ascend (avnabai,nontaj kai katabai,nontaj 1:51; 3:13, 31, 33; 6:41, 50, 51, 58, 62 etc.), and the realm from which all emanates (1:3, 1:10-the Logos created all things). The world above is contrasted with the world below (tw/n ka,tw), which is comparatively limited in quality and quantity (6:51, 58, 63; 4:13f.) which is the object of action from above and which hates (7:7) the world above. In the meantime, the world below does not signify the underworld or Hades. Rather, it signifies the inhabited earth which has rejected the revelation of Christ.^{^[3]} Apart from these, several other two contrasting realms are presented in the Fourth Gospel such as the world and human being, light and darkness, life and death, truth and falsehood, flesh and spirit. We shall try to extract the meaning of Johannine dualism and its background and in what way did John employ them distinctively.

1. BACKGROUND OF JOHANNINE DUALISM

1.1 Qumran Background

The dualistic antitheses such as light and darkness (Jn 1:4f; 3:19; 8:12; 11:9f; 12:35, 46), truth and falsehood (Jn 8:44; I Jn 1:6ff; 2:21), life and death (Jn 5:24; 11:25; I Jn 3:14), above and below (Jn 8:23), freedom and servitude (Jn 8:33, 36) etc are found in Johannine literature which are also found in the Qumran texts. Leonhard Goppelt assumed that the Christians coming out of these circles developed this language and with it the Johannine tradition as well.^{^[4]} According to R. E. Brown, there are two principles, in the Qumran literature, created by God-the prince of lights (also called the spirit of truth and the Holy Spirit) and the angels of darkness (the spirit of perversion). In this manner, in John’s thought was that Jesus has come into the world as the light to overcome the darkness. So, not only the dualism but also its terminology is shared by John and Qumran.^{^[5]} Donald Guthrie states that in the Qumran literature, there s a clash between the spirit of truth and the spirit of perversity, between the children of light and the children of darkness, between the Teacher of Righteousness and the Wicked Priest. There is also a cosmic aspect, for the overthrow of the spirit of perversity is predicted for the Day of Judgment.^{^[6]} Brown supported the view of Kuhn that the idea dualism was not rooted in the Old Testament, but ultimately in the Zoroastrianism.^{^[7]}

In John’s Gospel, the whole problem of human being is viewed in dualistic terms so far as the world is set over against God. The antitheses such as light, truth, life all come from above; darkness, falsehood, death belong to the world below. This is also presented in the prologue which is supported by many sayings in the Gospel. In John’s view, the sphere above is the sphere of the Spirit and that below is the sphere of the flesh.^{^[8]}

1.2 Hellenistic background

The word ko,smoj plays a very important conceptual role in the theology of the Fourth Evangelist. It is used 8 times in Matthew, 3 times in Mark and 3 times in Luke, but 78 times in John. W. F. Howard and M. Meinertz traced the Hellenistic background from the usage of the concept of the cosmos. In their understanding, the Hellenistic concept of the cosmos as the realm of created things or the realm in which human beings live has a theological meaning, that is, the mass of humankind assembled in disobedience of the divine power.^{^[9]} Martin Hengel asserted that John was undoubtedly influenced by the Hellenism. The work was written in simple unliterary koine Greek. This Greek was also spoken by the upper classes in Jerusalem. The Greek-speaking Jews from all over the empire met there. Scripture was read in Hebrew and Greek and prayer and discussion went on in both languages. So, Johannine corpus has been associated with the Hellenistic circle by any means.^{^[10]}

1.3 Platonic background

Plato gave a definite expression of a real world, which is invisible and eternal and that this world of appearance and time-sequence was only a temporary and imperfect copy. Out of this contrast came the concept of mind, which is far superior to the flesh, and the ideal of a life of abstraction and contemplation, in which the mind, freed from matter and fixed upon the truly real, became one with God, and that is the Idea of the Good. When Johannine Jesus speaks himself as the true vine, the true light etc., he might put a notion that he is an ideal vine and light of which others are mere copies.^{^[11]}

