| |
Introducing the Fourth Gospel
This edited, shortened version of an article from the excellent Word Biblical
Commentary offers helpful background for our reading of St. John
The enigma of John
Authorship Of The
Fourth Gospel
---External Evidence
---Internal Evidence
Date And Place Of Writing
Of The Fourth Gospel
__ Ephesus?
__ Alexandria?
__ Antioch?
__ Palestine?
The Purpose of the 4th G
Structure of the
4th Gospel
The enigma of John
The
question of how to square the presentation of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel
with the other three is a very serious one – not just for scholars but
for every Christian for whom the Gospels are a major guide to life's
values. The elements of contrast are well known and can be seen in the
most rapid comparative reading. From the opening of the fourth Gospel
(hencefort: the Fourth Gospel) it is obvious that it takes a higher, more
theological stance than the other three; and this and this continues
in its subsequent narrative matter and teaching. Only in its passion
narrative does it come significantly close to the synoptic accounts.
The
prologue to the
Fourth Gospel provides a theological statement about the activity of the Logos
in the universe that would magnificently open an epistle; set as it
is at the beginning of the Gospel, it provides an interpretation of
the story of Jesus before the story is told. This “story” unfolds almost
entirely in Judea, chiefly in Jerusalem (Jesus operates in Galilee only
in 2:1–12, 4:43–54, and chapt. 6; in most of chapt. 4 he is in Samaria).
This complicates the picture of the ministry considerably.
Whereas the synoptic account of the Galilean ministry
of Jesus begins after John the Baptist is imprisoned, in the Fourth Gospel Jesus
and the Baptist are concurrently ministering in Judea. The Jerusalem
temple feasts feature prominently in John; no less than three Passovers
are mentioned, which would entail a ministry of at least two years and
perhaps even a longer one, in contrast to the synoptic account of the
work of Jesus in Galilee, which could have occupied no more than a single
year. The teaching of Jesus in the synoptics is characterized by his
parables and various sayings, nearly all of which are related to the
theme of the kingdom of God. In John there is little obvious parabolic
teaching, but there
are many discourses, with dialogues and monologues, largely repeating
a single overarching theme: the transcendent significance of the mission
of Jesus; and all are stamped with the style of the Evangelist.
How to account for these phenomena constitutes the major
problem of interpreting and assessing the historical value of the Fourth Gospel.
Earlier apologetics tended to emphasize the historical nature
of the synoptic presentations of Jesus, in contrast to the theological
interpretation provided by John. That distinction can no longer be maintained
as though it were watertight. We now realize that the synoptic Evangelists
are also theologians, and that each presents Jesus from the vantage
point of his own theological interests and in the light of the needs
of his community. It is particularly instructive to compare Mark with
John. Early in his career Charles H. Dodd pointed out that Mark and
John have one basic feature in common: both concentrate on presenting
Jesus in the kerygma, without diverting into the “didache” (instruction) in Matthew
and Luke.
Martin Kähler’s famous definition of a gospel as a
passion narrative with an introduction applies particularly well
to Mark and John, although both set forth the eschatological significance
of the total messianic ministry of Jesus, and both view the whole as
illuminated by the Resurrection (without the Easter illumination, a
gospel would be inconceivable). There is, however, ground for affirming
that the process of interpretation and clarification of the kerygma
which Mark began in relation to his own church’s situation was carried
to its logical conclusion in the 4thG.
How sorely this
process of elucidation was needed was expounded by two English scholars
early in the twentieth century, J. Armitage Robinson (The Study of
the Gospels,) and H. Scott Holland (The Fourth Gospel) .
Holland was especially trenchant in comparing John with the other evangelists.
To him the enigma was attached less to the 4thG than to the three synoptics,
since “They raise problems for which they offer no solution. They provoke
questions which they never attempt to answer. They leave off at a point
where it is impossible to stop”. For
example, they reported Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God and
the necessity of his death, but offer little indication of the link
between them. Nor is it entirely clear why Jesus is so emphatic that
he will be seized by the Jewish leaders and handed over to death when
he goes to Jerusalem; nor why, once he is there, he does not go on preaching
the kingdom of God. Rather he weeps over the city and declares the impending
day of the Lord on the city and its temple and its people.
On this Holland
comments: “He does not go to offer his gospel to Jerusalem, to give
it its chance of salvation. All that is over. The decision has
been taken. Jerusalem has given its verdict. It was pronounced irrevocably
against him. If he challenges them, he knows what the verdict will be.”
When was the offer made and the verdict given? “The synoptics cannot
tell. Apparently they do not know” (30–31). What the synoptics do not
know or tell is a major theme of the 4thG, from its prologue to its
end: the tragedy of the rejection of the Christ by his own people, in
his own place. Jesus had ministered in Jerusalem time and again, and
the result was a decision that “one man must die for the people that
the whole nation should not perish” (John 11:50).
This is but one aspect of the wider context in which
the story of Jesus is set in the 4thG. The real enigma was not the incompleteness
of the synoptic Gospels nor the special interpretation in the 4thG,
but Jesus himself. Who could hope to explain him adequately? What we
find in the 4thG is a development of earlier lines of understanding
which seem to be demanded by the traditions themselves. If Mark’s Gospel
be viewed as a passion narrative provided with an introduction, it may
be said that John’s is all passion narrative. But from the start a Christian passion narrative includes the resurrection
of the one who was crucified. So in John the lifting up of the Son of
Man on his cross reaches to the throne of heaven; and as the shadow
of the cross marks the entire story of Jesus, so the glory of the Resurrection
suffuses every hour of his ministry, and even reaches back to the morning
of creation. The eschatological glory for which creation was made was
brought to actuality in the deeds and words of Jesus.
Now, while no synoptic evangelist unequivocally makes
so high a claim, their teaching points in that direction. The tension
between Jesus’ proclamation of the here-and-now presence of the
kingdom and its fuller future revelation was scarcely appreciated
before the present century, and some very influential 20th century New Testament scholars persisted in denying it. Eduard Schweitzer,
Rudolf Bultmann and Hans Conzelmann, for example, roundly rejected the
view that Jesus declared the presence of the kingdom in and through
his ministry, despite the apparently plain meaning of such passages
as Matt 11:5; 11:12; 12:28. Not even they, however, could fail to find
it in the 4thG; there the eschatological hope has become reality in
the deeds and words of the Word made flesh.
While the kingdom of God is hardly mentioned at all in
the 4thG, every line of it is informed by it. But a “translation” has
taken place. In accordance with the Evangelist’s emphasis on the personal
nature of faith and appropriation of salvation, the key term is life,
or eternal life, and that, of course, denotes life in the kingdom of
God. And as Christ's resurrection glory suffuses the whole
Gospel, so the resurrection life which He bestows through his Spirit
is a present reality for every believer.
The implications of such teaching for the understanding
of him through whom eternal life is gained are evident, and they are
the supreme theme of John’s Gospel. These will occupy our attention
in the exegesis of the text. The Church through the ages has believed
that John’s interpretation is not an imposition of a view foreign
to the earlier traditions, but one that is implicit in them. The creedal statements and Christological hymns in the N T letters
(e.g. Phil 2:6–11; Col 1:15–20), vindicate this conviction. Often the same
admission is made from a quite different viewpoint, by scholars who
believe that the Christological titles accorded to Jesus in the synoptic
Gospels reflect early church terminology rather than his own language,
but that the “implicit Christology” of Jesus was bound to produce such
thoughts, for it went even beyond them.
Reginald H. Fuller, for example,
noted that “An examination of Jesus’ words … forces upon us the conclusion
that underlying his word and work is an implicit Christology. In Jesus
as he understood himself, there is an immediate confrontation with ‘God’s
presence and his very self,’ offering judgment and salvation” (Foundations
of New Testament Christology, 106).
