The Gospel according to John

From R.E. Brown, Introduction to the New Testament

Stylistic Features

§1. Poetic format.
§2. Misunderstanding?
§3. Twofold meanings.
§4. Irony.
§5. Inclusions and transitions.
§6. Parentheses or footnotes

General Analysis of the Message

Prologue (Jn 1:1-18)
Part One: The Book of Signs (1:19-12:50)
Part Two: The Book of Glory (13:1-20:31)
Epilogue (21:1-25)

Is John a Genuine Gospel?

Comparison of John to the Synoptic Gospels
Unity and Cohesiveness of John
Authorship and the Beloved Disciple
Influences on Johannine Thought
History of the Johannine Community
Issues and Problems for Reflection

John has some significant stylistic features that should be brought to the readers' attention from the start. Then, as with the preceding chapters, in the General Analysis we shall read through the Fourth Gospel in its present form, tracing its thought patterns before theorizing about the origins of this Gospel. That theorizing will come in subdivisions devoted to such topics as: John as a genuine Gospel, Comparison to the Synoptic Gospels, Unity and cohesiveness, Authorship role of the Beloved Disciple, Influences on Johan-nine thought, History of the Johannine community, Issues for reflection, and Bibliography.

Stylistic Features

John is a Gospel where style and theology are intimately wedded, as we shall see in features discussed below.

§1. Poetic format.

In a few sections of John many scholars recognize a formal poetic style, even marked by strophes, e.g., the Prologue and perhaps Jn 17. But the issue raised here is much wider: a uniquely solemn pattern in the Johannine discourses that some would call semipoetic. The characteristic feature of this poetry would not be parallelism of lines (as in the OT) or rhyme, but rhythm, i.e., lines of approximately the same length, each constituting a clause. Whether or not one agrees that the discourses should be printed in poetic format,2 the fact that Jesus speaks more solemnly in John than in the Synoptics is obvious. One explanation draws on the OT: There divine speech (God through the prophets or personified divine Wisdom) is poetic, signaling a difference from more prosaic human communication. The Johannine Jesus comes from God, and therefore it is appropriate that his words be more solemn and sacral.

§2. Misunderstanding?

Although he comes from above and speaks of what is "true" or "real" (i.e., heavenly reality), Jesus, the Word become flesh, must use language from below to convey his message. To deal with this anomaly, he frequently employs figurative language or metaphors to describe himself or to present his message. In an ensuing dialogue the questioner will misunderstand the figure or metaphor, and take only a material meaning. This allows Jesus to explain his thought more thoroughly and thereby to unfold his doctrine. Stemming from the Johannine theology of the incarnation, such misunderstanding has become a studied literary technique. (See Jn 2:19-21; Jn 3:3-4; Jn 4:10-11; Jn 6:26-27; Jn 8:33-35; Jn 11:11-13.)

§3. Twofold meanings.

Sometimes playing into misunderstanding, sometimes simply showing the multifaceted aspect of revelation, a double meaning often can be found in what Jesus says, (a) There are plays on various meanings of a given word that Jesus uses, meanings based on either Hebrew or Greek; sometimes the dialogue partner may take one meaning, while Jesus intends the other. (Various terms in Jn 3:3,8 (n. 20 below)); "lifted up" in Jn 3:14; Jn 8:28; Jn 12:34 (crucifixion and return to God); "living water" in Jn 4:10 (flowing water and life-giving water); "die for" in Jn 11:50-52 (instead or on behalf of), (b) In the Fourth Gospel the author frequently intends the reader to see several layers of meaning in the same narrative or in the same metaphor. This is understandable if we think back to the circumstances in which the Gospel was composed, involving several time levels. There is a meaning appropriate to the historical context in the public ministry of Jesus; yet there may be a second meaning reflecting the situation of the believing Christian community. For example, the prediction of Jesus that the Temple sanctuary would be destroyed and replaced in Jn 2:19-22 is reinterpreted to refer to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus' body. The Bread of Life discourse seems to refer to divine revelation and wisdom in Jn 6:35-51a and to the eucharist in Jn 6:51b-58. As many as three different meanings may have been intended in the imagery of the Lamb of God (Jn 1:29,36: apocalyptic lamb, paschal lamb, and suffering servant who went to slaughter like a lamb), (c) Duplicate speeches. Occasionally a speech of Jesus seems to say essentially the same thing as a speech already reported, sometimes to the point of verse-to-verse correspondence. P. 367 below suggests a possible solution: A redactor (editor who worked over the Gospel after the evangelist had finished the basic work) found in the tradition other versions of discourse material duplicating in part the versions that the evangelist had included and added them at an appropriate place lest they be lost. (Compare Jn 3:31-36 to Jn 3:7-18; Jn 5:26-30 to Jn 5:19-25; Jn 10:9 to Jn 10:7-8; Jn 10:14 to Jn 10:11; Jn 16:4b-33 to Jn 14.) At times there is a different tone in the duplicate material.

§4. Irony.

 A particular combination of twofold meaning and misunderstanding is found when the opponents of Jesus make statements about him that are derogatory, sarcastic, incredulous, or, at least, inadequate in the sense that they intend. However, by way of irony these statements are often true or more meaningful in a sense that the speakers do not realize. (Jn 3:2; Jn 4:12; Jn 6:42; Jn 7:35; Jn 9:40-41; Jn 11:50.)

§5. Inclusions and transitions.

The careful structure of the Gospel is indicated by certain techniques. By inclusion we mean that John mentions a detail (or makes an allusion) at the end of a section that matches a similar detail at the beginning of the section. This is a way of packaging sections by tying together the beginning and the end. Large inclusions are Jn 1:1 with Jn 20:28; Jn 1:28 with Jn 10:40; smaller inclusions are Jn 1:19 with Jn 1:28; Jn 2:11 with Jn 4:54; Jn 9:2-3 with Jn 9:41; Jn 11:4 with Jn 11:40. By way of transition from one subdivision of the Gospel to the next, the evangelist likes to use a "swing"

6. There are other interpretations of these levels. Reinhartz, Word, who holds that the Gospel is fiction, posits a level concerned with Jesus, a level concerned with the Johannine Christians in the lst-century diaspora, and a cosmological level involving the encounter of the Word of God with the world.

7. P. D. Duke, Irony in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: Knox, 1985), treats other Johannine features under this broad title. See also G. R. O'Day, Revelation in the Fourth Gospel. Narrative Mode and Theological Claim (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986).

 ("hinge") motif or section - one that concludes what has gone before and introduces what follows. E.g., the Cana miracle terminates the call of the disciples in chap. 1, fulfilling the promise in Jn 1:50, but also opens the next subdivision of Jn 2:1-4:54 that runs from the first Cana miracle to the second. The second Cana miracle concludes that subdivision, but by stressing Jesus' power to give life (4:50) prepares for the next subdivision (5:1-10:42) where Jesus' authority over life will be challenged.

§6. Parentheses or footnotes

Frequently John supplies parenthetical notes, explaining the meaning of Semitic terms or names (e.g., "Messiah," "Cephas," "Siloam," "Thomas" in Jn 1:41,42; Jn 9:7; Jn 11:16), offering background for developments in the narrative and for geographical features (e.g., Jn 2:9; Jn 3:24; Jn 4:8; Jn 6:71; Jn 9:14, Jn 22-23; Jn 11:5,13), and even supplying theological perspectives (e.g., clarifying references from a later standpoint in Jn 2:21-22; Jn 7:39; Jn 11:51-52; Jn 12:16,33; or protecting Jesus' divinity in Jn 6:6,64). Some of these may reflect a situation where a tradition transmitted at first in one context (Palestinian or Jewish) is now being proclaimed in another context (diaspora or Gentile).

General Analysis of the Message

Close attention to the detailed outline at the beginning of the Chapter will be helpful; for, as §5 above indicates, the Gospel has been carefully arranged to illustrate themes chosen by the evangelist.

Prologue (Jn 1:1-18)

Serving as a preface to the Gospel, the Prologue10 is a hymn that encapsulates John's view of Christ. A divine being (God's Word (Jn 1:1,14), who is also the light (Jn 1:5,9) and God's only Son (Jn 1:14,18)) comes into the world and becomes flesh. Although rejected by his own, he empowers all who do accept him to become God's children, so that they share in God's fullness - a gift reflecting God's enduring love11 that outdoes the loving gift of the Law through Moses. The background of this poetic description of the descent of the Word into the world and the eventual return of the Son to the Father's side (1:18) lies in the OT picture of personified Wisdom (especially Sirach 24 and Ws 9) who was in the beginning with God at the creation of the world and came to dwell with human beings when the Law was revealed to Moses. In agreement with the tradition that JBap's ministry was related to the beginning of Jesus', the Prologue is interrupted twice, viz., to mention JBap before the light comes into the world (1:6-8) and to record JBap's testimony to Jesus after the Word becomes flesh (1:15). This testimony will be picked up in Part One to follow.

Part One: The Book of Signs (1:19-12:50)

This part of the Gospel will show Jesus bringing different types of people to believe in him while at the same time provoking many among "the Jews" to hostility. At the end (12:39-40) the Gospel quotes Is 6:10 to the effect that God has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts that they might not see. Thus this "Book" illustrates the theme from the Prologue (Jn 1:11): "To his own he came; yet his own did not accept him."

1. Initial Days of the Revelation of Jesus to His Disciples under Different Titles (1:19-2:11).

 In a pattern of separate days (Jn 1:29,35,43; Jn 2:1)12 John shows a gradual recognition of who Jesus is. On the first day (Jn 1:19-28) JBap explains his own role, rejecting laudatory identifications and predicting the coming of one of whom he is unworthy. On the next day (Jn 1:29-34) JBap explains Jesus' role. As befits "one sent by God" (Jn 1:6), JBap perceptively recognizes Jesus as the Lamb of God, as one who existed beforehand, and as God's chosen one (or Son - disputed reading of 1:34). On the next day (Jn 1:35-42) Jesus is followed by Andrew and another disciple of JBap (the one who by the second part of the Gospel will have become the disciple whom Jesus loved?). Andrew hails Jesus as teacher and Messiah, and Simon (Andrew's brother) is brought to Jesus, who names him "Cephas" (i.e., rock = Peter; cf. Mk 3:16; Mt 16:18). On the next day (Jn 1:43-51) he (Andrew, Peter, or Jesus?) finds Philip, who in turn finds Nathanael, and Jesus is identified successively as the one described in the Mosaic Law and the prophets, as the Son of God, and the King of Israel. Yet Jesus promises that they will see far greater things and speaks of himself as the Son of Man upon whom the angels ascend and descend. The "far greater things" seem to begin in Cana on the third day (Jn 2:1-11) when Jesus changes water to wine and his disciples come to believe in him.

Certain Johannine theological emphases appear in this first subsection. A legal atmosphere colors the narrative, e.g., JBap is interrogated by "the Jews,"13 and he testifies and does not deny - an indication that some of the Johannine tradition was shaped in a forensic context, possibly in a synagogue where Christians were interrogated about their belief in Jesus. As for christology, it can scarcely be accidental that John places in these initial days confessions of Jesus under many of the traditional titles that we find scattered in the other Gospels, most often later in the ministry (see Mt 16:16). It is almost as if the evangelist wants to portray as elementary the christological tradition known to the other Gospels and to begin his Gospel at a stage where the others end. For the other Gospels the sight of the Son of Man accompanied by the angels will come only at the end of time; for John that occurs during the ministry because the Son of Man has already come down from heaven. Also this subsection portrays discipleship. Jesus poses an initial question in Jn 1:38, "What are you looking for?" and follows in Jn 1:39 by "Come and see." Yet it is only when they remain with him that the first followers become believers. Then in a consistent pattern the initial disciples go out to proclaim Jesus to others with a christological perception deepened through that very action, as illustrated in the "higher" titles given to Jesus day after day.