1.4 Gnostic Background

According to Hengel, the Gnostic influence of the Fourth Gospel depends on the definition of Gnosticism. Hengel said that if Gnosticism is used in a very wide sense to include the dualism of Qumran and other Jewish apocalyptic texts, Hermeticism, Philo and Neo-Platonism, the Fourth Gospel can be called Gnostic Gospel. But if Gnosticism is defined in a more precisely in terms of the anti-cosmic dualistic-ontological systems from the second and third centuries with strong philosophical features, which interpret the creation of the material world as the work of very inferior angels, and reject the salvation history of Israel and the physical death of Christ, then the Johannine corpus is certainly not Gnostic.^{^[12]}

According to Rudolf Bultmann, the Gnostic view of the world starts out from a strict cosmic dualism. Life and death, truth and falsehood, salvation and ruin of human life are fastened in the cosmos. In it the divine world of light and the demonic power of darkness stand over against one another. In the primeval time, a part of the light fell into the power of darkness. In order to be able to maintain their hold on the light, the evil powers created the world and human bodies. They divided the imprisoned being of light into mere sparks of light, and banned these parts of life to the physical world. In order to redeem and bring home this lost creature of the light, the good God of life sends the saving knowledge (Gnosis) into the world. By illuminating human as to his/her true origin and true being, this knowledge bestows on him/her the power to return to the heavenly homeland after putting off his/her body. In this connection, the figure of a redeemer is often met with, who is sent by the Father to impart knowledge. Under his word human beings separate themselves into the children of light, who are from above, and the children of darkness, who do not bear any soul of light in themselves. After his completed work of redemption the Redeemer ascends again and so makes a way for the elements of light that follow him.^{^[13]} C. K. Barrett also commented that the connotation ta. a;nw and ta. ka,tw, as well as avnabai,nein and katabai,nein refer to Jesus as the Son of Man who descends and ascends. This notion of Gnostic Redeemer’s character is shared with by John.^{^[14]}

In this manner, John has many similarities with the Gnostic views. Bultmann states that in John, Jesus descends from heaven, like the Gnostic Redeemer, to bring human beings the saving message, and he returns to the Father after completing his works. In the face of his word light and darkness separate themselves; before him, life and death are decided. Those who believe in the truth hear his voice etc.^{^[15]} So, John’s concepts, light and darkness, truth and falsehood, freedom and bondage, life and death etc come from the Gnostic dualism.^{^[16]}

2. JOHANNINE DUALISM

In the Fourth Gospel, the two different worlds are represented by two sets of forces. The force from above is Christ (who is the Logos and divine monogenh.j Qeo,j) who is opposed by this world. The force from above is one (1:1, 14; 17:3, 21) but the force from below is manifold (8:23f; 13:27; 12:31 etc). The main actors within this framework are Jesus and the Jews.^{^[17]} Let us now delve into the dualism of John pre-dominant in his gospel.

2.1 FLESH AND SPIRIT

Scholars have sought to understand Johannine Jesus’ pronouncements concerning the contrast between flesh and spirit against the background of certain forms from the contemporary Greek world of thought and religion. C. H. Dodd writes that in John 3:1ff., we are very close to the widespread Hellenistic notion of the two levels of existence, “the upper world (ta avnw) which is the sphere of the nou,j in which alone dwells light and immortality, and the lower world (ta ca.tw) which is the sphere of the uvlh or of darkness.” The main theme of the discourse, then, is the passage of man out of the lower order of existence, the realm of the flesh, into the higher order of existence, the realm of spirit in which alone eternal life is his portion.”^{^[18]}

