Part Two: New Testament Literature
Chapter 11 The Gospel of John
The earliest evidence for the existence of the Fourth Gospel or, at any rate, of the distinctive ideas of its author, is provided in the letters of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch about 115. The gospel itself was used by the Gnostic teacher Basilides, early in the second century at Alexandria, and from the same period comes a tiny papyrus fragment containing several verses of John 18. Orthodox teachers like Justin made use of the gospel at Rome, and wall paintings in the Roman catacombs (c. 175) portray Johannine themes. The earliest ‘commentaries’ on John which we know, come from Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, disciples of the Christian Gnostic Valentinus; both of them ascribed the book to John, the disciple of Jesus.
In the late second century a few orthodox writers, reacting against Montanist use of John, denied that he had written the book, but most Christians agreed with Theophilus that it was written by an inspired author and with Irenacus that this author was John, author of the book of Revelation and teacher of Polycarp of Smyrna. The fact that in
Polycarp’s extant letter or letters there is only one possible allusion to the gospel does not prove that he did not know the book. It is a question, however, whether or not the gospel and the Apocalypse were written by the same author. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria (c. 250), argued that considerations of vocabulary, style and thought prove that there were two authors.
After the end of the second century, however, no Christian author
doubted that the gospel was written by an apostle; only in modern times has the question been raised again, chiefly because of the differences between John and the synoptic gospels either individually or as a group.
We shall consider these differences as we examine Johannine vocabulary, style and thought.
Vocabulary and Style
The Gospel of John contains 15,240 words, only 1,011 of them different.
Of these, 112 do not occur in any other New Testament book. In
proportion to its size, the gospel employs the smallest vocabulary in the New Testament; even the book of Revelation reflects a higher
proportion of vocabulary to total number of words (9.3 per cent against 6.5 per cent).
Especially characteristic of the gospel’s vocabulary are words bearing upon the meaning of Jesus’ revelation. There are 120 references to God as ‘Father’ (only sixty-four in all three synoptics), only three of them qualified by adjectives (‘living’, 6.57; ‘holy’, 17.11; ‘righteous’, 17.25).
The Father is often identified as ‘he who sent me’ (twenty-six times).
John usually speaks of ‘Jesus’, but the terms ‘Son’ (nineteen times),
‘Son of Man’ (thirteen times), and ‘Son of God’ (seven times) also occur. The most common way of indicating the significance of Jesus, however, is in the use of the nominative personal pronoun ‘I’ (120 times). The most important use of ‘I’ occurs in the expression ‘I am’
with a predicate noun.
I am the bread of life (6:35, 41, 48, 51)
I am the light of the world (8:12)
I am the door of the sheep (10:7, 9)
I am the good shepherd (10:11, 14)
I am the resurrection and life (11:25)
I am the way, truth, and life (14:6)
I am the true vine (15:1, 5)
There are also significant verbs of revealing used with ‘I’, for example ‘I know’ (141 times), ‘I bear witness’ (thirty-three times), ‘I speak’ (thirty times), ‘I glorify’ (twenty-one times), and ‘I make manifest’ (nine
times). The response of the believer is indicated especially by ‘I believe’
(100 times) and ‘I behold’ (twenty-three times).
The nature of Jesus’ revelation is intimated by ‘truth’ (true, truly, a total of fifty-five times), by ‘life’ in a special sense (thirty-six times), and by
‘light’ (twenty-two times). Revelation and response are combined in
‘love’ (noun and verbs, fifty-seven times), and the response of ‘abiding’
or ‘remaining’ is found forty times.
The spiritual environment of the Incarnation is reflected in the word
‘world’ (‘kosmos’, seventeen times), often co-ordinated with ‘the Jews’
(sixty-eight times). John mentions a Jewish feast seventeen times, and speaks of ‘your law’ three times.