2. First to Second Cana Miracle (chaps. 2-4).

The Cana scene is "the first of his signs"15 (2:11); and thus like a swinging door (Stylistic Feature §5 above), it both closes the initial revelation and opens the next major subdivision that terminates in Jn 4:54, where we are told that the healing of royal official's son announced at Cana "was the second sign that Jesus performed on returning again from Judea to Galilee." The theme of replacement runs through Jesus' actions and words in the three chapters thus marked off.

In the initial Cana miracle (2:1-11), which John calls a sign, Jesus replaces the water prescribed for Jewish purifications (in stone jars containing more than 120 gallons) by wine so good that head waiter wonders why the best has been kept until last. This represents the revelation and wisdom that he brings from God (Pr 9:4-5; Sirach 24:20(21)), fulfilling the OT promises of abundance of wine in the messianic days (Am 9:13-14; Gn 49:10-11). An intertwined motif involves the mother of Jesus, whose family-style request on behalf of the newly married ("They have no wine") is rebuffed by Jesus on the grounds that his hour had not yet come. Yet the mother's persistence that honors Jesus' terms ("Do whatever he tells you") leads him to grant her original request - similarly in the second Cana sign where the royal official's persistence wins his request after a rebuff (Jn 4:47-50; cf. Mk 7:26-29). The mother of Jesus will reappear at the foot of the cross (Jn 19:25-27), where her incorporation into discipleship will be completed as she becomes the mother of the Beloved Disciple. Meanwhile, in a transitional verse (2:12) we find that she and Jesus' "brothers" followed him to Capernaum, but no farther when he began his public ministry by going to Jerusalem.

Situated in Jerusalem near Passover,17 the next subsection (2:13-22), treats Jesus' attitude toward the Temple. It has parallels in two Synoptic scenes: the cleansing of the Temple (Mk 11:15-19, 27-28 and par.) which takes place not long before Jesus is put to death, and the witnesses at the Sanhedrin trial on the night before the crucifixion, who falsely testify that Jesus said he would destroy the Temple sanctuary (Mk 14:58; Mt 26:61; cf. Ac 6:14). In John the scenes are combined and placed early in the ministry; the sanctuary statement is on Jesus' lips (phrased, however, as "You destroy," not as "I will destroy"); and the replacement is not another sanctuary but the same one which will be raised up. Leaving aside the insoluble issue of which tradition is more historical, we note two peculiar Johannine theological emphases. By showing the antagonism of "the Jews" from the very beginning, John illustrates the utter incompatibility between Jesus and his own who do not receive him (see Jn 1:11). Also in John's interpretation the sanctuary is Jesus' body, "destroyed" by "the Jews" but raised up by Jesus. Thus the Jerusalem Temple, which has been turned into a marketplace, has been replaced by the body of Jesus as the true holy place. According to 2:23-25 many in Jerusalem believed in Jesus because of signs he was doing, but he did not trust their faith because it stopped at the miraculous aspect of the sign and did not perceive what was signified. This transitional observation introduces one of these would-be believers to Jesus who appears in the next subsection.

The Nicodemus scene (Jn 3:1-21) is the first of the important Johannine dialogues. This Pharisee, a member of the Sanhedrin, comes to Jesus "at night" (i.e., because he does not yet belong to the light) and acknowledges him as a "teacher who has come from God." By that designation Nicodemus means only "raised up by God," whereas Jesus has actually come from God. Thus Nicodemus is a representative spokesman of an inadequate faith,19 as becomes evident when Jesus explains that only begetting from above enables one to enter the kingdom of God, i.e., begetting of water and Spirit. The Johannine Jesus speaks of the very life of God acquired only when one is begotten by God ("from above"), which takes place when one is baptized in water and receives God's Spirit. Nicodemus is thinking of natural birth from a Jewish mother that makes one a member of the chosen people, a people that the OT considers God's child (Ex 4:22; Dt 32:6; Ho 11:1). Such a pedigree is rejected in Jn 3:6, for the only thing that flesh can beget or give birth to is flesh. The Johannine Jesus, then, is radically replacing what constitutes the children of God, challenging any privileged status stemming from natural parenthood. Typical Johannine irony surfaces in 3:9-11: To the Nicodemus who came saying "We know" but cannot understand, Jesus, speaking on behalf of those who do believe, counterpoises: "We are talking about what we know and we are testifying to what we have seen." Jesus' surety about the need for begetting from above stems from his own having come from above. The dialogue now becomes a monologue as Nicodemus fades into the darkness whence he came (until he reappears still hesitantly as a hidden follower in Jn 7:50-52, and finally publicly in 19:39-42). In Jn 3:15-21 Jesus proclaims for the first time the basic Johannine theology of salvific incarnation: He is God's Son come into the world bringing God's own life, so that everyone who believes in him has eternal life and thus is already judged.

JBap's final witness to Jesus (Jn 3:22-30), resuming Jn 1:15, Jn 19-34, is in the context of Jesus' own baptizing22 (which helps to reinforce the baptismal reference in the "water and Spirit" of 3:5). Opposition to Jesus on the part of JBap's disciples enables JBap once more to clarify just who he is not and the greatness of the one for whom he has prepared. The image is that of the bridegroom's best friend protectively keeping watch over the house of the bride (Israel), waiting to hear the approach of the bridegroom (Jesus) as he comes to take her to his home.

The style of the puzzling speech in Jn 3:31-36 is that of the Johannine Jesus; and it seems to duplicate things said in Jn 3:7, Jn 11-13, Jn 15-18, thus supporting the thesis of those who claim that the redactor supplemented the work of the evangelist by adding other forms of material already found there. However, the context suggests that JBap is the speaker. Like Jesus he has been sent by God, and so does he speak like Jesus? Following this, 4:1-3 supplies a geographical transition from Judea toward Galilee.

On this journey Jesus stops in Samaria at the well of Shechem/Sychar. The dialogue with the Samaritan woman and its aftermath (4:4-42) is the first full example of Johannine dramatic ability. In it a character who is more than an individual has been developed in order to serve as a spokesperson for a particular type of faith-encounter with Jesus. The portrayal centers on how one first comes to faith and the many obstacles that stand in the way.

Smarting from the injustice of Jewish treatment of Samaritan women, she rebuffs Jesus' request for a drink. Jesus does not answer her objection but responds in terms of what he can give her, i.e., living water which she misunderstands as flowing water, contemptuously asking him if he thinks he is greater than Jacob. By Johannine irony, Jesus is greater; but once again Jesus refuses to be sidetracked and explains that he is speaking of the water that springs up to eternal life, a water that will permanently end thirst. With masterly touch John shows her attracted on a level of the convenience of not having to come to the well. Then in typical Johannine style Jesus shifts the focus to her husband in order to make progress in another way. Her reply is a half-truth and the all-knowing Jesus shows that he is very aware of her five husbands and her living with a man who is not her husband. The very fact that the story continues shows that Jesus' effort to bring her to faith will not be blocked by the obstacle of a far-from-perfect life, even though that is something she must acknowledge. Confronted with such surprising knowledge of her situation, the woman finally shifts to a religious level, seeking to avoid further probing by bringing up a theological dispute between Jews and Samaritans as to whether God should be worshiped in the Jerusalem Temple or on Mount Gerizim in this very area. Again Jesus refuses to be sidetracked; for although salvation is from the Jews, a time is coming and is now here when such an issue is irrelevant, for cult at both sacred sites will be replaced by worship in Spirit and truth. Nimbly the woman once more seeks to avoid the personal issue by changing the perspective to the distant future when the Messiah comes; but Jesus will not let her escape. His "I am (he)" confronts her with a current demand for faith.

John now (4:27-39) adopts the double-stage technique, reporting the reaction of the disciples as they return to center stage at the well, while the woman goes off backstage to the village. Although the disciples have been with Jesus, their misunderstanding of Jesus' food is just as crass as the woman's misunderstanding of the water. The woman's hesitant "Could this be the Messiah?" means that she is seeking reinforcement, which is supplied by the Samaritans from the village who come to believe when they encounter Jesus (4:40-42). Their words to her, "No longer is our faith dependent on your story, for we have heard for ourselves," reflect Johannine theology that all must come into personal contact with Jesus. Plausibly this story reflects Johannine history in which Samaritans came into the community alongside Jews, but that is beneath the surface. More obvious is the continued theme of replacement (here of worship at the Temple) and the contrast between the more open faith of the Samaritans and the less adequate belief of those at Jerusalem (2:23-25) and Nicodemus.

The second sign at Cana (4:43-54) terminates this subdivision. It resembles the first Cana story in that the petitioner is rebuffed but persists, and so has the petition granted. The story of the royal official's son (huios) is probably a third variant of the story of the centurion's servant (pais), which has two slightly different forms in Mt 8:5-13 and Lk 7:1-10. The variants are of a sort that could arise in oral tradition, e.g., English "boy" (one translation of pais) can mean both son and servant. In the sequence of Johannine themes the transitional 4:43-45 speaks of an inadequate faith that gives no honor to a prophet in his own country (cf. Mk 6:4; Lk 4:24). This sets up a contrast to the faith illustrated by the royal official who believes that what Jesus has said will happen and returns home on the strength of it, ultimately leading his whole household to faith (cf. Ac 10:2; Ac 11:14; Ac 16:15,34). To Nicodemus Jesus had spoken of a (life-giving) begetting/birth from above; to the Samaritan woman he had spoken of water springing up to eternal life; now he gives life to the royal official's son. This prepares for a key saying in the next subdivision that the Son grants life to whomever he wishes (Jn 5:21).

3. OT Feasts and Their Replacement (chaps. 5-10).

That theme of life which will be developed in Jn 5-7 will yield to the theme of light in Jn 8-10- both of them motifs anticipated in the Prologue. A more dominant motif, however, is the sequence of Jewish feasts that move through this subdivision (Sabbath, Passover, Tabernacles, Dedication), and on each something Jesus does or says plays on and to some extent replaces a significant aspect of the feast.

On the Sabbath Jesus heals and thus gives life, leading to a hostile dialogue (Jn 5:1-47). The combination of a miracle and a discourse/dialogue that brings out the miracle's sign-value is a Johannine technique (see also Jn 6). Here, on the occasion of an unnamed "feast of the Jews" that is also a Sabbath (Jn 5:9), Jesus cures a lame man who has been waiting to be healed at the pool of Bethesda. His instruction to take up the mat violates the Sabbath law (as verified later in the codified directives of the Mishna). The explanation that Jesus offers to "the Jews" does not appeal to humanitarian grounds, as in Lk 13:15-16; Lk 14:5, but to his supreme authority, as in Mk 2:28 and par. The logic seems to be that, although people should not work on the Sabbath, God continues to work on that day. God is Jesus' Father, and the Father has given to the Son power over life and death. "The Jews" recognize what is being claimed; "They sought all the more to kill him because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but, worse still, he was speaking of God as his own Father, thus making himself God's equal" (5:18). Thus, more than in other Gospels, in John a lethal antipathy toward Jesus appears early and consistently, and a claim to divinity comes through clearly. Understandably many scholars think that we have here double exposure: memories of hostility to Jesus during his ministry on which have been superimposed the later experiences of his followers who were accused of ditheism by Jewish authorities, i.e., of making a God of Jesus and thus violating the fundamental tenet of Israel: The Lord our God is one. The answer in 5:19-30 is subtle: the Son does nothing of himself, but the Father has given all things to him. In 5:31-47 five arguments are advanced as testimony as if they were advanced in synagogue debates: God (Another) has testified on Jesus' behalf; so also JBap, and the works that Jesus is doing, and Scripture, and finally Moses who wrote about Jesus.