On the other hand, according to the observation made by Herman Ridderbos, Bultmann rejects this idealistic understanding and believes one must explain the contrast in a sense characteristic of Gnostic anthropology. In his view “flesh” and “spirit” denote not just the lower and higher levels in the human person but the radical opposition between two mutually exclusive metaphysical principles. “Flesh” refers to “the nothingness of man’s whole existence; to the fact that man is ultimately a stranger to his fate as to his own acts; that, as he now is, he does not enjoy authentic existence, whether he makes himself aware of the fact or whether he conceals it from himself. Correspondingly, ‘spirit’ refers to the miracle of a mode of being in which man enjoys authentic existence in which he understands himself and knows that he is no longer threatened by nothingness.”^{^[19]}

The opposition between flesh and Spirit primarily relates to the creatureliness and dependence of humanity in relation to God as Spirit, Source, and Ruler of all of life. In that connection “flesh” does not denote what is “lower” in humankind but the whole human person, physical as well as spiritual. Hence, when the “Spirit” is contrasted with this powerlessness of the flesh to enter the kingdom of God and to inherit the true life, “Spirit” does not denote the great ontological anti-flesh principle, but God himself as the source of life (1:13) and above all in his restorative and life-renewing power as the only possibility left to humans to save them from lostness and alienation from God and to give them eternal life.^{^[20]}

‘Flesh’ in John does not have the Pauline sense of a source of sin. Apart from the Eucharistic texts speaking of the flesh of Christ (Jn. 6:51-56), ‘flesh’ in John is put in contrast to the sphere of God or Spirit. The flesh is to the spirit what the ‘earthly’ is to the ‘heavenly.’ So the ‘flesh’ here is the natural man as such, the non-regenerated man, who is not capable of entering the Kingdom, which belongs to a completely different order of being. The absolute impossibility of the flesh to come to the life of the Spirit is best expressed in Jn. 6:63-64, where the Spirit is said to vivify, and the flesh is said to be of no avail in this respect.^{^[21]}

2.2 LIGHT AND DARKNESS

The wide use of the term fwj as a symbolic expression for the absolute or eternally real, often in sharp contrast with the skoto.j of error or unreality, is supposed to owe something to the influence of Zoroastrianism, with its antithesis of light and darkness, the realms of Ahura-mazda and Angro-mainyu. Sun worship was certainly one of the living faiths of the ancient world, and it had a revival under the Roman Empire.^{^[22]}

According to Bultmann, light in John, means the daylight in which human being is able not only to orient him/herself about objects but also to understand him/herself in his/her world and find his/her way in it. But the true light (1:9; I Jn 2:8) is not the light of literal day, which makes orientation in the external world possible, but the state of having one’s existence illumined, an illumination in and by which human understands him/herself, achieve a self-understanding, guides all his/her conduct and gives him/her clarity and assurance. Because of this true light, human being is given the possibility of a genuine self-understanding him/herself as God’s creature. Darkness means that instead of understanding him/herself as creature he/she arrogates him/herself a self-sovereignty that belongs to the Creator alone. Darkness is nothing other than shutting one’s self up against the light. It is the turning away from the origin of one’s existence, away from that which alone offers the possibility of illuminating one’s existence. When the world shuts itself against the light it automatically rebels against God, making itself independent of the Creator, which is against the truth.^{^[23]} In this way, Bultmann’s interpretation of the light and darkness is closely related to Gnostic understanding.