The instinct which leads Christians to hand on a copy
of this Gospel to those who do not share the Christian faith is related
to that of the dying believer who turns to it in his latest hours, and
that of the Christian preacher who expounds it in order to deepen the
experience and understanding of Christ among his or her congregation.
The power of this Gospel’s testimony to Christ is an experienced fact.
The
Authorship Of The Fourth Gospel
W. G. Kümmel pointed out that, from earliest times, discussion
of this subject has been conditioned by two questionable presuppositions:
on the one hand, the belief that the apostle John wrote the 4thG has
been passionately upheld, as though the authority of the Gospel depended
on its composition by John; on the other hand, the tradition has been
as strongly attacked, under the conviction that its incorrectness carried
with it the untrustworthiness of the Gospel (Introduction to the
NT, 234). Neither notion can stand. The evidence must be weighed as
dispassionately as possible. Where it is ambiguous the ambiguity should
be acknowledged and conclusions drawn with appropriate reserve.
1.
The External Evidence
The most important witness in the early Church as to
the authorship of our Gospel is Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in the last
quarter of the second century. He wrote: “John, the disciple of the
Lord, who leaned on his breast, also published the gospel while living
at Ephesus in Asia” (Adv. Haer 3.1,2).
The “disciple” is clearly the apostle John, who is identified with the
“beloved disciple” of the Gospel. Irenaeus also acknowledged the authority
of the church in Ephesus, since “it was founded by Paul, and John lived
there till the time of Trajan” (3.3,4). This testimony is the more significant
in view of Irenaeus’ acquaintance with Polycarp, who was martyred in
his old age in a.d. 155.
Irenaeus referred to this in a letter to his friend Florinus; he reminded
him of their endeavors as boys to gain the appprobation of the aged
saint, and in this connection spoke of his memory of those days: “I
am able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat
as he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and the manner
of his life, and his physical appearance, and his discourses to the
people, and the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John
and with others who had seen the Lord” (cited by Eusebius, HE 5.4–8).
Here we have a man who, toward the end of the second century, is able
to claim a link with the apostle John through the mediation of a single
individual, who was a teacher of the Church through the first half of
the second century.
Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, in a letter to Pope Victor
I ca 190, refers to
the “great lights” who were buried in Asia, awaiting the resurrection;
among these were Philip, one of the apostles, and his three daughters
(one of whom “lived in the Holy Spirit”), and “John, who was both a
witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and
being a priest wore the sacral plate; he sleeps at Ephesus” (Eusebius,
HE 3.31.3).
Clement of Alexandria made a famous statement about the
Gospel: “Last of all John, perceiving that the bodily facts had been
made plain in the gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by
the Spirit, composed a spiritual gospel” (Eusebius, HE 4.14.7). He also
reported that the Apostle John went to Ephesus after Domitian’s death,
and went about the surrounding country appointing bishops and consolidating
the churches (Quis dives salvetur, 42:1f.).
The Muratorian Canon, (about a.d. 180–200), expanded Clement’s references to John’s “friends”
who urged him to write the Gospel: “The fourth gospel is by John, one
of the disciples. When his fellow-disciples and bishops exhorted him
he said, ‘Today fast with me for three days, and let us recount to each
other whatever may be revealed to each of us.’ That same night it was
revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should write down
all things under his name, as they all called them to mind. So although
various points are taught in the several books of the gospels, yet it
makes no difference to the faith of believers, since all things in all
of them are declared by one supreme Spirit … ” John’s Gospel is thus
represented as a joint production of a number of the apostles, with
John as their spokesman.
The anti-Marcionite prologue to Luke states that John
the Apostle wrote the Apocalypse on the island of Patmos and wrote the
Gospel afterwards. The prologue to the 4thG states: “According to Papias,
the dear disciple of John, in his five exegetical books, this gospel
was published and sent to the churches of Asia by John himself during
his lifetime.”
While this testimony in the churches to the authorship
of the 4thG by the apostle John appears impressive, it becomes evident
on examination that it is marred by unwarranted elaborations and confusions
concerning those of whom it speaks. One such confusion is seen in the
anti-Marcionite reference to Papias as “the dear disciple of John,”
a mistake shared by Irenaeus, who also called Papias “a hearer of John
and companion of Polycarp” (Adv. Haer 5.33.4). This reflects a misunderstanding of Papias, already pointed
out by Eusebius, who makes it clear that Papias had to rely on presbyters for his information about the teaching of the apostles, and who referred
to the presbyter John as a contemporary of his (see below).
The
anti-Marcionite prologue confuses Philip the apostle with Philip the
Evangelist, whose daughters were prophetesses (Acts 21:8–9). The Muratorian
Canon has reproduced sheer legend in suggesting that a group of the
original Apostles, with Andrew in particular, shared with the apostle
John in the writing of the 4thG; the motive for this is clearly to reinforce
the authority of the Gospel by adducing joint apostolic production of
it—an early example of the tendency to confuse apostolic authority with
apostolic authorship. The notion voiced by Clement of Alexandria that
John the Apostle went to Ephesus from Patmos after Domitian’s death
and pursued an active ministry in the surrounding area is elaborated
in the anti-Marcionite prologue by the assertion that the Apostle wrote
the Apocalypse on Patmos and then wrote the Gospel in Ephesus. The Apostle
would have been nearly a hundred years old when he exercised this ministry
of preaching and writing. Such a ministry is comprehensible of John
the Prophet who wrote the Book of Revelation on Patmos (Rev 1:1–3; 22:9,
18), but hardly of the Apostle of that name.
All this combines to make the testimony of Irenaeus concerning
the traditions about the Fourth Evangelist very uncertain. There is
no reason to doubt his veracity in recounting to Florinus his memories
of Polycarp, but there is ground for questioning his understanding as
a boy of Polycarp’s references to “John.” Here we must consider briefly
his understanding of Papias’ witness. This has been preserved for us
by Eusebius and has been repeated ad nauseam by writers on this
subject, but we have to adduce it again. Papias, in his Exposition
of the Oracles of the Lord, wrote: “I shall not hesitate to append
to the interpretations all that I ever learned from the presbyters and
remember well, for of their truth I am confident.… If ever anyone came
who had followed the presbyters, I inquired into the words of the presbyters,
what Andrew or Peter or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew,
or any other of the Lord’s disciples, had said, and what Aristion and
the presbyter John, the Lord’s disciple, were saying. For I did not
suppose that information from books would help me so much as the word
of a living and surviving voice” (Eusebius, HE 3.39.3 f.).
Had Papias
set out to formulate a puzzle to confuse future generations he could
not have produced a better one than the last two sentences. Nevertheless
it seems reasonably clear that he intended to distinguish between what
“Andrew … or any other of the Lord’s disciples” had said in the past,
and what “Aristion and the presbyter John” were saying in his day.
John the Apostle is named in the first group, John the presbyter in
the second. Moreover, it looks as though Papias had not been instructed
by the presbyter John himself, but that he had learned of his teaching
through “anyone who had followed the presbyters.” From the description
of this presbyter John as “the Lord’s disciple” it would appear that
this presbyter had been a personal disciple of Jesus. That is a noteworthy
point; it could have contributed to the confusion of Irenaeus concerning
the John who had seen the Lord.
There are certain features that are constant in the external
tradition: the exile of John on Patmos; the identification of this John
with the author of Revelation; his return to Ephesus to guide the churches
after the death of Domitian (i.e. after a.d. 98); the affirmation that the same John wrote the 4thG;
the belief that he was John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee. Let us
acknowledge immediately that there is no ground for questioning the
name of the author of the Book of Revelation as John; virtually
all are agreed that there is no case for pseudonymity in the Book of
Revelation.