There are also favourite words which point towards John’s conception of history: ‘not yet’ (‘oupo’, eight times in a ‘theological’ sense), two
words for ‘now’ (about thirty times: ‘arti’ and ‘nun’). He also employs several words for dealing with spiritual origins: ‘whence’ (‘pothen’, thirteen times) and ‘whither’ (‘pou’, about twelve times), ‘from above’
(five times) and ‘from below’ (once); similarly, he contrasts heaven with earth.
For the sake of comparison with the synoptics, it may be added that the following words never occur in John, though fairly common in the other gospels: (1) ‘Christian’ words: apostles, baptism, gospel, repent,
repentance, inherit; (2) ‘Sociological’ words: adultery, demons (exorcisms), divorce, rich, Sadducee, scribe, tax collector. To these should be added words which, though common in the synoptics, are very infrequent in John: (1) cross, crucify, forgive, kingdom, save; (2)
blaspheme, blasphemy, marry, marriage, poor, priest, synagogue.
Whatever the historical situations of John and the synoptics may be, they are rather different from each other. Perhaps one might say that the synoptic gospels are more concerned with social and historical matters, while John is concerned with theology.
Specialists in Aramaic have often argued that John’s gospel was translated from that language. As criteria of proof they have used (1) obscurities which can be explained as misunderstood Aramaic, and (2) bad Greek which may be due to poor translation. Their use of these
criteria was undercut in 1931 by E. C. Colwell (The Greek of the Fourth Gospel), who showed that the passages were not very obscure and that the Greek was characteristic of the Koiné. Furthermore, different
Aramaists retranslate differently. John may have written in Aramaic; but the case has not been proved.
John is fond of varying his Greek words where he intends to convey the same meanings. For example, three different words are used for ‘go away’ in John 16:5-10, two for ‘love’ in 21:15-17 (cf. 14:21 and 16:27), and three for ‘grieve’ in 16:20-2. Two different words for ‘ear’ are used in John 18:10 and 26, two for ‘keep’ in 17:12. Lists of ‘Johannine
synonyms’ can easily be constructed. Similarly, when the Johannine Christ says, ‘As I told you before,’ comparison of what he has
previously said with what he says now will reveal that the two sayings are almost never verbally identical. This feature shows John’s fondness for variation.
At the same time, John likes to use a single expression with various meanings; sometimes he seems to be indicating that there is not only an obvious or ‘surface’ meaning but also a deeper significance. This
characteristic of his writing occurs not only in the discourses with Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman and in relation to the Feeding of the Five Thousand, but also in conversations with the disciples. John is suggesting that the meaning of Jesus was not exhausted by the
interpretations of his person and message which were given by his contemporaries, just as the Darkness did not ‘grasp’ the Light (1:5).
Much of the teaching of Jesus was ambiguous. When he spoke of the temple he really referred to his body (2:19-21). He said that a man must be born ‘again’ (‘from above’) of water and the Spirit (3:3-5); and the word ‘pneuma’ means both ‘spirit’ and ‘wind’ (3:8). To be ‘lifted up’
(3:14) means both to be exalted (8:28; 12:32-4) and to be crucified (18:32). ‘Water’ means one thing to the Samaritan woman, another to Jesus (4:7-11). He alone understands the deeper meaning of ‘going away’ (7:35; 8:21; 13:33-6), of being blind and then seeing (9:39-41), of the sleep of death (11:4, 11-15), and of resurrection (11:23-6). And in this gospel even the high priest delivers an ambiguous prediction (11:50- 2; cf. 18:14) and Pilate involuntarily testifies to the significance of Jesus (19:5, 14-15).
Sometimes, on the other hand, John seems to indicate different shades of meaning by the use of different, though related, words. He seems to hint that the verb ‘hypagein’ does not mean simply ‘to go’ but is especially
concerned with Christ’s going to the Father (7:35; 8:21; 13:33, 36).