Philip Wheelright observes that “of all archetypal symbols there is probably none more widespread and more immediately understandable than light, as symbolizing certain mental and spiritual qualities.”^{^[24]} From the beginning, the gospel “sings” of the existence of light. The prologue links logos, life and light so powerfully that the cluster dominates the symbolic system of the entire narrative. The logos incarnate in Jesus is “the life [that] was the light of men” (1:4), and where there is light there is life and the perception of Life. The conflict of light and darkness evokes a universal and primordial response. The symbols were used universally in religious discourse and had deep roots both in Hellenism and in Judaism, where light was a common symbol for the Law.” John asserts from the beginning that the logos is and always was the exclusive source of light for men. The darkness has not overcome it (1:15). John the Baptist was not the light but bore witness to it (1:8), for “the true light” which enlightens every person was coming into the world (1:9).^{^[25]} The greatest of God’s acts in regard to darkness, though, is his spiritual rescue of people from darkness through the work of Christ. God himself “is light and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1:5). Christ is a light that “shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it” (Jn 1:5). Whoever follows Jesus “will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life” (Jn 8:12). Jesus came “as light into the world,” so that everyone who believes in him “should not remain in the darkness” (Jn 12:46). In a similar vein Paul writes that believers in Christ once “were darkness, but now in the Lord you are light” (Eph 5:8).^{^[26]}

John’s Gospel alone has the self-predication formula, “I am the light of the world” (8:12; 9:5; cf. 12:35–36, 46). This is an exclusive claim. John the Baptist is not the light but a witness to the light (1:7–8; cf. 5:35). Moreover, all persons must receive their light from Jesus the “true light” (1:9; cf. 8:12) in order to become “the children of light” (12:36). That they do is dramatically illustrated in Jesus’ restoration of sight to a blind man (Jn. 9). Light and darkness function as indexes to human character, such as in the cases of Nicodemus (3:20), the Jews (9:40; 11:10) and Judas (13:30).^{^[27]}

2.3 LIFE AND DEATH

The two nouns ‘life’ and ‘death’ occurs together only once, in John 5:24, where movement is explicit: “Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and does not come under judgment, but has passed from death to life.” Jesus enters the realm of death and by doing so transfers men out of it into life. The dualism is not static but in motion.^{^[28]} Jesus affirms that anyone who hears His word and believes in the Father who sent Him has eternal life here and now. The Greek verb used to express the passing “from death to life” is the same verb that is used to refer to Jesus’ leaving this world to go to the Father in the heavenly world (13:1). Such “passing” involves a complete break with one realm of life and entrance into another. The one who believes is transferred from the natural realm of life controlled by death to the divine realm of life dominated by light (3:21) and love (1 John 3:14). The only One who can perform such a resurrection, a passage from death to life, is God.^{^[29]}

In the narrative of the raising of Lazarus, the doctrine of eternal life is stated in two forms. First, “He who believes in me, even as he dies, will come to life” (John 11:25). This may be taken as a confirmation of the popular eschatology as enunciated by Martha: faith in Christ gives the assurance that the believer will rise again after death. But the second statement is not the simple equivalent of this: “Everyone who is alive and has faith in me will never die” (John 11:26). This implication is that the believer is already “living” in a pregnant sense which excludes the possibility of ceasing to live. The miracle of Lazarus’ bodily resurrection, which anticipates the final resurrection, is a symbol of the real resurrection by which a man passes from a merely physical existence, which is death, into the life which is life indeed, and which is proof against the death of the body.^{^[30]}

2.4 TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD

The basic meaning of the truth in John, according to Bultmann, is God’s reality, which, since God is the Creator, is the only true reality. Jesus does not merely tell the truth but he is the truth (14:6). So, truth is not the teaching about God transmitted by Jesus but it is God’s very reality revealing itself in Jesus. If truth is the reality of God as the only true reality, then the lie which denies this reality is not merely a false assertion. Rather, the liar withdraws from the reality and falls into the unreal, death. In rebelling against God, the world produces a specious (apparently true but actually false) reality which actually is a lie. In this case, the world stands for the falsehood.^{^[31]}