At Passover time Jesus multiplies the loaves and fish and gives a discourse on the Bread of Life (6:1-71). There are two Synoptic accounts of the multiplication (followed in the first instance by the walking on the sea); and charts in BGJ 1:239-44 show how in some details John's account seems closer to the first Synoptic account and in other details closer to the second Synoptic account. The introduction of Philip and Andrew as characters who prepare for Jesus' response is typically Johannine (Jn 1:40, Jn 43-44; Jn 12:22); and John has peculiar features that could heighten the eucharistic symbolism in the multiplication. The combination of marvelously supplied food and walking on water echoes Moses' miracles in the Exodus after the first Passover (manna, Red Sea), even as the murmuring of 6:41 matches the similar action of Israelin the desert wanderings (Ex 16:2,8). Accordingly a comparison of Jesus and Moses follows: Moses did not give the true bread from heaven because those who ate the manna died (Jn 6:32,58). Whereas the Synoptic accounts do not tell us the reaction of those for whom the bread and fish were multiplied, John has the crowd find and put demands on Jesus the next day as evidence that they did not really see beyond the miraculous to what was signified. Jesus did not come simply to satisfy earthly hunger but to give a bread that would nourish people for eternal life, and the discourse that follows31 seems to give two interpretations of how this would be done.

First, in Jn 6:35-5la Jesus is the Bread of Life in the sense that his revelation constitutes teaching by God (6:45), so that one must believe in the Son to have eternal life. The language, "No one who comes to me shall ever be hungry, and no one who believes in me shall ever again be thirsty" (6:35), echoes the promise of divine Wisdom32 in Sirach 24:21(20). Second, in Jn 6:51b-58 Jesus is nourishment in another sense, for one must feed on his flesh and blood to have eternal life. The themes of 6:35-51a are duplicated but now in language evocative of the eucharist. Indeed 6:51b, "The bread that I shall give is my own flesh for the life of the world," might well be the Johannine eucharist formula comparable to "This is my body which is (given) for you" of Lk 22:19; 1 Co 11:24. Taken as a whole the two parts of the discourse in Jn 6 would reveal that Jesus feeds his followers both through his revelation and his eucharistic flesh and blood. In response some of Jesus' disciples murmur about this teaching (6:60-61) even as did "the Jews" (6:41-43,52). On the level of Jesus' ministry this unfavorable reaction is to his claims about the heavenly origins of the Son of Man; on the level of community life it may reflect a rejection by other Christians of a high view of the eucharist. Simon Peter and the Twelve are among those who do not go away, for they recognize that Jesus has the words of eternal life. (Thus despite its failure to speak of "apostles" or give a list of the Twelve, John's Gospel inculcates respect for them.) The Synoptic confessional scene refers to Peter as "Satan" (Mk 8:33; Mt 16:23), but for Jn 6:70-71 Judas is the devil who, Jesus already knows, will give him over.

The next Jewish feast, Tabernacles (Tents, Booths), seems to cover 7:1 to 10:21, before the mention of the feast of Dedication in 10:22. This eight-day-long pilgrimage-feast on which Jews went up to Jerusalem, besides celebrating the Sept./Oct. grape harvest, was marked by prayers for rain. A daily procession from the pool of Siloam brought water as a libation to the Temple where the court of the women was lighted by immense torches - thus themes of water and light. Refusing a request of his "brothers" that smacks of disbelief, Jesus goes up to Jerusalem at his own initiative and secretly (7:1-10). Thoughts about him produce a division (7:11-15), reflecting John's theme that Jesus causes people to judge themselves. Jesus' dialogue with "the Jews" in 7:16-36 recalls previous hostility over violating the Mosaic Law and culminates with a warning that he will not remain much longer and is going away to the One who sent him. The replacement for the water theme of the feast comes to the fore on the last day of Tabernacles in 7:37-39 as Jesus announces that from within himself (the more likely reading) shall flow rivers of living water, i.e., the Spirit that would be received when he was glorified (see 19:34). The division over Jesus, leading to a failed attempt to arrest him (7:40-49), brings Nicodemus back on the scene, defending Jesus but still not professing that he is a believer (7:50-52).

The continuation35 in 8:12-59 introduces the replacement for the light theme of the feast as Jesus proclaims himself to be "the light of the world." The legal atmosphere of defensive testimony against Jewish charges returns,36 and the situation becomes very hostile, e.g., suggestions of illegitimacy, charges that the devil is the opponents' father. It ends with one of the most awesome statements attributed to Jesus in the NT, "Before Abraham even came into existence, I AM" (8:58), which brings about an attempt to stone Jesus (implicitly for blasphemy).

Chap. 9, describing how the man born blind came to sight, is the masterpiece of Johannine dramatic narrative, so carefully crafted that not a single word is wasted. "The light of the world" motif (9:5) and the reference to the pool of Siloam (9:7,11) provide a loose relationship with the Tabernacles feast that evidently has kept Jesus in Jerusalem. The man born blind is more than an individual; he has been developed as a spokesperson for a particular type of faith-encounter with Jesus. The Samaritan woman exemplified the obstacles encountered in coming to believe in Jesus on the first encounter. The blind man, having washed in the waters of Siloam (the name is interpreted as "the one sent," a Johannine designation for Jesus), exemplifies one who is enlightened on the first encounter, but comes to see who Jesus really is only later - after undergoing trials and being cast out of the synagogue. This could be seen as a message to Johannine Christians who have had a similar experience, encouraging them that through their trials they have been given an opportunity to come to a much more profound faith than when they first encountered Christ. The intensifying series of questions to which the man born blind is subjected, the increasing hostility and blindness of the interrogators who eject him from the synagogue, the blind man's growing perceptiveness about Jesus under the interrogations, and the parents' apprehensive attempt to avoid taking a stand for or against Jesus - all these are developed masterfully into a drama that could easily be enacted on a stage to illustrate how, with the coming of Jesus, those who claim to see have become blind and those who were blind have come to sight (9:39).

In the narrative sequence the metaphorical discourse on the good shepherd (10:1-21), although it has a certain autonomy, is directed to the Pharisees whom Jesus accused of being blind in 9:40-41. This and the description of the vine in 15:1-17 are the closest that John comes to the parables so common in the Synoptics. In John there is a mixture of metaphors offering different ways of looking at the same reality: Jesus is the gate by which the shepherd goes to the sheep, and by which the sheep come into the fold and go out to pasture; and Jesus is the model shepherd who both knows his sheep by name and is willing to lay down his life for them. On the level of Jesus' ministry this would be aimed at the Pharisees who are the pictured audience; on the level of Johannine church life this may be a critique of other Christians who have introduced human shepherds (pastors) who might seem to rival the claims of Christ. The famous passage in 10:16 where Jesus, referring to other sheep not of this fold, expresses his goal of one sheep herd, one shepherd suggests that, when the Gospel was written, division among Jesus' followers was a problem.

The next Jewish feast is Dedication (Hanukkah: 10:22-42) that celebrates the dedication of the altar and the reconstruction of the Jerusalem Temple by the Maccabees 164 bc) after several years of desecration under Syrian rulers. This festal theme is replaced when in the Temple portico Jesus claims to be the one whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world (10:36). The issues raised against Jesus about being the Messiah and blaspheming because he said he was God's Son resemble the substance of the Sanhedrin inquiry recounted by the Synoptic Gospels just before Jesus died (cf. Jn 10:24-25,36 and Lk 22:66-71). Faced with attempts to stone and to arrest him, Jesus defiantly proclaims, "The Father is in me, and I am in the Father." By way of inclusion the evangelist now has Jesus go back across the Jordan to where the story began in 1:28, and there the witness of JBap still echoes (10:40-42).

4. The Raising of Lazarus and Its Aftermath (chaps. 11-12). This subdivision serves as a bridge between the Book of Signs and the Book of Glory. Jesus gives life to i Mzarus (11:1-44), even as he gave light to the blind man (see 11:37) and thus performs the greatest of his signs; yet paradoxically the gift of life leads to the decision of the Sanhedrin that Jesus must die (11:45-53), a decision that will bring about his glorious return to the Father. In the account of the man born blind a dialogue explaining the sign-value followed the healing; but in the raising of Lazarus the dialogue that explains this sign precedes - to have conversation after Lazarus emerges from the tomb would be an anticlimax. In the dialogue Martha already believes that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (comparable to Peter's confession in Mt 16:16), and that her brother will rise on the last day; but Jesus leads her to an even deeper faith. Jesus is not only the resurrection but also the life, so that whoever believes in him will never die. Lazarus's miraculous return to life fulfills Martha's aspiration but is still only a sign, for Lazarus will die again41 - that is why he emerges from the tomb still bound with the burial clothes. Jesus comes to give an eternal life impervious to death, as he will symbolize by emerging from the tomb leaving his burial clothes behind (20:6-7).

A Sanhedrin session (11:45-53) is provoked by the size of the following gained by Jesus and the fear that the Romans might intervene to the detriment of the nation and the Temple ("holy place"). Caiaphas, high priest in that fateful year, is enabled to utter a prophecy, though he does not recognize it. He means that Jesus should die in place of the nation, but John sees this to mean that Jesus will die on behalf of the nation and indeed "to gather together even the dispersed children of God and make them one." Jesus' fate is sealed by the Sanhedrin who plan to kill him, and the intermediary verses (11:54-57) prepare for the arrest at Passover.

The two scenes that follow have parallels in the Synoptics but in reverse order. At Bethany six days before Passover Mary, the sister of Lazarus, anoints Jesus' feet (Jn 12:1-11). This action is closely paralleled in Mk 14:3-9; Mt 26:6-13, where at Bethany two days before Passover an unnamed woman pours ointment on Jesus' head. Both forms of the story have the motif of preparing Jesus for burial. The scene on the next day when Jesus triumphantly enters Jerusalem (Jn 12:12-19) has a close parallel in the entrance into Jerusalem in Mk 11:1-10; Mt 21:1-9; Lk 19:28-40, which took place considerably earlier. Only John mentions palm branches, and Jesus' choice of an ass seems almost by way of corrective reaction pointing to the king promised in Zechariah who is to bring peace and salvation (Zc 9:9-10).

