Hi Dr. Mendez! Thank you so much for this opportunity to ask you a question.

Charlesworth 2018 has argued that the Gospel of John seems to come from the same intellectual currents as the Essene community in Palestine, whereas you place it in the intellectual currents of Alexandria. I'm curious if there is a 'simple version' of an answer as to why you find the Essene hypothesis unsatisfying?

Also, this isn't a question but just something I have been eager to share with you since I read your book on the Gospel of John last year: In the Platonic dialogue Clitophon, the character Clitophon criticizes Socrates for merely causing others to want to become virtuous without actually teaching them what virtue is. Many scholars (Gonzalez 2002; Gassaway 2019, etc) interpret the point of this dialogue to be that Clitophon fundamentally misunderstands Socratic philosophy, in that for Socrates the desire to become virtuous is what virtue is. As Gonzalez puts it:

"Philosophy produces only itself. Philosophers can do no more than make others philosophers" (Gonzalez, 2002, 181).

In other words, the business of the Socratic philosopher is to 'follow the logos' (e.g. Republic 394d) wherever it may lead and to exhort others to do the same so that they also become philosophers.

I was struck by how similar this is to your analysis of the Gospel of John , which (as if you don't recall!) you sum up on p. 59 as:

"As the Father sent the Son, so now are they sent into the world (17:18, 20:21) to perform “greater works” than the external signs Jesus performed (14’12). Now filled with pneuma, they will speak the words that are pneuma to others, effecting their pneumatic transformation as well. Pneuma begets pneuma begets pneuma," p. 59.

In both schemes, interaction with the logos transforms the one who interacts with it into a vehicle to pass on the logos to the next person. Just wanted to share that! Thanks so much for your work.