The Greek word avlhqei,a has a primary application to words or statements, with the meaning ‘truth,’ as opposed to falsehood.^{^[32]} The Gospel of John most frequently uses the language of truth, and there it undergoes significant theological development. John uses truth vocabulary in its conventional sense of veracity/genuineness/opposite of falsehood; but he also develops his own particular meaning, where truth refers to the reality of God the Father revealed in Jesus the Son. The Father is the truth. His eternal reality is ultimate reality. There are no external standards to evaluate his reality; according to John, his truth can only be accepted through faith in Jesus as the one who comes down from heaven. Thus “the time has now come” when true worshippers will worship the Father only as revealed by Christ (4:23–24). However, as ultimate reality, God the Father is the only standard by which all truth or falsehood, light or darkness are measured in this world (5:33; 8:31–32, 42–47).^{^[33]}

In John 8:40-46, we find that it is the Truth, the revelation of eternal reality that Christ declares. On the contrary, the devil not simply “tell lies” but utters the “Lie” the final denial of divine reality; and he does so because he has no standing ground in the world of eternal reality, and so there is nothing in him which corresponds with the eternal reality.^{^[34]}

2.5 THE WORLD ABOVE AND THE WORLD BENEATH

Possibly the most common of dualistic schemes are mentioned explicitly in 8:23. While ta anw and ta katw are mentioned once only, the verbs, avnabainei.n and katabainei.n with certain equivalents, occur frequently. Jesus as the Son of Man ascends and descends: “No one has ascended into heaven, but he that came down from heaven, namely the Son of Man (3:13). That this notion of the descent and ascent of a Redeemer figure is shared by John with Gnosticism, in no way alters the fact that John does not think of the heavenly world and the earthly world as out of contact with each other. True, contact is made in one person only; but it is the contact in and through that one person that John is talking about.^{^[35]}

2.6 THE WORLD AND HUMAN BEING

From the verse “The light is shining in the darkness, and the darkness has not grasped it” (1:5) interpret, according to Bultmann that the essence of the kosmos, therefore, is darkness. The world’s nature is designated as falsehood when Jesus accused of the Jews of not being able to hear his word because they were of the devil. Further, the compound of darkness and falsehood is the characteristics of the world. So, the kosmos, in essence is existence in bondage. The ruler of the world is devil (12:31; 14:40; 16:11) and because he is their father, the Jews are his offspring (8:44); so, they are the sinners.^{^[36]}

2.7 ESCHATOLOGICAL DUALISM

In John, the eschatological view is not futuristic; rather John emphasizes the last things that have already begun to break into the present. This kind of expression is found in some places: avlla. e;rcetai w`ra kai. nu/n evstin (4:23; 5:25) and evlh,luqen h` w`ra (12:23). These expressions also display the realized or realizing character of Johannine dualism. Those who cling to the law orient themselves around a past revelation (1:17), but those who come and believe in him whom God has sent (8:42) receive the light of the present revelation which has come but also still to come (15:26; 4:16ff). The contrast between the water from Jacob’s well from which one would thirst again (4:12) and the water which Jesus gives (4:14) displays the present quality of John’s eschatology. One of the undeniable aspects of Johannine dualism, according to Charlesworth, is that while the soteriological task of Jesus of Nazareth has been completed, God’s revelation has not ended. The future holds the last judgment and final revelation. Even so the eschatology of the Fourth Evangelist is realized or realizing. Charlesworth comments that Johannine dualism is essentially soteriological and ethical in the sense that the dualism is conceived as Christ opposed by the world, belief opposed by disbelief, light opposed by darkness, truth opposed by falsehood, righteousness opposed by sin, love opposed by hate and life opposed by death.^{^[37]}

Barrett says that the distinctiveness of the feature of John’s dualism is its mobility, its motion and in becoming. He often employs the term paradox to explain Johannine dualism. Regarding light and darkness, unlike Bultmann, Barrett states that there is only a world, above and below, of darkness, and in it there explodes a rocket whose brilliant balls of light move across the sky and for a moment or two light up the heaven and earth (8:12; 9:5; 12:35f; 12:46). In this moment of illumination, human beings must act before night closes in once more (9:4; 11:10). Action means not simply looking at the light but accepting it, believing it; if they do this they become the sons of light and have the light of life. Here, the mobility and motion of dualism in the form of darkness and light is experienced.