This John, to judge from the book, must have been a man
of great authority among the churches of Roman Asia. He makes no attempt
to distinguish himself from any other Christian leader by the same name.
He never calls himself an apostle. There is, however, no possibility
that this writer shortly after completing the Revelation wrote the 4thG.
Admittedly, the famous Cambridge trio of Westcott, Lightfoot, and Hort
attempted to preserve the identity of authorship of the two works by
postulating that John the Apostle wrote the Revelation in the confused
period at the end of Nero’s life, a.d. 68, and that he wrote the Gospel
thirty years later, so giving time to the Apostle to improve
his Greek. But this suggestion brings in a fresh and formidable set
of problems concerning the two books.
After pondering the Book of Revelation
for a considerable period I came to the conclusion that the two great
Johannine writings have one feature in common: they express to an unusual
degree the characters, personalities, and ways of thinking of their
respective authors. We have already affirmed the conviction that the
Evangelist had reflected on his material and used it in preaching over
many years; it proceeds from prolonged consideration of the gospel traditions.
So also the Revelation exhibits the thought of a Christian apocalyptist.
It is the product of a mind soaked in the Old Testament, to a degree
to which no other work in the New Testament approximates.
The prophet who wrote this book is so much at home in Jewish apocalyptic literature that
he finds it natural to express the Christian message through this mode
of writing, and he freely utilizes oracles from other apocalyptic works.
A striking example of this is seen in a comparison of Rev 12:1–17 with
John 12:23–26, 31–32. The theology of the two passages is fundamentally
the same: the dethronement of the devil and the enthronement of the
Christ occur through the Redeemer’s death and exaltation to heaven,
which yet entails kindred suffering for the followers of the Lord. But
the modes of expression stand in great contrast: the Evangelist combines
synoptic-like sayings of Jesus with a quasi-apocalyptic utterance, while
the prophet takes over and adapts a Jewish oracle, which itself had
adapted an Ancient Near Eastern myth, to express the victory of the
Messiah and his people over heathen oppressors and the coming of the
divine kingdom.
The Evangelist and the prophet have minds made in different
molds. The difference in their modes of presenting the common faith
is matched by the differences in their language—differences the more
striking in that both authors appear to think in Aramaic and write in
Greek, though they do so in consistently different ways.
A solution of the problem posed by the statements of
early Christian writers concerning the activity of John of Ephesus would
be to recognize that the tradition arose out of the activity of John
the prophet in Roman Asia. He it is who was banished to Patmos and
composed the Book of Revelation; and it is entirely comprehensible that
he was released from his exile in the reign of Trajan, and continued
his ministry among the churches in Roman Asia. On one basis alone would
it be possible to combine this tradition with that of the residence
of John the Apostle in Ephesus, namely, if indeed John the Apostle were
the author of the Book of Revelation.
Such a postulate would be in harmony
with the synoptic picture of John “the son of Thunder,” but there is
not a hint in the Revelation that it was written by an apostle; the
connection between the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles
of the Lamb in the Jerusalem from heaven (Rev 21:13–14) suggests a detached
view of the apostles from one who stands outside the apostolate. Since
John the prophet is almost certainly a Palestinian, his migration to
Ephesus could well have been the beginning of the confusion that attributed
the move to John the Apostle. But the resolution of that issue is inseparably
bound up with the identity of the Beloved Disciple, and to that we must
turn.
2. The Internal Evidence
Westcott’s presentation of the internal evidence relating
to the authorship of the 4thG is justly famous and worthy of mention.
By a series of arguments that move in narrower concentric circles he
sought to show that (i) the author was a Jew, (ii) the
author was a Jew of Palestine, (iii) the author was an eyewitness
of what he describes, (iv) the author was an apostle, (v)
the author was the apostle John (lii–lix). The last two affirmations
depend on the belief that only an apostle could have been an eyewitness
on some of the occasions delineated, especially in the Passion and Resurrection
narratives, and that the disciple whom Jesus loved must have been the
apostle John. It is this last issue, however, on which discussion centered
vigorously the mid 20th century.
“The disciple whom Jesus loved” is first mentioned in
John 13:23–26, and thereafter in 19:25–27; 20:1–10; 21:1–14, 20–24.
With these passages it is commonly believed that 19:34–37 should be
grouped as referring to the same individual, possibly also 18:15–16,
and with greater hesitation, 1:35–40. We shall briefly look at these
texts to see what can be learned from them concerning the author of
the Gospel.
The Beloved Disciple emerges into clear view in 13:23.
His presence at the Last Supper in Jerusalem, and later in the Passion
and Resurrection narratives, claims him as an eyewitness of these crucially
important events. No indication, however, is given as to his identity,
certainly not in chapt. 13. While we tend to assume that only the Twelve
were gathered with Jesus for the Last Supper (cf Mark 14:17 par.), John does not say so; in 13:1 he subsumes the group
under the expression “his own,” and later refers to them as “disciples.”
For our purpose two observations may be made: “the disciple whom Jesus
loved” is not a natural self-designation for an author to use of himself,
were he portraying the event of 13:21–26; second, the phrase "upon Jesus' bosom" in v 23 appears to be an echo
of "in the bosom of the Father" in 1:18; it is apparently intended to convey the
idea that as Jesus was in closest fellowship with the Father and so
was able to “make him known” with peculiar authority, so the Beloved
Disciple was in closest fellowship with Jesus and therefore able to
make him known with very special authority. Such language is
understandable from others about a disciple of Jesus, but inconceivable
from the disciple himself.
Again, a prime element of the significance of 19:25–27
is the presence of a disciple of Jesus at the scene of the crucifixion.
From 16:32, to say nothing of the evidence of the synoptic Gospels,
we may assume that the disciples of Jesus forsook him at the end; but
here is a “disciple” who did not do so, and to him Jesus commits his
mother. It is unlikely that we are intended to view him as one of the
Twelve. There may be a nuance here that as Jesus committed his mother
to the Beloved Disciple, so the followers of Jesus should resort to
him for knowledge of him (so Schnackenburg, 3:457, following Schürmann).
While the disciple who witnessed the spear thrust in
19:34–37 is in no way identified, the proximity of the scene to that
recorded in 19:25–27 and the similarity of language used in vv 34–37
with that in 21:24 make it probable that the Beloved Disciple is in
mind. His function as witness to the actuality and significance of the
Gospel events is heavily emphasized: he attests the reality of the humanity
and the death of Jesus, and the meaning of the latter as the sacrifice
of the Lamb of God, through whom the redemption of the second Exodus
is achieved.
John 20:1–10 describes the race of Peter and the Beloved
Disciple to the tomb of Jesus. The latter reaches the tomb first, but
Peter enters before him, and departs without comprehending what he has
seen; the Beloved Disciple, on the contrary, sees and “believes” (v
9).
The superiority of the insight of the Beloved Disciple
appears again in chapt. 21; he recognizes the figure of the risen Christ
standing on the shore and makes it known to Peter (v 7). The situation
is more complex in vv 20–23. Peter has been restored to ministry for
his Lord and his martyrdom obliquely made known, and he receives the
command from the risen Christ, “Follow me.” His query as to what is
to happen to the Beloved Disciple is countered by the question “If it
is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?” (v 23).
This enables the writer to allude to the misapprehension commonly spread
abroad that Jesus said that the Beloved Disciple should survive until
the Parousia, and so he repeats again the precise words of the Lord.
From this we deduce: (i) the Beloved Disciple was probably dead
at the time of the writing, and the passage was intended to allay the
disappointment of the community; and (ii) the repetition of the
words of the risen Lord in v 23, coupled with the present tense of v
24, “who is bearing witness …,” suggests that the Beloved Disciple “remains”
in the witness he continues to bear; Peter has glorified Christ through
a martyr’s death, and the Beloved Disciple continues his function of
testimony through the Gospel.