The end of the public ministry is signaled by the arrival of Gentiles (12:20-50), which causes Jesus to exclaim "The hour has come" and to speak of a grain of wheat that dies in order to bear much fruit. The atmosphere resembles that of Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane on the night before he dies in Mk 14:34-36 and par. In both scenes Jesus' soul is troubled/sorrowful. In Mark he prays to the Father that the hour might pass from him; in John he refuses to pray to the Father that he might be saved from the hour since this was why he had come - different reactions mirroring what would later be called the humanity and divinity of Jesus. In Mark he prays that God's will should be done; in John he prays that God's name be glorified - variants of petitions in the "Our Father" and thus reflections of Jesus' prayer style. The responding voice from heaven in Jn 12:28-29 is mistaken for an angel; this resembles the appearance of an angel as a response in Lk 22:43 and Jesus' claim that if he wanted the Father would have sent more than twelve legions of angels in Mt 26:53 - interesting examples of variation within different preservations of the Jesus tradition. The failure of the crowds to accept the proclamation of the Son of Man becomes in John 12:37-41 a fulfillment of Isaiah's prediction that they will never believe. True, some in the Sanhedrin believe in Jesus; but fearing the Pharisees and not willing to confess, they do not proclaim the glory of God (12:42-43). Once more we suspect that the evangelist also has in mind those in the synagogues of his own time who do not have the courage to confess Christ. The last word of Jesus in the ministry summarizing the Johannine message (12:44-50) resembles the opening summary addressed to Nicodemus in 3:16-21: The light has come into the world constituting the occasion of self-judgment between those who believe in him and are delivered from darkness and those who reject him and are condemned.

Part Two: The Book of Glory (13:1-20:31)

The theme of chaps. 13-20 is enunciated in 13:1 with the announcement that Jesus was aware that the hour had come for him to pass from this world to the Father, showing to the very end his love for his own who were in this world. In the five chapters that describe the Last Supper only "his own" are present to hear Jesus speak of his plans for them, and then in the three chapters that describe the passion and death and resurrection Jesus is glorified and ascends to his Father who now becomes their Father (20:17). Thus this "Book" illustrates the theme of the Prologue (1:12-13): "But all those who did accept him he empowered to become God's children," i.e., a new "his own" consisting of "those who believe in his name," not those who were his own people by birth.

1. The Last Supper and Jesus' Last Discourse (chaps. 13-17).

 In all the Gospels Jesus speaks at this meal on the night before he dies, but in John the discourse lasts much longer.

(a) In initial sections of the Last Supper (chap. 13), John's narrative has parallels to Synoptic material where at table Jesus talks about Judas44 and (there or afterwards) warns that Simon Peter will deny him three times. Yet in place of Jesus' words over the bread and wine, John has the washing of the disciples' feet, a loving act of abasement that serves as an example for his disciples. Also unique to John is the presence of "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Acting as an intermediary for Simon Peter, who is placed at a distance from Jesus, this Beloved Disciple leans back against Jesus' chest to ask the identity of the one who will give Jesus over. Mentioned only in the Book of Glory, characteristically the Beloved Disciple is close to Jesus and contrasted with Peter (see p. 369 below).

After Judas has gone out into the night (symbolic of Satanic darkness), John supplies a short introduction (13:31-38) to the Last Discourse as Jesus speaks once more of his coming glorification and issues his new commandment: "As I have loved you, so you too must love one another." This is "new" not because the OT was lacking in love but because there are now two peculiarly Christian modifications: The love is to be empowered and modeled on the way Jesus manifested love for his disciples by dying and rising for them (see also Rm 5:8), and it is a love to be extended to one's fellow Christian disciples.

(b) In the body of Jesus' Last Discourse (chaps. 14-17) he speaks to "his own" as he contemplates his departure. This Discourse is a unique composition, comparable to Matthew's Sermon on the Mount or to Luke's collection of Jesus' words spoken on the way from Galilee to Jerusalem. John's Discourse presents as one final message diverse material found in the Synoptics not only at the Last Supper but also scattered through the public ministry. Poised between heaven and earth and already in the ascent to glory, the Johannine Jesus speaks both as still in the world and as no longer in it (Jn 16:5; Jn 17:11). This atemporal, nonspatial character gives the Discourse an abiding value as a message from Jesus to those of all time who would believe (Jn 17:20). In terms of form and content it resembles a "testament" or farewell speech46 where a speaker (sometimes a father to his children) announces the imminence of his departure (see Jn 13:33; Jn 14:2-3; Jn 16:16), often producing sorrow (Jn 14:1,27; Jn 16:6,22); he recalls his past life, words, and deeds (Jn 13:33; Jn 14:10; Jn 15:3,20; Jn 17:4-8), urging the addressees to emulate and even surpass these (Jn 14:12), to keep the commandments (Jn 14:15,21,23; Jn 15:10,14), and to keep unity among themselves (Jn 17:11, 21-23). He may wish the addressees peace and joy (Jn 14:27; Jn 16:22,33), pray for them (Jn 17:9), predict that they will be persecuted (Jn 15:18,20; Jn 16:2-3), and pick a successor (Paraclete passages).

Division One of the Last Discourse (chap. 14). Stressing the theme of departure, Jesus consoles his disciples by a promise to return to take them to himself so that they may be with him. Throughout, the flow of the Discourse is furthered by those present who pose questions reflecting their misunderstanding, and so Thomas' question (14:5) leads to one of the most famous proclamations in the Gospel: "I am the way and the truth and the life," and Philip's question (14:8) leads to Jesus' "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father... I am in the Father and the Father is in me." This mutual divine indwelling leads, in turn, into the theme of how the Spirit (14:15-17), Jesus (14:18-22), and the Father (14:23-24) will all dwell in the Christian.

Of particular interest is the designation of the Spirit as the Paraclete. Unlike the neuter word (pneuma) for Spirit, parakletos, literally "the One called alongside," is a personal designation picturing a Spirit called in after Jesus' departure as "advocate"49 to defend Christians and "consoler" to comfort them. Just as Jesus received everything from the Father and while on earth is the way to know the Father in heaven, so when Jesus goes to heaven, the Paraclete who receives everything from Jesus is the way to know Jesus. Jesus, however, is the divine Word incarnate in one human being whose stay in this world with his followers is temporary; the Paraclete does not become incarnate but dwells in all who love Jesus and keep his commandments and is with them forever (14:15-16). Two features are characteristic: He is in a hostile relationship to the world which cannot see or recognize him (14:17) and he serves as a teacher explaining the implications of what Jesus said.

The latter motif appears in the second Paraclete passage of chap. 14 (v. 26), and then Jesus gives his gift of peace, accompanied by a warning that the Prince of this world is coming (14:27-31b). Jesus' final words in the chapter (14:31c), "Get up! Let us leave here and be on our way," seem to signal the end of the Last Discourse and would lead perfectly into 18:1, "After this discourse Jesus went out with his disciples across the Kidron valley."

Division Two of the Last Discourse (chaps. 15-16).

That three chapters of Discourse follow Jn 14:31c is very surprising and has led many to posit an insertion added later to the original work of the evangelist by a redactor (p. 367 below). That Jn 16:4b-33 seems to treat many themes of Division One and yet to suppose that the audience knows nothing of those themes has suggested that this insertion consisted of an alternative Last Discourse which the redactor did not want to have perish. Be all that as it may, let us look at the individual subsections.

Jn 15:1-17: The vine and the branches. Alongside the shepherd comparison of chap. 10, this is the other significant Johannine instance of parabolic/ allegorical language. In the OT Israel is frequently pictured as God's choice vine or vineyard, nurtured with consummate care only to yield bitter fruit. We have seen Jesus replacing Jewish institutions and feasts; now he portrays himself as the vine of the New Israel. As branches united to him, Christians will bear fruit pleasing to God, the vinedresser. Although the vine will not wither and fail, branches will fall and have to be removed and burned. Some would compare this image of the Christian community to Paul's image of the body of Christ (1Co 12:12-31); but while Paul's imagery is invoked to regulate the relation of Christians to each other, John's imagery is concerned only with their indwelling in Jesus. As part of his comments on the image, Jesus proclaims again his commandment, "Love one another as I have loved you" (Jn 15:7-17, esp. 12; cf. Jn 13:34-35). That love includes a willingness to lay down one's life for others.

Jn 15:18-16:4a: The world's hatred; witness by the Paraclete. Jesus' stress on the necessity of love among his followers is related to his perception of how the world hates him and those whom he has chosen out of the world. If at the beginning of the Gospel we were told that God loved the world (Jn 3:16), "the world" is now coterminous with those who have rejected the Son whom God sent to save it. The fact that Jesus has come and spoken makes this rejection sinful (Jn 15:22). The Paraclete will come and continue the witness on behalf of Jesus, and those who have been with Jesus from the beginning must bear witness (Jn 15:26-27). They should recognize, however, that they will be expelled from the synagogue and even put to death for such witness. This section of the Johannine Last Discourse resembles part of the final speech of Jesus before the Supper in Mk 13:9-13 (see also Mt 10:17-22).

16:4b-33: Themes resembling those of Division One (Jn 14). In Jn 16:4b-7 Jesus reiterates what he said at the beginning of the Discourse (Jn 14:1-5) as he announces his departure, discusses where he is going,52 and recognizes that his disciples' hearts are troubled. Once more there are two Paraclete passages: The first in Jn 16:7-11 matching that in Jn 14:15-17 in the theme of his conflict with the world (and the Prince of this world: cf. Jn 14:30); the second in Jn 16:13-15 matching that in Jn 14:25-26 in the theme of his teaching anew what Jesus taught. Whereas in Jn 14:16,26 the Father is said to give or send the Paraclete, in Jn 16:7 Jesus is said to send him - an illustration of Jesus' claim that the Father and he are one (10:30).

Although earlier in the Supper (Jn 13:33; Jn 7:33; Jn 12:35) Jesus spoke of being with his disciples only a little while, the development of that theme in Jn 16:16-22 has no close parallel elsewhere in the Last Discourse. Jesus' painful death and his subsequent return are compared to labor pangs and subsequent birth (see the similar imagery for the birth of the Messiah in Rv 12:2,5). In Jn 16:23-24, however, with the issue of asking and receiving, we have once more a theme found in Division One of the Discourse (Jn 14:13-14). The section Jn 16:25-33 also has some themes that we have heard before ("The Father loves you because you have loved me" in Jn 16:27 and Jn 14:21,23; "I am going to the Father" in 16:28 and Jn 14:12; the promise of peace in Jn 16:33 and Jn 14:27); but the contrast between figures of speech and speaking plainly and the prediction of the scattering of the disciples are new. Although in terminating Division One of the Discourse Jesus spoke of the Prince of this world having no hold on him (Jn 14:30), the simpler "I have conquered the world" is a more resounding termination for this Division.

Division Three of the Last Discourse (chap. 17).

This sublime conclusion to the Last Discourse is often evaluated as the "Priestly" Prayer of Jesus, the one who consecrated himself for those whom he would send into the world (Jn 17:18-19). In the first section (Jn 17:1-8) Jesus prays for glorification (i.e., the glory that he had before creation) on the grounds that he has completed all that the Father has given him to do and revealed God's name. This is not a selfish prayer, since the goal of the glorification is that the Son may glorify the Father properly. In the second section (Jn 17:9-19) Jesus prays for those whom the Father has given him that they may be kept safe with the name given to Jesus. He refuses to pray for the world (which by rejecting Jesus has become the realm of evil), for his disciples do not belong to the world. Quite unlike a gnostic savior, Jesus does not ask that his disciples be taken out of the world, but only that they be kept safe from the Evil One (who is the Prince of this world). Praying that they will be consecrated as he consecrates himself, Jesus sends them into the world to bear witness to truth. In the third section (Jn 17:20-26) Jesus prays for those who believe in him through the word of the disciples - a prayer that they may be one just as the Father and Jesus are one. (As in Jn 10:16 we get the impression that already in John's time Christians are not one.) A unity brought to completion among believers will be convincing to the world. Magnificent statements about these believers are addressed to the Father: "I have given to them the glory which you have given to me"; "You loved them even as you loved me"; "They are your gift to me"; and finally (Jn 17:26) "To them I made your name known, and I will continue to make it known so that the love you had for me may be in them and I may be in them." With that assurance the Johannine Jesus goes on to be lifted up on the cross in his return to the Father.