John’s dualism in motion also makes it possible to speak of paradox-of light in darkness, of life in death, of a person who is found below when he might be expected to be above. Barrett continues to say that the Son of Man is a figure in motion. He is the person who descends from the heaven to earth and then ascends back to the place whence he came, but ascends by way of death. In this manner, the Son of Man is a moving figure, whose movement means paradox as far as his person is concerned, and salvation for human beings, since in his flesh and blood, given in death, human beings have life.^{^[38]} Barrett employs the paradox of Jesus with his motion of salvation to explain the dualism of John.

EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION: While we trace Johannine dualism from Qumran, Hellenism, Platonic and Gnosticism, Barrett argues that there is not little of the popular Platonism in John. Jesus declared that he is not of this world but evk tw/n a;nw, while his opponents are of this world, evk tw/n ka,tw (8:23). This contrast of an upper and a lower world perhaps more related with Jewish contrast between the present world and the world to come.^{^[39]} So also Bultmann argues that although John employs Gnostic dualism in his theology, but he altered the meaning and connotation in relation to the idea of creation.^{^[40]} Barrett suggests that even-though John’s dualism is related to Gnostic dualism yet they are not identical with it.^{^[41]} Such assumption is also had by Oscar Cullmann after he quotes Bornkamm who says that the Gospel of John is directed towards Gnostic world of ideas and that this also brings out its difference from Gnosticism.^{^[42]} They support Johannine modification of Gnostic dualism into his own theology. In the meantime, Cullmann proposed the possibility of the dependence of Gnosticism on John due to the late date of Gnosticism.^{^[43]}

Amidst the dualistic background, John’s dualism is not a total converging poles that are clashing each other. The Logos pre-existed in the world above, had come into human history to affect salvation. It has taken place in the world below. Therefore, there is no essential clash between the two views.^{^[44]} The main clash in John is between Jesus Christ, the Incarnated Word, and the world-system under the domination of the spirit of evil. Instead of the observance of the law as the condition on which human beings become children of light, John shows faith in Christ as the only way. In John and in the teaching of Jesus he records, the darkness is universal until the shining of the light. There is no division of people into classes according to the dominance of the two spirits. In John’s Gospel, the prince of this world is already a defeated foe, although all unbelievers are still under his influence. The fundamental difference between the dualism of the Qumran and the dualism of John is the centrality of Christ in the John’s dualism, which is naturally absent in Qumran dualism.^{^[45]}

It is not odd to believe that the Evangelist was influenced by the dualistic ideas prior to him. In the mean time, a careful comparison between the other dualism and Johannine dualism there are severe difference between them. Johannine dualism never ends with endless contrast. Rather, the meeting point, Jesus Christ is always set after his dualism. It seems that he skillfully employed and modified his contemporary dualism in order to be relevant to his audience. To conclude, though John’s various dualistic thoughts may comprise of two wholly contrasting and different concepts, it, however, when put together convey a significant meaning with deep influence upon the readers.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Achtemeier, E. R. “Darkness” in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, edited by Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit and Tremper Longman III. Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2^nd ed. London: SPCK, 1993.

___________ Essays on John. London: SPCK, 1982.

Bianchi, Ugo. “Dualism,” Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Mircea Eliade, vol. 4, 1987.

Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John I. New York: Doubleday, 1966, 1970.

Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John a Commentary. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971.

_______________ Theology of the New Testament, vol. II, translated by Kendrick Grobel. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1958.

Charles, James H. “A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS III, 13-IV, 26 and the Dualism Contained in the Fourth Gospel,” New Testament Studies 15/04. 1969.

Cressey, M.H. “Dualism” in The New Bible Dictionary, edited by F.F. Bruce, et. al. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1962.