What, then, are we to make of v 24: “This is the disciple
who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these
things”? Dodd considered that the reference was solely to the preceding
paragraph, vv 20–23, or that at most it extends to the whole of chapt.
21 (Historical Tradition, 12). The contention is possible, but
unnatural. The immediate sequence of “who has written these things”
in v 24 by the “many other things” which Jesus did and which could hardly
be written (v 25) leads the reader to relate the statement to chaps.
1–20 as well as to chapt. 21. The Gospel, then, in v 24 is put to the
account of the Beloved Disciple, and an attestation is added, “we know
that his testimony is true.” This led Westcott to believe that the sentence
was added by the elders of the church at Ephesus, so making it our earliest
(external) witness to the authorship of the Gospel. On the contrary,
there is no ground for separating v 24 from its context; rather it forms
the climax of the narrative and is most naturally seen as deriving from
the author of the chapterú But the author has so written it as to indicate
that the Beloved Disciple is now deceased! In that case v 24 cannot
be intended to ascribe direct authorship of the Gospel to the Beloved
Disciple; the emphasis of the statement is on the witness of
the disciple (he who bears witness … ), and the term egrapse either has a causal meaning (“caused these things to be written”) or signifies “wrote about these things.” The Beloved Disciple, accordingly, is represented as providing the witness which chapt. 21 and the preceding chapters embody.
Strictly speaking, we must acknowledge that this representation
comes from the writer of chapt. 21; there is uncertainty as to
the origin of the passage, whether it is a postscript or an epilogue,
whether it is added by the Evangelist or by a redactor. Such considerations
raise the possibility that the author of the chapter had one view of
the Beloved Disciple and the Evangelist anotherú H. Thyen supplies yet
another possibility: chapt. 21 is an epilogue to balance the prologue
(1:1–18); both were written by the redactor, who was responsible for
all the passages relating to the Beloved Disciple and whose editorial
labors were such that he should be viewed as the evangelist!
(L’Evangile de Jean, 267). At this point we content ourselves
with noting the closeness of relation between chapt. 21 and chaps. 1–20,
which suggests that, on the least estimate, the author of chapt. 21
belonged to the same circle as that of 1–20, and he is unlikely either
to have misunderstood or diverged from the Evangelist’s view of the
Beloved Disciple (so Schnackenburg, 3:453).
We still do not know who the Beloved Disciple is. The
episode of 21:1–14 tells of an appearance of Jesus to seven disciples,
among whom was the Beloved Disciple. Simon, Thomas, and Nathanael are
named, then the sons of Zebedee, and “two others of his disciples”;
but there is nothing to indicate which of the unnamed four is
the Beloved Disciple.
It would aid us if we could be confident that 18:15–17
relates to the Beloved Disciple; in favor of that identification is
the manner in which “the other disciple” is spoken of, in association
with Peter, in v 16, just as the Beloved Disciple is in 20:2, 4, 8 (<
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;layout-grid-mode:line'> also 21:21–23). This “other
disciple,” who followed Jesus to the High Priest’s house and had Peter
brought into the court, is described as known to the high priest; this does not simply mean an acquaintance of the High Priest, but, in C. H. Dodd’s estimate, one who stood in intimate relations with the High Priest’s family, possibly a relative and of priestly birth (Historical Tradition, 86–87). This would exclude the possibility of identifying this “other” disciple with one of the Twelve. His presence as a disciple in the priestly circles of Jerusalem is of more than ordinary interest, not least as a possible source for certain of the traditions relating to the passion of Jesus.
If we were to include 1:35–40 among the Beloved Disciple
texts, its implication would be considerable, both from the viewpoint
of his earlier background in the circle of John the Baptist’s disciples
and his knowledge of the beginnings of the (Judean) ministry of Jesus.
Admittedly, there are numerous uncertainties here, but
it would appear that the texts relating to the Beloved Disciple hold
well together and present a consistent picture. If chapt. 21 was written
by another author than the Evangelist, he appears to have shared the
tradition relating to the disciple without modification. On the basis
of these texts it is possible to make some tentative statements concerning
the Beloved Disciple and his relation to the author of the 4thG.
(a) The Beloved Disciple is presented as a historical
figure among the early disciples of Jesus and in the continuing Church.
We acknowledge that this has been disputed at times. Bultmann, for example,
believed that the Evangelist intended us to see in the Beloved Disciple
a purely ideal figure, but that he was “historicized” by the redactor
of chapt. 21 (483–84). H. Thyen, however, affirmed that recent Johannine
research shows “a growing and by no means uncritical consensus that
to the literary figure of the Beloved Disciple on the textual level
must correspond, on the level of the real history of Johannine Christianity,
a concrete person”. That the Beloved Disciple served a representative and symbolic function
is entirely consistent with his being a real disciple of Jesus, as with
other figures of the Gospel like Nicodemus, the Samaritan Woman, Lazarus—or
even the pool of Siloam!
(b) The Beloved Disciple is not a member of the
Twelve, nor a well-known person in the early Church. It is difficult
to supply a cogent reason for the Evangelist consistently and completely
hiding his identity if he were a prominent leader like John the Apostle
or Paul, or a well-known individual like John Mark or Lazarus. By contrast
the anonymity is understandable if the designation were the common mode
of referring to a leader within the Johannine churches not known elsewhere;
there would be no need to name the beloved leader.
(c) The Beloved Disciple is not the author of
the Gospel—neither of chaps. 1–20 nor of chapt. 21. This we deduced
from the first mention of his name in 13:23 and from the implications
of 21:21–24, despite the first impression which 21:24 may make. The
texts in which the disciple features present him as the witness on which
the Gospel rests, not its author.
(d) The Beloved Disciple is presented as an eyewitness
of certain crucial events in the Gospel, notably in connection with
the end of the ministry of Jesus and the resurrection appearances. If
1:35–40 and 18:15–16 were included in the relevant texts, this would
greatly strengthen the impression, gained from the other passages, that
the disciple was a Judean and therefore able to narrate elements in
the ministry of Jesus in the south of Palestine and in Jerusalem in
particular. His participation in the movement of John the Baptist and
his involvement in the Jerusalem priestly circles would shed light on
various elements in the background of the 4thG, including its basic
theological thrust.
(e) The authority of the Beloved Disciple extends
beyond the events which he may have witnessed. The implication of 13:23
leads to a view of the disciple as an authoritative interpreter of Jesus,
not simply of the course of events at the close of the ministry of Jesus.
He is the prime source of the traditions about Jesus in the Johannine
circle. J. Roloff illuminatingly compared the role of the Beloved Disciple
with that of the Teacher of Righteousness in the Qumran Community; both
figures are anonymous, and both had decisive influence in their respective
communities as interpreters and exegetes<
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;layout-grid-mode:line'>. While, however, the role of
the Teacher of Righteousness was to be an interpreter of the OT for
his community, that of the Beloved Disciple was to be an interpreter
of Jesus and his revelation (Jesus was the interpreter of the
OT This was beautifully and succinctly expressed by Yu Ibuki: “The revelation
of the one loved by the Father takes place through the one loved by
the Son. Hence the gospel of John can be described as the gospel of
the Beloved according to the Beloved” (Wahrheit 271<
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;layout-grid-mode:line'>).