Similarly the ordinary words ‘erchesthai’, ‘to come’, and ‘poreuesthai’,
‘to go’, are used chiefly of coming from and going to heaven, while the compound verbs meaning ‘to come from’ and ‘to go to’ are more
frequently related to movement in the world. Special meanings seem to be reserved for ‘anabainein’, ‘to go up’ (to Jerusalem, to the temple, to festivals, to heaven), for ‘katabainein’, ‘to go down’ (to Capernaum for a healing, from heaven), and for ‘metabainein’, ‘to cross’ (from death to life, from the world to the Father; once to Judaea). These words are important because so much of John’s thought is related to ‘up’ and
‘down’, ‘above’ and ‘below’, ‘heaven’ and ‘the world’. The true disciples know where Jesus came from and where he goes; they are
‘born from above’ and will ascend after him.
It is not certain how far John’s use of words is systematic, although Origen may have been right in believing that John regarded Judaea, Jerusalem, the temple and festivals as symbols of heaven, Galilee and Capernaum as symbols of the world. If he regarded them as symbols, he did not mean that they were ‘merely’ symbols. If they were symbols, they were, so to speak, incarnate symbols.
Thought
If we consider the purpose or purposes of the evangelist in so far as we can infer them from his book itself, we clearly find that he writes in order to inspire and to confirm faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, so that readers may have true life ‘in his name’ on the ground of this faith (20:30-1). What he writes consists of ‘signs’ which Jesus performed in his disciples’ presence, and he has made a selection from the many signs of Jesus because he believes that the ones recorded are essential. They include the transformation of water into wine (2:11) and the healing of a royal officer’s son (4:54) both at Cana in Galilee; but there arc many others, which during Jesus’ ministry did not inevitably result in faith (12:37). The picture which John sets forth is thus different from that found in the synoptic gospels, where Jesus denies that any sign will be given to his generation (Mark 8:12) --at any rate, none except
‘the sign of Jonah’ (Matt. 12:39-40; 16:8; Luke 11:29-30). According to Paul (I Cor. 1.22), ‘signs’ are sought for by Jews, not by Christians.
According to John, even the high priests and the Pharisees recognize that Jesus performed signs (11:47). (Sometimes a deeper meaning for ‘sign’
is indicated, as in John 6:26.)
The evangelist is concerned with pointing out that John the Baptist ‘did no sign’ (10:41). Here we encounter one of his most important interests.
The Baptist was not the Light but a witness to the Light (1:7). He was not the Christ (1:20; 3:28); he was not the returning Elijah (1:21;
contrast Matt. 11:14), nor yet ‘the prophet’ foretold by Moses (1:21), for this prophet is Jesus (6:14; 7:40). John pointed towards Jesus as really prior to himself (1:15, 27, 30); he recognized him as the Lamb of God (1:29, 36), and he said that as Jesus increased so he himself must
diminish (3:30). At least two of his disciples, including Andrew, became disciples of Jesus (1:35-40). Now in Acts 19:1-8 we find evidence for the existence of ‘Johannine’ Christians, and in the Clementine
Recognitions (fourth century) we read of disciples of the Baptist who regarded him as the Christ. This outside evidence, scanty though it is, confirms our impression that the evangelist is dealing with the real problem presented by those who revered the Baptist more highly than Jesus. This feature of his gospel suggests that it was written at a
relatively early date. The Clementine Recognitions are, of course, late;
but at many points they make use of early Jewish-Christian traditions, usually heterodox in character.
John is also concerned with the temple and its ritual. The synoptists place the cleansing of the temple just before the passion narrative; John makes it early and insists that the true temple is the body of Jesus (2:13- 22). True worship is ‘in spirit and truth’, not limited to Jerusalem or Samaria (4:20-4). The festivals at Jerusalem are described as ‘of the Jews’ (5:1; 7:2; 11:55); similarly the law (as law) is assigned to them.
Indeed, while in the synoptics Jesus eats the paschal meal with his disciples, in John 18:28 it is made plain that the time for the meal came after his arrest and crucifixion. In some respects John’s attitude
resembles that of the Dead Sea covenanters. His freedom from the law is balanced by insistence that ‘the scripture cannot be broken’ (10:35) and the treatment of the Mosaic writings as really written about Jesus (5:46).