Crump, D.M. “Truth” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, edited by Joel G. Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall. Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.

Dodd, C.H. Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Goppelt, Leonhard. Theology of the New Testament, vol 2, translated by John E. Alsup. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publiching Company, 1982.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Theology. Secundarabad: OM Books. 2003.

Hengel, Martin. The Johannine Question. London: SCM Press, 1989.

Howard, W. F. Christianity According to John. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. 1946.

Kanagaraj, Jey K. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Secunderabad, OM Books, 2005.

Oscar Cullmann, The Johannine Circle. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1976.

Ridderbos, Herman. The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary, translated by John Friend. Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997.

Shirbroun, G.F. “Light” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, edited by Joel G. Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall. Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

Vellanickal, Matthew. Studies in the Gospel of John. Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation, 1997.

Wheelwright, Philip E. Metaphor and Reality. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1962.

[1] Ugo Bianchi, “Dualism,” Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Mircea Eliade, vol. 4, (1987), 506.

[2] M.H. Cressey, “Dualism” in The New Bible Dictionary, edited by F.F. Bruce, et. al. (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1962), 283.

[3] James H. Charles, “A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS III, 13-IV, 26 and the Dualism Contained in the Fourth Gospel,” New Testament Studies 15/04 (1969): 402.

[4] Leonhard Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament, vol 2, translated by John E. Alsup (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publiching Company, 1982), 291f. For example, the son of light” (Jn 12:36; I Thess 5:5; Eph 5:8), not found otherwise prior to the New Testament, was used frequently in the Essene texts (eg., 1QS 3:24f.), and in them, the “son of light”-as in John-stood antithetically over against people who remained in darkness.

[5] Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I (New York: Doubleday, 1966, 1970), lxii.

[6] Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Secundarabad: OM Books, [1961], 2003), 198.

[7] Brown, The Gospel According to John., lxii.

[8] Guthrie, New Testament …, op. cit., 197.

[9] W. F. Howard, Christianity According to John (Philadelphia: Westminster Press. 1946), 83, quoted by James H. Charles, New Testament Studies, 403.

[10] Martin Hengel, The Johannine Question (London: SCM Press, 1989), 113.

[11] C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2^nd ed. (London: SPCK, 1993), 35.

[12] Hengel, The Johannine Question, 113.

[13] Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John a Commentary (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971), 7f.

[14] C. K. Barrett, Essays on John (London: SPCK, 1982), 108.

[15] Bultmann, The Gospel of John …, 8f.

[16] Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, vol. II, translated by Kendrick Grobel (London: SCM Press Ltd., [1955], 1958), 17.

[17] James H. Charles, New Testament Studies, 402.

[18] C.H. Dodd, Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 304f.

[19] Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary, translated by John Friend (Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997), 130.

[20] Ridderbos, The Gospel of John, 130-131.

[21] Matthew Vellanickal, Studies in the Gospel of John (Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation, 1997), 92.

[22] C.H. Dodd, Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 201.

[23] Matthew Vellanickal, Studies in the Gospel of John, 17f.

[24] Philip E. Wheelwright, Metaphor and Reality (Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1962), 116.

[25] R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 190-191.

[26] E. R. Achtemeier, “Darkness” in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, edited by Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit and Tremper Longman III (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 193.

[27] G.F. Shirbroun, “Light” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, edited by Joel G. Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 473.

[28] C.K. Barrett, Essays on John, 107-108.

[29] Jey K. Kanagaraj, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Secunderabad, OM Books, 2005), 177.

[30] C.H. Dodd, Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 148.

[31] Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 18-20.

[32] C.H. Dodd, Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 170.

[33] D.M. Crump, “Truth” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels…, 859f.

[34] C.H. Dodd, Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 177.

[35] C.K. Barrett, Essays on John, 108.

[36] Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 15-17.

[37] James H. Charles, New Testament Studies, 406f.

[38] Barrett, Esays on John …, 106-109.

[39] Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 35.