(f) The relationship of the Beloved Disciple to
Peter requires examination in the exegesis of the passages. Here it
suffices to note that if the superiority of the Beloved Disciple’s insight
is stressed, there is no suggestion of a polemic against Peter. If there
is any thought in the background that Peter represents the official
ministry within the churches and the Beloved Disciple the charismatic
ministries of the Spirit, both ministries are admitted as complementary
within the Church of the Lord. Primarily, however, the authority of
the Beloved Disciple within the Johannine communities is in view, possibly
with an eye on the deviations that were arising from the teaching he
communicates through the Gospel.
(g) As the authority figure to which the Johannine
communities looked, the Beloved Disciple appears to have had a group
of teachers about him. The existence of a Johannine literature alongside
the Gospel, including the three epistles and the Book of Revelation,
points to a group of teachers having a common center of loyalty, with
a diversity not too great to be contained within the unity. Cullmann
postulates that this group consciousness goes back to very early days
within the life of the Church (The Johannine Circle, 39–56).
R. A. Culpepper has filled out the thesis of a Johannine school by giving
a detailed comparison with comparable “schools” in the ancient world
(The Johannine School, 1975). It is important to recognize that
this school, though distinctive within early Christianity, was broad
enough to include apocalyptic Christianity as well as a nonapocalyptic
presentation of the kerygma, and that these coexisted under the greater
unity of faith in the incarnate Word, who through his redeeming acts
has brought the life of the kingdom of God to man.
(h) The identity of the leader of this group remains
the secret of the Evangelist. There has been no lack of suggestions
as to who he may have been: after John the Apostle, Lazarus is a favorite
nomination (cf. 11:5, 36); in addition, John Mark, Matthias, Paul, the Presbyter John,
[a symbol for] Gentile Christianity or free charismatic Christianity
have all been proposed. Most recently H. Thyen has argued in favor of
the elder who wrote 2 and 3 John as the Beloved Disciple (L’Evangile
de Jean, 296–98). In the end we have to admit that these are all
guesses, some with less and some with more plausibility.
As with the Beloved Disciple, so with the Evangelist:
we do not know his name. But our ignorance of his identity entails no
detriment to the value of his work. Those who, like the Alogi
of the second century, have rejected the 4thG as a profound interpretation
of Jesus have thereby passed judgment on themselves. The Church through
the ages has recognized in the Evangelist a unique theologian taught
by the Spirit of truth. Perhaps we should extend the range of that judgment
and view the Evangelist as a master interpreter of the school of the
Beloved Disciple, among whom the Spirit showed his activity in large
measure. The Fourth Gospel is a monument to the presence of the Paraclete
in the Church of the Word made flesh. The work of the Evangelist is
an encouragement to every believer to look to that same Paraclete to
guide into all the truth attested in the Gospel.
Date And Place Of Writing
Of The 4th Gospel<
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;layout-grid-mode:line'>
<
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;layout-grid-mode:line'>
Traditionally the Gospel has been viewed as the last
of the canonical Gospels, and this has remained the general opinion
of most scholars to this day. In the nineteenth century and the earlier
part of this, it became fashionable to assign a very late date to our
Gospel; authorities can be cited for placing it in virtually every decade
of the second century to its last quarter… The reasons for such late
dating were diverse, but, above all, scholars were impressed with the
lack of clear knowledge of the 4thG by early Christian writers and the
advanced nature of the theology of the Gospel. The former factor is
certainly puzzling; to this day scholars differ as to whether the 4thG
can be clearly traced in 1 Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache,
Ignatius, the Shepherd of Hermas, or even the Odes of Solomon; most
are inclined to a negative verdict, but remain uncertain about Ignatius
(the evidence is conveniently assembled by Barrett, 109–15).
Even the apparent use of John 3:3 by Justin Martyr (kai; ga;r oJ Cristo;" ei\pen. “An mh; ajgennhqh`te ouj mh; eijsevlqhte
eij" th;" Basieivan tw`n oujranw`n, <
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;layout-grid-mode:line'> Apol; 61) is disputed by some
as a Johannine reminiscence. The first clear citation of the Gospel
by name is from Theophilus of Antioch, ca a.d. 180,
but Tatian used it, along with the three synoptic Gospels, in his Harmony
of the Gospels, which was probably compiled in Syriac ca
a.d. 160, and then in Greek a.d.
170. The Valentinian Gnostics used and prized the Gospel at an earlier
date, as may be seen in The Gospel of Truth, possibly written
by Valentinus himself, ca a.d. 150.
All this discussion, however, has been put in the shade
by the publication of two papyrus fragments, the Egerton Papyrus 2,
published under the title Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and other
Early Christian Papyri (H. I. Bell and T. C. Skeat, London: British
Museum, 1935), which appears to have used the 4thG along with other
Gospel traditions, and P52, a fragment which includes John 18:31–33,
37–38. This latter papyrus was dated by F. C. Kenyon as “early second
century” (Text of the Greek Bible, 75), and more recently by
K. Aland as “the beginning of the second century” (“Neue Neutestamentliche Papyri II,” NTS 9 [1962–63] 307); on the basis of this papyrus Bultmann concluded
that the Gospel must have been known in Egypt c a.d. 100
In recent years there has been a reaction on the part
of a number of scholars to assigning a late date to the Gospel, believing
it to be either contemporary with or earlier than the synoptic Gospels,
but in any case prior to a.d.
70. The reasons for this are varied, but chief among them are the conviction
as to the independence of the 4thG of the other three; certain primitive
traits in the portrayal of Jesus, such as the regular use of the name
Jesus, Rabbi, teacher, and emphasis on the role of Jesus as the prophet
like Moses; the presentation of the message of Jesus as a genuine extension
of Judaism, reflecting the Christian faith as still contained within
Judaism; allusions to the Temple and other buildings in Jerusalem as
still standing (e.g.,<
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;layout-grid-mode:line'> 5:2), along with absence of
any hint that Jerusalem and its Temple have been destroyed; the marked
influence of the Qumran group, which ceased to exist by a.d. 70; the reflection of concerns
of the Church during the period a.d.
40–70 rather than a 70–100 date (e.g the polemic against John the Baptist, presupposing a continuing strength
of his movement at the time of writing; the commitment of mission to
Israel, reflecting continuing relations between Temple and Church);
the inexplicable gap between the primitive traditions behind the 4thG
and their publication if the Gospel was written at the end of the first
century (on these arguments see J. A. T. Robinson, Redating,
254–84).
Most scholars find this position difficult to accept.
Many are ready to acknowledge the early date of the traditions
utilized in the Gospel, but they believe that their final embodiment
in the Gospel will have taken place at a later date. The moot point
is how much later; how long does it require for the theological maturity
of the 4thG to develop? Centuries could roll by without its emergence,
but the early Christological hymns of the NT like Phil 2:6–11 and Col
1:15–20, show what can happen within a single generation, and the minds
behind the 4thG were not ordinary. The final chapter of the Gospel (21)
appears to reflect the passing of the Beloved Disciple, but again that
cannot of itself determine the date at which it happened, though it
suggests one not earlier than a.d. 70. Most important are the relations
between the synagogue and the Christian communities reflected in the
Gospel. F. L. Cribbs maintains that the Gospel assumes they are open,
whereas J. L. Martyn holds that by the time of the final redaction of
the Gospel they have become irreparably broken off. The problem is posed
by the references in the Gospel to the Jews making confessors of Jesus
as Messiah ajposunavgwgoi (9:22;
12:42; 16:2). It is urged that these passages presume not a disciplinary
exclusion from the synagogue (for a short time, till amendment is evident),
but ejection from the synagogue, carrying with it exclusion from the
community life of the Jews.