2. Jesus' Passion and Death (Jn 18-19).

Here John is closer to the overall Synoptic (Marcan) outline than elsewhere. Even though major individual details differ, the same pattern of four "acts" may be detected in both accounts: arrest, interrogation by Jewish high priest, trial before Pilate, crucifixion/burial.

Arrest in the garden across the Kidron (Jn 18:1-12). The Synoptic designation for the locale to which Jesus and his disciples went after the Last Supper is Gethsemane and/or the Mount of Olives. John speaks of Jesus crossing the winter-flowing Kidron58 to a garden. The prayer to the Father about being delivered from the hour, which is found in this context in Mk 14:35, has occurred earlier in John (Jn 12:27-28), so that the whole Johannine scene centers on the arrest, with Jesus eager to drink the cup the Father has given him (cf. Mk 14:36).. There are peculiar Johannine features: Jesus, knowing that Judas is coming, goes out to meet him; and when he identifies himself with the words "I am," the arresting party, consisting of Jewish police and a cohort of Roman soldiers, fall back to the ground before him. This corresponds to the depiction of Jesus in control that governs the passion in John: "No one takes my life away from me; I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again" (Jn 10:18).

Interrogation by Annas; Peter's denials (Jn 18:13-27). All the Gospels have the arresting party deliver Jesus to the Jewish high priest's court/palace to be interrogated by that authority - an interrogation that is accompanied by accounts of an abuse/mockery of Jesus and of Peter's three denials. In John alone there is no session of the Sanhedrin to decide on Jesus' death (that took place earlier: Jn 11:45-53); and although Caiaphas is mentioned, Annas conducts the inquiry. Peter's denials are introduced by the presence of another disciple who is known to the high priest - probably the Beloved Disciple who appears only in John.

Trial before Pilate (Jn 18:28-19:16). All the Gospels have Jesus led from/ by the high priest to be tried by the Roman governor, but in John this trial is a much more developed drama than in the Synoptics. Careful stage setting is supplied, with "the Jews" outside the praetorium and Jesus inside. Seven episodes describe how Pilate shuttled back and forth trying to reconcile the two adamant antagonists (diagram in BGJ 2:859). Only John explains clearly why Jesus was brought to Pilate (Jn 18:31: the Jews were not permitted to put anyone to death)61 and why Pilate rendered a death sentence even though he knew that Jesus did not deserve such a punishment (Jn 19:12: he would be denounced to the Emperor for not being diligent in punishing a so-called king). Jesus, who scarcely speaks to Pilate in the other Gospels, explains that his kingship is not political; moreover "the Jews" admit that the real issue is not the charge of being "the King of the Jews" but that Jesus claimed to be God's Son (Jn 19:7). Pilate is challenged by Jesus as to whether he belongs to the truth (Jn 18:37), and thus the scene becomes the trial of Pontius Pilate before Jesus, over whom Pilate has no real power (Jn 19:11). The scourging by the Roman soldiers (at the end after condemnation in Mark/ Mt) is moved to the center of the trial so that Pilate can present the abused and mocked Jesus to "the Jews" in the famous Ecce homo scene, with the vain hope that they will give up their request for the death penalty. Although Pilate yields, "the Jews" are compelled to give up their messianic expectations by saying, "We have no king other than the Emperor" (Jn 19:15). In Pilate John has dramatized his thesis that those who would avoid the judgment provoked by Jesus do not themselves belong to truth (Jn 9:18-23; Jn 12:42-43).

Crucifixion, death, and burial (Jn 19:17-42). Here too John is more dramatic than the Synoptics, making major theological episodes out of details in the tradition. In slightly different wording all four Gospels mention the charge "King of the Jews," but in John this becomes the occasion for Pilate's finally acknowledging the truth about Jesus, proclaiming it in the style of an imperial inscription in three languages. All four Gospels mention the division of Jesus' clothing; but in John the way in which the Roman soldiers thus fulfilled the Scripture to the "nth" degree is spelled out as an illustration of how Jesus remained in charge. After the death of Jesus the other Gospels mention Galilean women standing at a distance; John has them near the cross while he is still alive. There are two other figures whose presence John alone notes and whose names he never gives us: the mother of Jesus62 and the disciple whom he loved. Jesus brings them into a mother-son relationship and thus constitutes a community of disciples who are mother and brother to him - the community that preserved this Gospel. With this the Johannine Jesus is able to make his final word from the cross, "It is completed," and to hand over his Spirit to the believing community he is leaving behind (Jn 19:30). The scene of the piercing of the dead Jesus' side is peculiarly Johannine, fulfilling both Jn 7:37-39 that from within Jesus would flow living water symbolic of the Spirit, and (since the bones of the paschal lamb were not to be broken) Jn 1:29 that he was the Lamb of God. Peculiar to John is Nicodemus (Jn 3:1-2; Jn 7:50-52), who had not openly admitted that he believes in Jesus. Now he reappears and (together with the traditional Joseph from Arimathea) publicly gives an honorable burial to Jesus, fulfilling Jesus' promise to draw all to him once he had been lifted up (Jn 12:32).

3. Four Scenes in Jerusalem and Faith in the Risen Jesus (Jn 20:1-29). Like Luke and Mk 16:9-20 and unlike Mt and Mk 16:1-8, Jn 20 places all the appearances of the risen Lord in Jerusalem, with no indication of appearances to take place in Galilee. In John four different types of faith-response to the risen Jesus are dramatized, two in scenes that take place at the empty tomb, two in a room where the disciples are gathered. The second and fourth concentrate on individual reactions: Mary Magdalene and Thomas. Some of the material has parallels in the Synoptic Gospels,64 but the arrangement of that and new material reflects John's love for personal encounter with Jesus.

At the tomb (Jn 20:1-18). An introduction (Jn 20:1-2) consisting of Mary Magdalene's coming to the tomb, finding it empty, and reporting this to Simon Peter and the Beloved Disciple prepares for the two scenes at the tomb. The first scene (Jn 20:3-10) involves Simon Peter and the Beloved Disciple who run to the tomb. Both enter and see the burial wrappings and head cloth; yet only the Beloved Disciple comes to faith. The fourth evangelist does not challenge the tradition that Peter was the first of the Twelve to see the risen Lord (Lk 24:34; 1 Co 15:5); but in his consistent desire to exalt the Beloved Disciple, John has that disciple come to faith even before the risen Lord appears or prophetical Scripture is recalled. Thus the Disciple becomes the first full believer. The second scene (Jn 20:11-18) has Mary Magdalene return to the tomb where now two angels are present. Neither their speaking to her nor the sudden appearance of Jesus, whom she mistakenly identifies as a gardener, brings her to faith. That is accomplished when Jesus calls her by name - an illustration of the theme enunciated by the Good Shepherd in Jn 10:3-4: He calls his own by name, and they know his voice. Mary is sent to proclaim all this to the disciples,66,66 who are now called Jesus' brothers because as a result of the resurrection/ascension Jesus' Father becomes their Father. In the language of the Prologue (Jn 1:12), Jesus has empowered those who believe in him to become God's children. In typical Johannine outlook, these two scenes at the tomb relate resurrection faith to intimacy with Jesus; now the Gospel turns to scenes of a more traditional character, where faith and doubt greet the appearance itself.

Inside a room (Jn 20:19-29). The first scene (Jn 20:19-25) takes place on Easter Sunday night in a place where the doors are locked for fear of "the Jews." It involves members of the Twelve (v. 24) and resembles a culminating scene in the other Gospels (Mt 28:16-20; Lk 24:33-49; Mk 16:14-20) where Jesus appears to the Eleven (Twelve minus Judas) and sends them forth on a mission. After extending peace in echo of 14:27 and 16:33, the Johannine Jesus gives to the disciples a mission that continues his own. In a symbolic action evocative of God's creative breath that gave life to the first human being (Gn 2:7) and of the demand to be begotten of water and Spirit (Jn 3:5-8), Jesus breathes on them and gives them a Holy Spirit with power over sin, continuing his own power over sin. The other Gospel appearance scenes always include an element of disbelief on the part of the Eleven, but John more dramatically embodies it in Thomas who vocalizes a determined incredulity (in vv. 24-25, which serve as a transition to the next episode).

The second scene (20:26-29) is localized in the same place a week later with Thomas present. Although the proof offered Thomas, viz., examining Jesus' hands with his fingers and putting his hand in Jesus' side,68 presents a tangibly corporeal image of the risen Jesus, one should note that Thomas is not said to have touched Jesus. To have done so would probably have signified that Thomas' disbelief remained. Rather, his willingness to believe without touching Jesus is genuine faith, with the ironical result that the one who embodied disbelief now utters the highest christological confession in the Gospels, "My Lord and My God" - an inclusion with the Prologue's "The Word was God." In response, Jesus blesses all future generations who will believe in him without having seen (20:29), thus showing an awareness of the Gospel audience for whom John had been writing throughout.

Gospel Conclusion (20:30-31): Statement of purpose in writing. Luke explains his purpose at the beginning of his Gospel (1:1-4), but John saves his statement of intention till the end. In selecting material to be included in the Gospel,69 his goal has been to have people come to faith or increase in faith (disputed reading) in Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, and through this faith to possess eternal life in his name. This statement is true to the constant emphases of the Gospel, but also warns against a literalist interpretation of John as if the main purpose were to report eyewitness testimony.

Epilogue (21:1-25)

Although the Gospel concludes at the end of chap. 20, there follows another chapter of resurrection appearances (this time in Galilee)70 with another conclusion. This chapter contains two scenes, one involving fishing (21:1-14), the other preserving sayings of the risen Jesus to Simon Peter and the Beloved Disciple (21:15-23). The connection between the two scenes and their internal harmony are questionable, but theologically the themes are related.

The first scene (21:1-14), in which the risen Jesus is not recognized by the disciples (who are supposed to have seen him twice in chap. 20), involves a miraculous catch of fish similar to that during the ministry in Lk 5:4-11. Since Simon Peter hauls the 153 fish ashore and the net is not torn, the catch becomes symbolic of missionary success in bringing people into the one community of Christ. Typically Johannine is the greater perceptiveness of the Beloved Disciple who in 21:7 is the first of the disciples to recognize the risen Lord. The unity of the scene is imperiled by the fact that Jesus suddenly has fish on shore in v. 9 before the catch is brought ashore. The meal he provides of bread and fish (vv. 12-13) may be the Johannine form of the tradition that the risen Lord appeared at meals, often with eucharistic overtones (see chap. 6).