W. Schrage, for example, in his article
on Drive out from the synagogue, writes:
“Plain in all three references is the fact that an unbridgeable gulf
has now opened up between Church and Synagogue, so that exclusion on
the part of the latter is total. To think in terms of the lesser synagogue
ban is a trivializing; this is no mere excommunication but total expulsion,
a result of the birkath ha-minim” (TDNT<
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;layout-grid-mode:line'> 7:852; similarly Str-B 4:331,
followed by most commentators). This “blessing about the heretics,”
ironically so termed, relates to an addition to the Eighteen Benedictions,
which constituted the daily prayers of all pious Jews and were repeated
in every synagogue service. The Twelfth Benediction reads: “For the
apostates let there be no hope, and let the arrogant government be speedily
uprooted in our days. Let the Nazarenes and the heretics be destroyed
in a moment, and let them be blotted out of the book of life and not
be inscribed together with the righteous. Blessed are You, O Lord,
who humble the arrogant.”
<
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;layout-grid-mode:line'>The tractate Ber. 28b declares that the benediction was composed in Jamnia by Samuel the
Small, in response to a request by Gamaliel II for someone to word a
benediction relating to the “minim.” From the first the “minim” (= heretics)
probably denoted the Christians, for in Jewish eyes they were the arch-heretics,
and the most dangerous; it is likely that the prayer mentioned them
alone when it was first composed, and that later “the Nazarenes” was
added to make the reference explicit. The date when this version of
the “blessing” was composed is commonly put at a.d.
85, possibly a few years later. J. L. Martyn makes this event the fixed
point in his reconstruction of the composition of the 4thG, and the
development of synagogue-church relations reflected in it. On this basis
the 4thG cannot be dated earlier than the decade 90–100, and toward
its end rather than its beginning. That is, indeed, the date favored
by most Johannine scholars, and this appears to have set it on a firm
foundation.
The foundation, however, may not be as firm as many assume.
Not a few Johannine scholars remain unconvinced that the Twelfth Benediction
is in view in the Evangelist’s employment of the term ajposunavgwgo", partly
by reason of the similar situation envisaged in Luke 6:22, and partly
through the record of the treatment of Jewish Christians in Acts (e.g.,<
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;layout-grid-mode:line'> of Stephen, chaps. 6–7, and
of Paul, 13:50) and Paul’s own references to like experiences (see especially
1 Thess 2:14–16.
It seems that the date of the 4thG is less capable of
precise determination than is frequently represented. But that is nothing
new in Gospel criticism! The dates of the synoptic Gospels are uncertain;
there is not one of them for which we can set a date of composition
with complete confidence. Whereas it was common to date Mark a.d. 65–67 (shortly after the deaths of Paul and Peter), it
is now fashionable to set it shortly after the Jewish war, on the ground
that Mark 13 was composed to moderate the apocalyptic fever caused by
the fall of Jerusalem; one would have thought, however, that the apocalyptic
fever would be no less intense in the early days of that war, and as
it moved toward its climax. Matthew is frequently dated about a.d.
90, on the ground of its reflection of the deliberations of Jamnia and
the Birkath
ha-minim in particular. And Luke must be set about the
same time through its relations with Matthew. If it be so that the Fourth
Evangelist was acquainted with the synoptic Gospels but did not use
them, this is not without significance for us. One is reminded of the
simile that Austin Farrer used when discussing the date of the Book
of Revelation: “The datings of all these books (i.e., Revelation and the gospels) are like a line of tipsy revellers walking
home arm-in-arm; each is kept in position by the others and none is
firmly grounded” (The Revelation of St. John the Divine [Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1964] 37). When one considers the other companions
of the 4thG, namely, the three epistles of John and their authors, it
is clear that unusual care is required in our estimates, or the whole
lot will fall down!
What is eminently plausible is the origin of the traditions
of the 4thG at an early date, and their development over a considerable
period. A process akin to that proposed by R. E. Brown and O. Cullmann
is most likely: an early tradition within the Johannine community became
crystallized in the preaching and teaching of the Beloved Disciple,
and it was taken up by the Evangelist and embodied in his own way in
the Gospel. The Birkath ha-minim<
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;layout-grid-mode:line'> may be viewed as an indicator
of the tensions between the Jewish Christians and their non-Christian
compatriots presupposed by the Evangelist, but not as a chronological
marker that had already been passed. A date around a.d.
80 would satisfy the evidence, but we admit that to be no more than
a plausible guess.
Various areas have been suggested as a possible venue
for the writing of the 4thG.
Ephesus has been traditionally
viewed as the place of its composition, owing to the testimony of the
Fathers (e.g.,<
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;layout-grid-mode:line'> Irenaeus: “John, the disciple
of the Lord … published the gospel while living at Ephesus in Asia,”
Adv. Haer. 3.1.2).
As we saw in our consideration of the authorship of the Gospel, this
tradition appears to have been primarily determined by the ministry
of John the prophet, who wrote the Book of Revelation and sent it to
the churches of Roman Asia. Whether or not John the prophet was identical
with John the Apostle, he cannot be viewed as the author of the 4thG.
Alexandria: While there
is more than this to be said in favor of the Ephesian origin of the
Gospel, it was this confusion of the tradition relating to John the
prophet in Ephesus that caused Kirsopp Lake to regard the persistent
linking of the 4thG with Ephesus as a curiosity of criticism. Observing
that “the gospel is extremely Philonic,” he thought it likely that it
came from Alexandria (Introduction to the NT,<
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;layout-grid-mode:line'> 53). J. N. Sanders was earlier
attracted to this idea, and supported it by pointing out the affinities
of the Gospel with the Epistle of Barnabas and that to Diognetus, its
use by the Egyptian Gnostics, and the early circulation of the Gospel
in Egypt as attested by the papyri Egerton 2 and p<
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;layout-grid-mode:line'>52 (The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church, 85–86). W. H. Brownlee
likewise lent his support to the Alexandrian origin of the Gospel; he
drew attention to the large Jewish and Samaritan populations in the
city, terming it “a little Palestine” in which most of the parties to
which the 4thG was addressed were found, and the fanaticism of the city,
where such passages as John 8:58 f., ff.; 10:29–30; 16:2 would have a comprehensible setting (“Whither the Gospel
according to John?” 189–90). These arguments are interesting, but hardly
compelling. Sanders later abandoned the Alexandrian hypothesis in favor
of the Ephesian tradition (“St. John on Patmos,” NTS<
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;layout-grid-mode:line'> 9 [1962–63] 75–85). It may be
pointed out that the Egyptian sands have preserved for us papyri of
all the Gospels and fragments of almost all the books of the NT,<
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;layout-grid-mode:line'> and we may yet hope to recover
further remains of them all.
Antioch: Early in the twentieth
century F. C. Conybeare drew attention to a statement, attributed to
Ephraem the Syrian, in the Armenian version of his commentary on the
Diatessaron: “John wrote in Antioch where he lived till Trajan’s time”<
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;layout-grid-mode:line'>.
<
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;layout-grid-mode:line'>The claim sounds
suspiciously like an accommodation of a different tradition due to local
Syrian patriotism, and its authenticity has been disputed. Nevertheless,
the suggestion that the Gospel originated in Syria has attracted a number
of scholars, including C. F. Burney, E. Schweizer, E. Haenchen, and
W. G. Kümmel. In its favor can be urged the Aramaic tradition behind
the Greek text of the Gospel, its close affinities with Ignatius, bishop
of Antioch, and with the Odes of Solomon, and the kinship of
the discourse material with Syrian Gnosticism (so especially Bultmann-Schmithals,
12). There is no denying the attractiveness of this view. One must acknowledge,
however, that it is difficult to define precisely the locality of the
type of Gnosticism with which the Fourth Evangelist was confronted;
in the Nag Hammadi gnostic writings of Egypt, the Gospel of Truth, which
shows conspicuous connections with the 4thG, also has affinities with
the Odes of Solomon.
Palestine: More recently,
there has been an interest in locating the Gospel in Palestine, not
least in view of the nature of its contacts with Qumran, with Samaritan
religion, and with varied other strains of Judaism. J. L. Martyn has
urged this from the point of view of the relations between the Synagogue
and the Church reflected in the Gospel. He would see the Gospel as rooted
in a purely Jewish city, subject to the authority of the synagogue and
of the council of Jamnia. He traces a developing situation in the Gospel:
(a) the believers in Jesus are part of the synagogue, they are
Christian Jews in the strictest sense, and the Gentile mission is not
on their horizon; (b) the believers are forced to separate from
the synagogue through excommunication, which leads to the infliction
of the death penalty on some of its leaders; (c) a movement to
firm social and theological configurations (“History of the Johannine
Community,” 151–75).
We have already discussed some of the issues bound up
with this view. That the 4thG has its roots in Palestine is virtually
certain. That the entire development of the Johannine tradition up to
its publication took place in Palestine is less certain. The Gospel
suggests wider horizons than purely Jewish communities in Israel’s land.
It is doubtful that the prologue would ever have been formulated in
its present terms in an exclusively Jewish setting in Palestine. We
need to recall at this point our review of the religious relations of
the 4thG, which are uncommonly wide for a document of the NT. The relation of the incarnation, ministry, death, and exaltation of Jesus
to the cosmos similarly needs to be taken into account; it is false
to the heart of the 4thG to minimize the significance of John 3:16,
with kindred passages like 12:20–23, 31–32; 11:50–52; the implications
for mission of 10:16; 17:20–23; 20:21 (cf. 17:18; 21:1–11), and the eschatological significance of 4:23–24, 42.
The Evangelist may have subordinated the expression “kingdom of God”
to the more personal one of “life,” but the reality is fundamental to
the Gospel; and it is an impossible idea that in the 4thG the kingdom
that came in the redemptive ministry of Jesus is restricted to a Jewish
horizon. That representatives of the Gospel could be subject to disciplinary
measures of Jewish courts outside Palestine is evident from the Book
of Acts and the letters of Paul.
It would seem desirable, then, to acknowledge the growth
of the 4thG as a process indebted to more than one area. Its origin
in a form of Palestinian Judaism which was open to influences other
than Pharisaism is clear; we have already recognized its links with
the Qumran sect and Samaritanism, as well as with rabbinic and hellenistic
Judaism. In view of the nearness of Syria to the Jewish homeland, and
the growth of the Church in Damascus and Antioch especially, it would
not be surprising if Syrian thought left its stamp on the Johannine
tradition. But Ephesus cannot be dismissed, not simply by reason of
the external tradition of John’s domicile in the city, but because of
the presence of the Johannine school in that area, to which the Book
of Revelation bears witness. We have clear attestation within the NT of Gnosticizing activities in Roman Asia, as is evident from the letter
to the Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, the Johannine letters, Revelation
2–3 (which also attest intense opposition between Jews and Christians,
2:9 and 3:9), and possibly 2 Peter and Jude.
The
Purpose of the 4TH G<
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;layout-grid-mode:line'><
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;layout-grid-mode:line'>
Earlier discussions on the purpose of the Gospel frequently
were dominated by a concern to determine whether the 4TH G was written
to supplement the other three, or to interpret them, or even to correct
them. Clement of Alexandria’s statement “John, perceiving that the bodily
facts had been made plain in the gospel … composed a spiritual gospel”
would possibly include the first two alternatives. Windisch gave striking
expression to the last view; convinced that John wrote to supersede
the other Gospels, he set at the beginning of his work Johannes
und die Synoptiker<
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;layout-grid-mode:line'> the saying of John 10:8, “All
others who have come before me are thieves and robbers.” Yet there is
no hint in the Gospel that the Evangelist adopts any stance toward the
synoptic Gospels. The most that we can say with confidence is that he
writes to provide an authoritative interpretation of the traditions
concerning Jesus current in his own communities, whether oral or written.
In so doing he is concerned above all to impart an adequate understanding
of the person, words, and deeds of Jesus the Christ and Son of God.
The last sentence consciously alludes to the Evangelist’s
own statement of purpose that he provided in 20:30–31: “There are many
other signs which Jesus did.… These have been written that you may believe
that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that through believing
you may have life in his name.” Unfortunately there lies an ambiguity
in the phrase “that you may believe,” and it is compounded by uncertainty
as to whether the original text read i{na pisteuvshte
i{na pisteuvhte<
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;layout-grid-mode:line'>; the former could suggest the
making of an act of faith, the latter a continuing in faith… “This has
been written that you may (continue) believing that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God, and that as those continuing to believe in his name
you may hold on to life”. In
support of this is urged that the language reflects the Church’s catechetical
teaching rather than the language of mission, and that the Christology
of the Gospel seems to have been formed in order to illuminate the Church
in its struggle with opponent, rather than to convert people outside
the Church.
In Barrett’s view, John “attempted and achieved the essential
task of setting forth the faith once delivered to the saints in the
new idiom, for the winning of new converts to the church, for the
strengthening of those who were unsettled by the new winds of doctrine,
and for the more adequate exposition of the faith itself”. This reference
to the “new winds of doctrine” raises the issue of the polemical aims
of the 4TH G.
That such polemical aims were in the Evangelist’s mind
is undoubted, but they were not all of equal importance. Of the less
urgent kind is the polemic against contemporary views of John the Baptist.
The poem cited in the prologue is interrupted with a statement on the
purpose of John’s ministry and its limitations (“He was not that light,
but came to bear witness to the light,” v 8). Other reports of John’s
teaching, especially in 1:19–23, 29–31; 3:25–30, bear a similar slant
and suggest that the Evan gelist had a subsidiary purpose in correcting
current tendencies to elevate the role of John the Baptist in relation
to the kingdom of God. This would have applied primarily to disciples
of John (cf.<
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;layout-grid-mode:line'> Acts 19:1–7), but also perhaps
to Jews in their polemic against Christians; these may have made capital
out of the divergence between John and Jesus, charging Jesus with initiating
a breakaway from the teaching of John.
More important in the Gospel is the polemic against “the
Jews.” The record of the acts and teaching of Jesus in the Gospel is
to no small degree determined by objections against Jesus voiced by
Jewish leaders in his time and by Jewish opponents of the Church in
the Evangelist’s day. This we have already discussed in connection with
the form of the Gospel. Here we observe that when “the Jews” are spoken
of in a pejorative manner, the term generally denotes the Jewish leaders
(especially Pharisees) in their opposition to Jesus and his followers;
because of that they have become the prime representatives of the (godless)
world that stands in opposition to God. John writes to expose the nature
of this hostility to the Son of God, to elucidate the revelation brought
by Jesus and how it answers the Jewish objections, to encourage Christians
to maintain their Christian confession despite the sufferings they endure
from Jewish opponents, and to provide an appeal to Jews to give heed
to the witness to Jesus borne by Moses and the prophets and the signs
which Jesus did (cf. 5:19–47).
The possibility of an anti-Gnostic polemic in the Gospel
has been discussed over many years, accentuated through the clear intention
of the Johannine epistles to correct docetic views of Jesus. That the
Gospel was used alike by Gnostics, and by orthodox in refuting Gnosticism,
suggests that the Evangelist was concerned to win as well as refute
those who held such views. It is also possible that the polemic against
docetism had in view members of the Johannine communities who had withdrawn
from the Church on the basis of their Christology and who were posing
a threat to those who remained (note the contemporary relevance of 6:60–69).