The second scene (21:15-23) shifts symbolism abruptly as, leaving aside Peter's catch of fish, Jesus talks to him about sheep. Probably this represents a second stage in Peter's image: Known as a missionary apostle (fisherman), Peter has now become a model for pastoral care (shepherd: see 1Pt 5:1-4; Ac 20:28). This development may have involved a late Johannine concession to church structure, for chap. 10 portrayed Jesus as the sole shepherd. But the qualifications remain faithful to Johannine idealism: Peter's shepherding flows from his love for Jesus; the flock still belongs to Jesus ("my sheep"); and Peter must be willing to lay down his life for the sheep. The unity of the scene is somewhat challenged by the sudden appearance of the Beloved Disciple, but the contrast between him and Peter is typically Johannine. The tradition that Peter is the symbol for apostolic authority is not challenged, but without that authority the Beloved Disciple still has a position that Peter does not have - the Disciple may last until Jesus returns. The concern for the exact implication of this statement (21:23: "did not say he was not to die"), which has circulated as Johannine tradition, suggests that the Disciple is now dead.

The conclusion in 21:24-25 identifies the Beloved Disciple as the witness who stands behind the Gospel narrative and certifies the truth of his testimony. It also reminds us that the whole Jesus cannot be captured in the pages of any book, even a book such as the Fourth Gospel!

Is John a Genuine Gospel?

Combined Sources or Development of Tradition?

Is John a Gospel in the same sense in which Mark, Matthew, and Luke are Gospels? According to the majority view, the Synoptic Gospels had their roots in memories of what Jesus actually did and said, even though the material stemming from those memories has undergone selection, theological reflection, narrative embellishment, and simplification in the course of a preaching (and initial writing?) that separated the actual occurrences in the late 20s and the final written composition thirty to seventy years later. Is that description true also of John?

From the 2d to the 18th century that question was answered in the affirmative, with the assumption that John, one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus, not only supplied the memory of what had happened but also wrote it down. Thus John's Gospel was a surer guide than Mark or Luke, neither of which had been written down by an eyewitness. The differences between John and the Synoptics were explained by supposition that in his old age the apostle read the other Gospels and decided to supplement them with his own, more meditative memories.

In the last two centuries, however, a more critical mind-set recognized that there is in John not the slightest sign that its author intended a supplement, nor has he supplied any key as to how his material could be fitted together with the Synoptic material to which he makes no reference. Accordingly the majority of scholars shifted toward the position that John was not authored by an eyewitness. Initially that perception had the effect of moving the pendulum to the other extreme in relation to historicity: The material in John was now judged to have no historical value (unlike the material in the Synoptic Gospels). Within this approach it was first assumed that for information about Jesus the author of John was entirely dependent on the Synoptics from which he imaginatively reshuffled material into fictional narratives. A number of studies from different perspectives, however, began to gain dominance for the view that John was written independently of the Synoptics. The theory then emerged that the fourth evangelist drew, not on the Synoptics, but on nonhistorical sources. Bultmann's theory of three sources attracted much attention: (a) a Signs (Semeia) Source consisting of miracles selected from a larger collection75 - according to Bultmann miracles do not happen, and so these were fictional stories designed to make projected image of Jesus more competitive in a world that believed in miracle workers; (b) a Revelatory Discourse Source, originally in Aramaic poetic format, containing the speeches of a revealer come down from heaven; these were translated into Greek, adapted to serve as speeches of the Johan-nine Jesus, and then combined with the Signs material; (c) a Passion and Resurrection Account, drawing on Synoptic material.

By the middle of the 20th century the pendulum began to swing back. Studies in German by E. Schweizer and E. Ruckstuhl77 found the same stylistic peculiarities in all three sources proposed by Bultmann, an observation leading to the ironic suggestion that the author of the Fourth Gospel would have had to write all three sources himself. Dodd, Historical, had a leading role in arguing that at times in the words and deeds of Jesus in John there is tradition that has every right to be considered as old as traditions in the Synoptics. The theory gained followers that John was a Gospel not unlike the others, undergoing three stages of development even as they did - a theory that I espouse. (1) At its beginning there were memories of what Jesus did and said, but not the same memories preserved in the Synoptics (specifically in Mark); perhaps the difference stemmed from the fact that unlike the pre-Synoptic tradition, John's memories were not of standardized apostolic origin (see below under Authorship). (2) Then these memories were influenced by the life-experience of the Johannine community that preserved them and of the Johannine preachers who expounded them. (3) Finally an evangelist, who plausibly was one of the preachers with his own dramatic and creative abilities, shaped the tradition from the second stage into a written Gospel. Both the Synoptics and John, then, would constitute independent witnesses  to Jesus, witnesses in which early tradition has been preserved78 and also undergone theological reflection as the message about Jesus was adapted to ongoing generations of believers. Although John has sometimes been deemed the most theological of the Gospels, the theological difference becomes one of intensity and of the extent to which theological insight is woven creatively and imaginatively into the memories of Jesus.

Although the approach just described has a respectable following, in the last decades of the 20th century one cannot speak of a unanimous approach to John. There are those who think they can detect with great precision the Gospel's sources (or at least the Signs Source, usually seven signs), even if the Bultmannian judgment about nonhistoricity is no longer necessarily part of the picture. Frequently the source is presumed to have originated within the same community that gave rise to the Gospel, so that the difference between a source and an earlier edition becomes somewhat nebulous. As for relationship to the Synoptics, although the majority probably still holds Johannine independence of the Synoptics, an articulate group (whose arguments are urged with determination by F. Neirynck80) contends that John drew on Mark and even the other Synoptics. Observations pertinent to these differences will be made in subsections to follow.

Comparison of John to the Synoptic Gospels

A comparison of the Fourth Gospel to the first three Gospels shows obvious differences. Peculiarities of John include: a Jesus conscious of having preexisted with God before he came into the world (Jn 17:5); a public ministry largely set in Jerusalem rather than in Galilee; the significant absence of the kingdom of God motif (only in Jn 3:3,5); long discourses and dialogues rather than parables; no diabolic possessions; a very restricted number of miracles (seven?), including some that are unique (changing of water to wine at Cana, healing a man born blind, and the raising of Lazarus). According to statistics supplied by B. de Solages in a French study 1979) there are parallels to Mark in 15:5 percent of John's passion narrative; the parallels to Mark in the Matthean and Lucan passion narratives would be four times higher.

Yet there are also important similarities to the Synoptics, especially in the beginning narrative of the ministry featuring JBap and in the concluding narratives of the passion and empty tomb. In particular, the closest similarities are with Mark, e.g., in the sequence of events shared by Jn 6 and Mk 6:30-54; Mk 8:11-33; and in such verbal details as "genuine nard of great value" (Jn 12:3), 300 denarii (12:5), and 200 denarii (6:7). There are parallels with Luke,82 but more of motif than of wording, e.g., figures like Martha and Mary, Lazarus (parabolic in Luke), and Annas; lack of a night trial before Caiaphas; the three "not guilty" statements in the Pilate trial; postresur-rectional appearances of Jesus in Jerusalem to his male disciples; the miraculous draught of fishes (Jn 21). There are fewer similarities with Matthew; yet compare Jn 13:16 with Mt 10:24; and Jn 15:18-27 with Mt 10:18-25.

A variety of solutions has been suggested. At one end of the spectrum, some would posit John's knowledge of Mark or even of all three Synoptics. (Such proposals may disagree as to whether John also had an independent tradition.) At the other end of the spectrum, the fourth evangelist is thought not to have known any Synoptic Gospel and occasional similarities between John and the others are explained in terms of the Synoptic and Johannine traditions independently reproducing with variations the same deeds or sayings. In between the extremes a median position (that I espouse myself) maintains that Mark and John shared common preGospel traditions, oral or written; and that although the fourth evangelist had not seen the final form of Luke, he was familiar with traditions incorporated later into Luke. Some who make a distinction in John between an evangelist and a final redactor would posit that only the latter knew one or more of the Synoptic Gospels.

Unity and Cohesiveness of John

If we lay aside the issue of sources employed in John, the question remains whether the Gospel is a cohesive whole. There are abrupt transitions (called aporias) between parts of John, e.g., with only minimum transitions chap. 4 ends in Galilee; chap. 5 describes Jesus in Jerusalem; chap. 6 has Jesus back in Galilee. Some scholars would rearrange these chapters to the order 4, 6, and 5 on the supposition that the original order was confused. Indeed commentaries have been written on a reconstructed order. The rearrangement proposal faces serious difficulties. First, there is no manuscript evidence to support any such rearrangements, and any theory that the pages of John were confused by chance has to depend totally on imagination. Second, the order that emerges from rearrangements still presents problems unless one makes changes in the wording, e.g., while the order 4, 6, 5, makes better geographic sequence, the transition from the end of chap. 5 to the beginning of chap. 7 is awkward. Third, such rearrangements are based on assumptions about what should have interested the evangelist. Yet John gives us a very schematic account of Jesus' ministry, and does not worry about transitions unless they have theological purpose (e.g., the careful sequence of days in chaps. 1-2). In the series of feasts in chaps. 2, 5, 6, 7 and 10 that serves as the framework for Jesus' ministry, little attention is paid to the long intervals that separate the feasts. Someone was responsible for the Gospel in its final form; and unless one is willing to suppose incompetence, he could scarcely have missed the obviously imperfect sequence, if he regarded that as important.

Yet one cannot deny the presence of certain transition difficulties for which another solution may be proposed. The most awkward is the relatively clear ending of the Gospel in 20:30-31 where the writer acknowledges that there was other material that he could have included but did not choose to do so. The presence of still another chapter (21) and another ending (21:24-25) raises the possibility that, after an earlier form of the Gospel was completed (but before any preserved form of the Gospel circulated), someone made additions. Presumably this someone was not the person who composed the earlier form and now had afterthoughts, for that person should have felt free to insert the material of chap. 21 before the ending he had earlier composed in 20:30-31,84 Accordingly the present Gospel is thought to involve the work of two hands, an evangelist who composed the body of the Gospel and a redactor who later made additions.

In that theory what would have been the goal of this redactor and how did he work? Bultmann, who attributed major sections of the Gospel to redaction, created the image of an Ecclesiastical Redactor. In this approach, the writing left by the evangelist was too radical in its theology; and in order to make it acceptable to the wider church (hence "Ecclesiastical"), a type of censor added sections. For example, to a nonsacramental gospel the Ecclesiastical Redactor added the references to baptism in 3:5 and the eucharist in 6:51b-58 and to both sacraments in 19:34b-35; to a gospel that understood the last things (coming from heaven, judgment, eternal life) to have been already realized in Jesus' ministry, the Ecclesiastical Redactor added the motif of final judgment (Jn 5:28-29; Jn 12:48). Positing such censorship smacks too much of a modern mind-set governed by a thesis-antithesis pattern and is unnecessary in the redactor theory.

A much more likely supposition is that one who took the trouble to add to the evangelist's work agreed with it substantially and was of the same community of thought. Indeed the style of the proposed additions shows respect for what was already written and a desire not to tamper with the established pattern, e.g., adding a chapter of resurrection appearances (chap. 21) after the existing ending in Jn 20:30-31 rather than breaking up the careful arrangement of appearances in chap. 20. There are several possible types of material that the redactor would have been adding. (1) Omitted material. There are several indications (Jn 20:31; Jn 21:25) of a wider body of tradition that was not included. Some of it may not have been known to the evangelist or have suited his purpose, e.g., the appearances in Galilee. (2) Duplicate material. In the final form of John there appear to be slightly variant collections of substantially the same words of Jesus. E.g., Jn 3:31-36 (which awkwardly lacks a clear indication of the speaker) seems to duplicate things said in Jn 3:7, Jn 11-13, Jn 15-18. Also parts of Jn 16:4b-33 (spoken at the Last Supper, considerably after the indication in Jn 14:31 that Jesus was leaving) duplicate closely themes already enunciated in Jn 14; and Jn 6:51b-58 duplicates sayings in Jn 6:35-5l.

Why would the redactor have added such material to the evangelist's work? We must speculate from the nature of the proposed additions. At times the added material is not significantly distinctive in tone or emphasis and so may have been included simply because it was in the tradition and the redactor did not want to lose it. At other times the putative additions reflect a different theological emphasis, best explained if community thought varied over time. For instance, Jn 6:51b-58 brings out the eucharistic aspect of the Bread of Life, supplementing the emphasis on the bread as divine revelation or teaching in Jn 6:35-5la. This need not be hardened into a corrective imposed by ecclesiastical censorship, for there were already symbolic references to the eucharist in the account of the multiplication of the loaves (Jn 6:1-15) that served as the basis for the Bread of Life discourse. Plausibly the dialogue in Jn 21:15-17 that gives Simon Peter shepherding responsibility was included because it offered justification for the development of human pastoral authority in a community that hitherto had looked on Jesus as the sole shepherd - a development, some would theorize, necessitated by the type of schismatic division visible in 1 John. In such an instance, however, one should not jump to the conclusion that, if the motive for the redactor's addition was prompted by circumstances in ongoing community history, the added material itself was necessarily late. Sayings about the manner of Peter's martyrdom (Jn 21:18) and the possibility that the Beloved Disciple would not die (Jn 21:23) are so vague that they surely preceded the respective deaths. In some instances the redactor would have been reviving and incorporating old tradition.

Plausible as that may be, at most the theory of a redactor solves some of the features observable in the Gospel as it has come to us.

Authorship and the Beloved Disciple

The Gospel calls attention to an eyewitness at the cross (Jn 19:35) who seemingly is "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (Jn 19:26). Jn 21:20,24 claims that this anonymous Beloved Disciple both bears witness and "has written these things." Irenaeus (ca. ad 180) identified the Disciple as John (one of the Twelve) who lived at Ephesus86 till Trajan's time (ca. 98). (As a boy Irenaeus had known Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who is supposed to have known John.) This identification of the Beloved Disciple and evangelist as John (son of Zebedee), with the minor variation that he had assistants, subsequently received church acceptance. Nevertheless, as pointed out above (p. 109), it is now recognized that such late-2d-century surmises about figures who had lived a century before were often simplified; and that authorship tradition was sometimes more concerned with the authority behind a biblical writing than with the physical writer. As with the other Gospels it is doubted by  most scholars that this Gospel was written by an eyewitness of the public ministry of Jesus.

Who was the Beloved Disciple? There are three approaches. First, some propose a known NT figure. In addition to the traditional candidate (John, son of Zebedee), other proposals have included Lazarus, John Mark, and Thomas (Charlesworth). Although there may be a passage to support each identification, if the long tradition behind John is rejected, one is reduced to guessing. Second, some scholars have evaluated the Beloved Disciple as a pure symbol, created to model the perfect disciple. That he is never given a name and that he appears alongside Peter in scenes known to us from the Synoptic Gospels where no such figure is mentioned88 have been invoked as a proof of nonhistoricity. However, another unnamed Johannine figure who has a symbolic role and appears where she is absent in the Synoptics, namely, the mother of Jesus (Jn 2:3-12; Jn 19:25-27), was certainly a historical figure. The Beloved Disciple's presence at the foot of the cross when all the Twelve had fled need indicate only that he was neither one of the Twelve89 nor an apostle - a term never used in John. Third, still other scholars (with whom I agree) theorize that the Beloved Disciple was a minor figure during the ministry of Jesus, too unimportant to be remembered in the more official tradition of the Synoptics. But since this figure became important in Johannine community history (perhaps the founder of the community), he became the ideal in its Gospel picture, capable of being contrasted with Peter as closer to Jesus in love.

Was the Beloved Disciple the evangelist? That would be the impression given by Jn 21:20,24: "has written these things." Could this, however, be a simplification by the redactor who added chap. 21, hardening the more accurate 19:35: "This testimony has been given by an eyewitness, and his testimony is true; he is telling what he knows to be true that you too may have faith"? The passage in 19 could mean that the Beloved Disciple was not the evangelist but a witness to Jesus and thus the source of tradition that has gone into the Fourth Gospel. The evangelist who wrote that passage could have been a follower or disciple of the Beloved Disciple (whom he describes in the third person) and not himself an eyewitness of the ministry. Indeed, if one posits both a different writer for the Epistles (p. 389 below) and a redactor for the Gospel, one could agree with those who posit a "Johannine School," i.e., various disciples employing both a style and material that were traditional in this community - traditional because in whole or in part they were shaped by the Beloved Disciple.

The thesis would explain how some factors in John91 plausibly reflect origin in the ministry of Jesus, while other factors seem distant from that ministry:

(a) Familiarity with Palestine. John knows the location of Bethany (11:18), the garden across the winter-flowing Kidron (18:1), Solomon's porch in the Temple (10:23), the pools of Bethesda (5:2) and of Siloam (9:7), and the Lithostrotos (19:13). These sites are not mentioned in the other Gos pels, and sometimes external evidence supports Johannine accuracy. Other Johannine geographical references (Bethany beyond the Jordan in 1:28; Ae- non near Salim in 3:23) have not yet been identified, but we should be cau tious about resorting to purely symbolic interpretations of the names.

(b) Familiarity with Judaica. Jewish feasts are mentioned in Jn 5:9b; Jn 6:4; Jn 7:2; and Jn 10:22; and the ensuing dialogue shows a knowledge of festal cere monies and theology. Jewish customs are mentioned both explicitly (purity regulations in Jn 2:6; Jn 18:28; paschal lamb in Jn 19:36) and implicitly (perhaps the makeup of the high priest's tunic in Jn 19:23).

If the tradition behind John is firmly rooted in Judaism and Palestine,92 the presentation of that tradition has moved considerably beyond Jesus' ministry. Indeed the evangelist acknowledges this (Jn 2:22) and defends such development as guided by the Spirit-Paraclete (Jn 16:12-14). Those who confess Jesus have been expelled from the synagogue (Jn 9:22; 12:43); indeed, Christians have been killed by pious devotees of the synagogue (Jn 16:2). We have seen in n. 13 above that the Johannine use of "the Jews" reflects attitudes developed in the history of the Johannine community. Unlike the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels, the Johannine Jesus speaks explicitly of his divinity and his preexistence (Jn 8:58; Jn 10:30-38; Jn 14:9; Jn 17:5). He is hailed as God (Jn 20:28); and the basic argument with "the Jews" is not merely about his violation of the Sabbath rules but about his making himself equal to God (Jn 5:16-18; Jn 19:7). Traditional deeds of Jesus, like healing the crippled, multiplying loaves, and opening the eyes of the blind, have become the subject of long homilies involving theological reflection and debate along the lines of the Jewish interpretation of Scripture (Jn 5:30-47; Jn 6:30-5la; Jn 9:26-34). Contrary to the Synoptic tradition, a significant group of Samaritans believes in Jesus independently of Jesus' first followers (Jn 4:28-42).

Such development may be explained best if tradition about Jesus stemming from the Beloved Disciple has been reflected upon over many years and expanded in the light of Johannine community experiences. Beginning with the acceptance of Jesus as the final prophet and the Messiah of Jewish expectations (Jn 1:40-49), the tradition has gone on to "greater things" (1:50). Jesus is not only the Son of Man who will come down from heaven at the end of time to judge the world; the hour is already here and he has already come down from heaven. That is the secret of his ministry: What he does and says is what he saw and heard when he was with God before the Word became flesh (Jn 5:19; Jn 8:28; Jn 12:49). The teachers of Israel believed in a Moses who climbed up Sinai, had contact with God there, and came down to repeat what he had heard; but Jesus is greater than Moses. He did not have to go up to God but came from heaven above where he saw God, so that whoever believes in him is never judged (Jn 3:10-21). The Beloved Disciple may have lived through the historical development of the community (and perhaps through expulsion from the synagogue), and so there may have been a certain symbiosis between him and the Gospel that committed to writing a tradition that not only had its roots in his experience of Jesus but also embodied decades of his ongoing reflection on that experience. The evangelist, who wove the theologically reflected tradition into a work of unique literary skill, would presumably have been a disciple of the Beloved Disciple, about whom he writes in the third person. And the redactor, if there was one, may have been another disciple.

Influences on Johannine Thought

John is often characterized as a Hellenistic Gospel. Its usage of abstract ideas like light and truth; its dualistic division of humanity into light and darkness, truth and falsehood; its concept of the Word - all these were once widely held to be the product of Greek philosophical thought, or of combinations of philosophy and religion (e.g., the Hermetic literature), or of the Pagan mystery religions. An intermediary proposal was that the works of the Jewish philosopher Philo (before ad 50) served as a channel of such thought, particularly in relation to "the Word."94 Another group of scholars has stressed the relationship of John to (incipient) gnosticism. The Johannine picture of a savior who came from an alien world above,95 who said that neither he nor those who accepted him were of this world (Jn 17:14), and who promised to return to take them to the heavenly dwelling (Jn 14:2-3) could be fitted into the gnostic world picture (even if God's love for the world in 3:16 could not). Hitherto, very few actual gnostic works were known, and our knowledge of 2d-century gnosticism came from the reports of the Church Fathers. From them we knew that the first commentator on John (Heracleon, disciple of Valentinus, mid-2d century) was gnostic. Now, however, with the discovery at Chenoboskion (Nag Hammadi) in Egypt in the late 1940s, we have gnostic works in Coptic (some translated from original Greek of the 2d century ad). Although there are occasional stylistic parallels to John (n. 76 above), overall these new documents are very different from a narrative Gospel like John; and most doubt that John borrowed from such gnosticism. Still another proposal would see parallels between John and the later Mandaean writings (p. 92 above), with their syncretistic mixture of Jewish lore and gnostic myth. In substance all these theories agree that the Johannine idiom of language and thought did not stem from the Palestinian world of Jesus of Nazareth.

A very different approach would see the basic origins of Johannine Christianity within that Palestinian world with all its Jewish diversity - a world that had been influenced by Hellenism but where reflection on the heritage of Israel was the primary catalyst. That heritage would be judged not simply from the books of the Law and the Prophets, but also from the protocanonical and deuterocanonical Wisdom Literature (see p. xxxv above), and from apocryphal and intertestamental literature. In particular, the enrichment supplied by the DSS comes into the picture. We find in these documents ideas and vocabulary that the critics once thought were not authentically Palestinian, viz., a world divided into light and darkness (Jn 3:19-21); people under the power of an evil angelic principle (1 Jn 5:19); people walking in light or in darkness (8:12; 1 Jn 1:5-7); walking in truth (II Jn 4; 3Jn 4); testing the spirits (1 Jn 4:1); the spirits of truth and perversity (1 Jn 4:6). The resemblance in vocabulary and thought between the DSS and John should banish the idea that the Johannine tradition could not have developed on Palestinian soil.