That the Evangelist himself was inclined to a docetic
view of Jesus, is excluded by the language of the Gospel. The celebrated
statement of 1:14 “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we
looked on his glory” goes beyond a mere assertion of the Logos coming
among men that they might see his glory; rather the sa;rx ejgevneto<
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;layout-grid-mode:line'> signifies becoming something
that the Logos was not beforehand, namely, flesh. It is a real
incarnation of the Logos that is asserted here, rendering impossible
the notion of at least one influential stream of docetism, that the
Logos was not truly one with the man Jesus (cf. 1 John 4:2). A like assertion of the unity of the heavenly redeemer with
the flesh and blood of the man Jesus is at the heart of the discourse
in chapt. 6, most strongly expressed in 6:51–58. And the most natural
interpretation of 19:34 is to see it as possessing an anti-docetic intention
(cf. 1 John
5:6–8), along with its theological purposes in relation to the OT scriptures
The
Structure of the 4th G<
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;layout-grid-mode:line'>
The fundamental plan of the Gospel is plain, and it is
acknowledged by most exegetes: after the prologue of 1:1–18 an account
is given of the public ministry of Jesus to the end of chapt. 12; the
latter half of the Gospel portrays the last week of the life of Jesus,
including his ministry to the disciples in the Upper Room, his arrest,
trial, death, and resurrection, and an epilogue in chapt. 21. C. H.
Dodd, along with other writers, is content to divide the Gospel into
two main sections: viewing chapter 1 as introductory, he describes chaps.
2–12 as the Book of Signs and chaps. 13–20 as the Book of the Passion
(Interpretation, 289). R. E. Brown follows suit, preferring to
use the nomenclature “Book of Signs” and “Book of Glory” (l:cxxxviii–ix).
This division is helpful, since it calls attention to the importance
of the “signs” in the ministry of Jesus, with which most of the discourses
are linked, as also to the extended treatment of the passion of Jesus,
viewed as his glorification. Nevertheless, it is necessary to bear in
mind that in the passage that describes the purpose of the book, 20:30–31,
the whole work is viewed as a book of signs. This remains true,
even if, as some contend, 20:30–31 originally related to a collection
of signs that Jesus performed; the Evangelist has chosen to set the
statement at the climactic point in his account of the passion and resurrection
of Jesus, with the intention, presumably, of including the “lifting
up” of the Son of Man as the ultimate sign of the Christ for man. Likewise,
while the anticipation of the passion and glory of Jesus is so vivid
in chaps. 13–17 that the hour is viewed as having arrived, the anticipation
of that passion and glory dominates the account of the two signs in
the programmatic chapt. 2, and it is so prominent from 1:29 on that
the whole Gospel may be said to be the story of the passion and
glory of Jesus. It is also important to recog nize that the structure
of sign and discourse in chaps. 2–12 is interlaced with another prime
theme of John, namely, the fulfillment of the feasts of the Jews in
the ministry of Jesus. This occupies the field entirely in chaps. 7–8,
where the narration of signs performed by Jesus is replaced by the rites
of the Feast of Tabernacles, which the Evangelist does not trouble to
describe, but whose significance he expounds in relation to Jesus in
the developing discourse. In chapt. 6 the exposition of the two signs
of the multiplication of the loaves and the walking on the water is
combined with the theme of Jesus as the fulfillment of Passover,
while in 10:22–38 there are overtones from the sign of the healing of
the man born blind in the exposition of Jesus as the fulfillment of
the feast of the Dedication of the Temple. Accordingly we must be sure
that our desire for attractive or attention-drawing analyses of the
Gospel does not detract from the emphases that the Evangelist himself
makes in his Gospel.
By contrast there is a clear groundwork or plan
of the Gospel. Not infrequently, people allege a “chaotic” state of
the text of the Gospel (in relation to its present order), and warnings
are given not to read the Gospel too schematically. However, it does appear that the Evangelist gave careful thought
to the form of his work. J. H. Bernard drew attention to how John achieves
a sense of climax a the conclusions of major sections of his Gospel;
notably 1:18, the conclusion of the prologue; 12:36b–50, the climax
of his description of the public ministry of Jesus; 20:30–31, the conclusion
of the resurrection narratives and of the Gospel itself; and 21:24–25
at the end of the epilogue (xxiii). The same is observable in the sections
that fall within the major divisions: the testimonies to Jesus of chapt.
1 lead up to the climactic 1:51; the section 2:1–4:42 comes to a climax
in the notable confession of 4:42; the signs and discourse of 4:43–5:47
in the forceful passage 5:45–47; the account of chapt. 6 in the dramatic
6:66–70; the controversial chaps. 7–8 in the astonishing 8:58–59; chaps.
9–10 in the not unrelated 10:40–42; the sign of chapt. 11 in vv 43–44,
and the highpriestly plot in the suspense of 11:55–57; the instruction
of the Upper Room discourses in the triumphant 16:33; the prayer in
the peace and assurance of 17:24–26; the account of the passion in the
dramatic episode of Thomas, 20:24–28, the beatitude of v 29, and the
conclusion of vv 30–31. Whatever the antecedent traditions the Evangelist
worked with, or whatever may be said in favor of transpositions of the
text delivered to us, there can be little doubt that the account of
the ministry that lies before us in the 4TH G displays signs of most
careful construction, as the following analysis of the Gospel will show.
Outline of the 4th Gospel
I. 1:1–18: The Prologue
II. 1:19–12:50: The Public Ministry of Jesus
A. 1:19–51: Testimonies to Jesus;The
Witness of John the Baptist and the Early Disciples.
B. 2:1–4:42:
The Revelation of the New Order in Jesus. Two signs exhibiting the new order, the water into wine and the
cleansing of the temple (chapt. 2); the Nicodemus discourse answering
to the former (chapt. 3); the Samaritan discourse answering to the latter
(chapt. 4).
C. 4:43–5:47:
Jesus the Mediator of Life and Judgment. Two signs, the healing of the
officer’s son and the paralytic at Bethesda, with discourse elucidating
their significance in relation to Jesus’ eschatological task.
D. 6:1–71: Jesus the Bread of Life. Two signs, the feeding
of the multitude and Jesus’ walking on the water, with a discourse expounding
their significance and revealing Jesus as the fulfillment of the Passover
feast.
E. 7:1–8:59:
Jesus the Water and Light of Life. Jesus as the fulfillment of the Feast
of Tabernacles; the conflict between the representatives of God and
the world.
F. 9:1–10:42:
Jesus the Light and Shepherd of Humankind. The sign of the healing of
the man born blind, the discourse on the Good Shepherd, and Jesus as
the fulfillment of the feast of the Dedication of the Temple.
G. 11:1–54: Jesus the Resurrection and the Life. The sign
of the healing of Lazarus and the plot of the high priests against Jesus.
H. 11:55–12:50:
Jesus the King, Triumphant through Death. Two significant
acts, the anointing of Jesus and his entry into Jerusalem, with a discourse
on his glorification and epilogue to his ministry.
III.
13:1–20:31 The Passion and Resurrection
of Jesus
A. 13:1–17:26: The Ministry of Jesus to the Disciples in the
Upper Room
1. 13:1–30: The Foot Washing A sign of cleansing through
the death of Jesus and example to be followed.
2. 13:31–14:31:
The Departure and the Return Of Jesus
3. 15:1–17: Jesus the True Vine
4. 15:18–16:4a: The Hatred of the World for the Church
5. 16:4b–33: The Joy That Overcomes Tribulation
6. 17:1–26: The Prayer of Consecration
B. 18:1–20:31:
Death and Resurrection of Jesus
1. 18:1–11:the arrest of jesus
2. 18:12–27:the trial before the high priest
3. 18:28–19:16a:the trial before pilate
4. 19:16b–42:the crucifixion and burial of jesus
5. 20:1–31:the resurrection of jesus
IV. 21:1–25: Epilogue: The Mission of the disciples
|
|
These Courses