There is no evidence for a direct familiarity of John with the DSS; rather there is the possibility of indirect acquaintance with a type of thought and expression current at Qumran, and perhaps in a wider area. There are interesting parallels between what we know of JBap and the beliefs attested in the Scrolls (even though we need not think that JBap was a member of the Qumran community), and in the NT John shows the greatest interest in JBap's disciples. In portraying the first disciples of Jesus as disciples of JBap and Jesus as conducting at least a brief baptizing ministry, John may be historical. This leaves open the possibility that the disciples of JBap were a channel whereby Qumran vocabulary and ideas came into the Johannine tradition. That much of the Qumranlike vocabulary appears in the speeches of Jesus in John (to a much greater extent, than in the Synoptics) need not lead us to conclude hastily that the raw materials in those speeches were the artificial compositions of the evangelist. If Qumran exemplifies a wider range of thought, Jesus could well have been familiar with its vocabulary and ideas; for the Word-made-flesh spoke the language of his time. The Johannine tradition, with a special affection for this style of thought, may have been more attentive in preserving it," as well as remembering and emphasizing other ideas that did not seem important to the Synoptic writers. The possibility of Palestinian and Jewish origins for the Johannine presentation of Jesus leads us to the issue of Johannine community development.

History of the Johannine Community

As noted in discussing the Synoptic Gospels, because the Jesus material was shaped by each evangelist for an intended audience, indirectly the Gospels may give us theological and sociological information about the Christians who preserved, shaped, and/or received the memories of him. John's Gospel presentation of Jesus is strongly characterized by debates and adversarial situations, and we have three Epistles of John clearly echoing Johannine thought but more openly addressed to an audience and its problems. Consequently it may be that one can reconstruct more of the background of John than that of any other Gospel. Yet one should not confuse such reconstructive research with exegesis, which has to do with what the Gospel meant to convey to its readers. The evangelist tells us his purpose in Jn 20:31, and it was not to recount background.

I shall now present a reconstruction of the community history,100 warning that while it explains many factors in the Gospel, it remains a hypothesis and "perhaps" needs to be added to every sentence. The reconstruction covers not only the Gospel and its redaction but also the Johannine Epistles (to be treated in more detail in Jn 12-14). Four phases are involved. (1) A phase preceding the written Gospel but shaping its thought (up to the 70s or 80s). In or near Palestine, Jews of relatively standard expectations, including followers of JBap, accepted Jesus as the Davidic Messiah, the ful-filler of the prophecies, and one confirmed by miracles (see the titles in Jn 1). Among them, insignificantly at first, was a man who had known Jesus and become his disciple during the public ministry and who would become the Beloved Disciple. To these first followers were added Jews of an anti-Temple bias who made converts in Samaria (Jn 4). They understood Jesus primarily against a Mosaic background (as distinct from a Davidic one): Jesus had been with God, whom he had seen and whose word he brought down to this world. The acceptance of this second group catalyzed the development of a high, preexistence christology (seen against the background of divine Wisdom101) that led to debates with Jews who thought that Johannine Christians were abandoning Jewish monotheism by making a second God out of Jesus (Jn 5:18). Ultimately the leaders of these Jews had Johannine Christians expelled from synagogues (Jn 9:22; Jn 16:2). The latter, alienated from their own, turned very hostile to "the Jews," whom they regarded as children of the devil (Jn 8:44). They stressed a realization of the eschatological promises in Jesus to compensate for what they had lost in Judaism (whence the strong theme of replacement in the Gospel). At the same time the Johannine Christians despised believers in Jesus who did not make the same public break from the synagogue (exemplified by the parents of the blind man in 9:21-23; also 12:42-43). The disciple mentioned above made this transition and helped others to make it, thus becoming the Beloved Disciple.

(2) The phase during which the basic Gospel was written by the evange list. Since "the Jews" were considered blind and unbelieving (12:37-40), the coming of the Greeks was seen as God's plan of fulfillment (12:20-23). The community or part of it may have moved from Palestine to the diaspora to teach the Greeks (7:35), perhaps to the Ephesus area104 - a move that would cast light on the Hellenistic atmosphere of the Gospel and on the need to explain Semitic names and titles (e.g., rabbi, Messiah). This context brought out universalist possibilities in Johannine thought, in an attempt to speak to a wider audience. Rejection and persecution, however, convinced Johannine Christians that the world (like "the Jews") was opposed to Jesus. They looked on themselves as not of this world which was under the power of Satan, the Prince of this world (Jn 17:15-16; Jn 14:30; Jn 16:33). In their relation to other Christians, they rejected some as having so inadequate a christology that they were really unbelievers (Jn 6:60-66). Others symbolized by Simon Peter truly believed in Jesus (Jn 6:67-69) but were not deemed so perceptive as the Johannine Christians symbolized by the Beloved Disciple (Jn 20:6-9). The hope was that the divisions between them and the Johannine community might be healed and they might be one (Jn 10:16; Jn 17:11). However, the Gospel's one-sided emphasis on the divinity of Jesus (shaped by struggles with the synagogue leaders) and on the need for love of one another as the sole com mandment (Jn 13:34; Jn 15:12,17) opened the way for some in the next generation whose whole knowledge of Jesus came from that Gospel to develop exag gerated views.

(3) The phase during which the Johannine Epistles, I and 2 John, were written (ca. ad 100). The community split in two: (a) Some adhered to the  view represented by the author of 1 and 2 John (another Johannine writer distinct from the evangelist). He complemented the Gospel by stressing the humanity of Jesus (come in the flesh) and ethical behavior (keeping the commandments); (b) Many seceded (at least, in the view of the author of 1 Jn 2:18-19) and were antichrists and children of the devil because they had so exaggerated Jesus' divinity that they did not see any importance in his human career or in their own behavior (beyond simply believing in Jesus - see pp. 390-91 below). Yet in the Johannine community there was no structure sufficiently authoritative to enable the author to discipline the secessionists who were actively seeking more adherents; he could only urge those who were puzzled about truth to test the Spirits (1 Jn 4:1-6).

(4) The phase during which III John was written and the redactor added chap. 21 (ad 100-110?). The disintegration of the Johannine community led to a development of pastoral structure and brought those sympathetic to the christology described under 3a closer to the larger "church catholic." In III John, even though the writer did not like him because he had become authoritative, Diotrephes probably represented this new trend which was alien to the preceding Johannine reliance on the Spirit alone as teacher. Similarly in Jn 21:15-17 Jesus gives Simon Peter the task of feeding the sheep and thus recognizes human pastors alongside Jesus, the model shepherd. This development would ultimately bring some Johannine Christians into the larger church and preserve the Johannine heritage for that church. On the other hand those sympathetic to the christology described under 3b above (perhaps the larger group) fed their interpretation into docetism (where Jesus was deemed not truly human) and gnosticism (where this world was considered so distorted that it was not God's creation106) and ultimately Montanism (where Montanus became the embodiment of the Paraclete to guide the church).

Issues and Problems for Reflection

(1) The passage in 7:53-8:11 dealing with Jesus' judgment on the woman caught in adultery is missing from the best Greek mss. While for many (including Roman Catholics) the story is canonical, inspired Scripture, almost certainly it is out of context here in John, despite possible relationship to 8:15,46a. Some mss. place the story after Lk 21:38 as a continuation of the cunning questions presented to Jesus before his arrest (Lk 20:20-40). We may have here an old story about Jesus' mercy toward sinners (see Papias in EH 3:39.) that traveled independently of the four Gospels and could not be included until there was a change in the church's reluctance to forgive adultery (Shepherd of Hermas, Mandate 4:1). The passage supplies an occasion for reflecting on the relationship between the Jesus tradition and church teaching.

(2) In Matthew's Sermon on the Mount (5:44), Jesus says, "Love your ene mies, and pray for those who persecute you." In the "Love one another" of Jn 13:34; Jn 15:12,17 John's Jesus thinks of love for one's fellow believers who are God's children; but nothing is mentioned of enemies. (And indeed the Johannine Jesus does not pray for the world (Jn 17:9; see 1 Jn 5:16c).) Thus the Johannine "new commandment" of love may seem narrow to some and even sectarian. Yet from another point of view, love of those one has to live with can be the most difficult exercise of love. Christian prayers for those outside the Christian faith and concern for them can be compromised by a lack of love for other believers in Christ. Ironically, churches have fought each other bitterly in missionary areas where they were all pro claiming their love for those who did not yet believe in Christ!107

(3) There is sharp division on the question of Johannine sacramentalism. One group of scholars sees few or no references to sacraments (especially baptism and eucharist); and indeed some would characterize John as antisacramental. Their case is based on the absence of overt references to baptism (cf. Mt 28:19; Mk 16:16) and to the eucharist (cf. Mk 14:22-24 and par.). From this springs Bultmann's thesis of an Ecclesiastical Redactor who introduced sacramental references to make the Gospel acceptable to the church. Others contend that John is the most sacramental of the Gospels; indeed, they detect some twenty allusive or symbolic references to baptism and the eucharist in John's use of water, bread, wine, gaining sight, etc. To prevent too imaginative a search for these, exterior controls have been suggested, e.g., insisting that the proposed Johannine sacramental symbols be verified in sacramental contexts in other NT or early church writings and/ or catacomb art. An in-between position maintains that the Johannine Jesus' words and actions are prophetic anticipations of the sacraments rather than direct references. Beyond the baptismal/eucharistic interpretations, John has been seen as the most sacramental NT writing in the broader sense that the Johannine Jesus used the language of this world to refer to the realities of the world from which he came - the earthly used to symbolize the heavenly. In my view the broader sacramental understanding of Johannine symbolism, which is certainly verifiable, tilts the odds in favor of seeing specific symbolic references to baptism and eucharist.

(4) Above (p. 346) a twofold interpretation of the Bread of Life was sug gested: Jesus' revelation and Jesus' flesh and blood. In Lk 24:27-35 there are two ways in which the presence of the risen Jesus is recognized: the interpretation of the Scriptures and the breaking of the bread. One may have here incipiently the format of the liturgical service in which through the centuries Christians have sought nourishment: the service of the word (read ing and preaching the Scriptures) and the service of the sacrament (eucha rist). Churches have at times been divided as to which deserves the most emphasis, but often the ideal has been to include both in the Sunday service. Readers may wish to reflect on their own experience of church life, espe cially if there have been changes in these last decades, to see how the balance works out.

(5) I insisted above that the investigation of the history of the Johannine community and the discussion of John's sources and composition did not constitute exegesis in the sense of determining what the author intended to convey to his audience. Perhaps proportionately too much attention has been devoted to the background issues and too little to the Gospel's helping read ers to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and thus to possess life in his name (20:31). Clement of Alexandria called John "the spiritual Gospel." Many Johannine emphases facilitate that insight, e.g.: the pedagogically simple picture that through begetting/birth in water and Spirit believ ers receive God's own life and that through Jesus' flesh and blood that life is fed and nourished; the dramatic stress on one-to-one contacts with Jesus; the everyman and every woman role of Johannine figures like the blind man and Samaritan woman, personifying different faith reactions; the language of love binding believers to Jesus just as love binds the Son with the Father; the indwelling Paraclete through whom Jesus remains attainable; the impor tance of discipleship which is a role that all can share. For John there are no second-class citizens among true believers; all of them are God's own children in Christ.