Among the most important features of John’s thought is his view of Jesus as the incarnate Word of God (1:14), one with the Father (10:30);
he who has seen Jesus has seen the Father (14:9). He is the Revealer- Redeemer who comes down from the heavenly Father and returns to him. Along with this Concentration upon the person and work of Christ goes a revaluation of eschatology. Emphasis is placed not so much on the return of Christ and the last judgement as on the presence of Christ and the Holy Spirit and on judgement already begun in present life. In regard to Christology and eschatology the point of view of John is
somewhat different from that of the synoptic evangelists.
John and The Synoptics
We have already referred to many differences between John and the synoptic gospels. The most important of them is probably that of the order in which events are related, especially events located in or near Jerusalem. According to the synoptics, the public ministry of Jesus consisted of journeys about Galilee and one journey to Jerusalem;
according to John, he frequently visited the city. According to the synoptics, he cleansed the temple shortly before being crucified;
according to John, he did so early in his ministry. The possibilities, historically speaking, are these: (1) either John or the synoptics, or (2) neither John nor the synoptics. If we may assume that the details of the
‘triumphal entry’ are significant, and that they point towards the Feast of Tabernacles, we may conclude that both John and the synoptic
evangelists have transferred an event which originally occurred at Tabernacles to the Feast of Passover -- or, more probably, that their predecessors did so. Alternatively, we may assume that the actual feast was not remembered and that those who transmitted the traditional accounts felt free to place the event where they pleased.
There are also many details in which John agrees with the synoptic gospels, and we might suppose that such parallels would clearly indicate John’s relative earliness or lateness. Such is not the case. All the
evidence is ambiguous, and three possibilities remain open. (1) John did not know either the synoptic traditions or the synoptic gospels, but used independent traditions. (2) John knew some synoptic traditions and used them in his gospel. (3) John knew some or all of the synoptic gospels but consciously rewrote his sources in order to (a) interpret them or (b) supplement them or (c) supplant them. There are no reliable grounds for making a decision.
If we pass back to historical considerations it can be argued that the synoptic gospels fairly reliably reflect the Galilean-Judaean background of Jesus’ ministry as well as the exorcisms, parables and message of the kingdom with which he was concerned; all these features are minimized in John. On the other hand, in John we find a thought-world which in some respects resembles that of the Essenes of Qumran (see Chapter XVIII). It can be claimed, then, that the differences are due not to a
‘development’ from original, Jewish ideas to something else but to the reflection of two (or more) different kinds of Judaism. The fact that John
speaks in a hostile way about ‘the Jews’, while the synoptic evangelists pay more attention to smaller groups and to individuals, does not prove that he is not Jewish. The Qumran sectarians similarly criticized the
‘orthodox’. Moreover, criticism of ‘the Jews’ is not necessarily even late. It is found in I Thessalonians 2:15 and in early sermons in Acts (2:23, 3:15, etc.). On specific literary and historical grounds, then, it cannot be proved that John is either earlier or later than the synoptic gospels.
The only grounds on which this point can definitely be ‘proved’ lie in a general theory of the development of early Christian thought, and the chief support of this theory is provided by the Gospel itself. Since the argument is circular we shall do well to neglect it.
Interpolations and Sources
Especially in the twentieth century, scholars have pointed to difficulties in the Gospel of John which suggest that (1) it is not in order as it stands, (2) it has been interpolated by an editor, and (3) either the editor or the author made use of earlier sources which can be detected. It need hardly be said that such theories are not altogether new. Origen was well aware of some of the difficulties, and he used them to support his claim that the evangelist was concerned with spiritual truths rather than with historical events. The modern goal, however, is usually to give a literary-historical explanation of the phenomena.
(1) Proof that the Gospel is not in order is provided quite tellingly by Rudolf Bultmann.(Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart [ed. 3, 1959], III, 840-1.) (a) According to John 6:1, ‘after this Jesus went away to the other side of the sea of Galilee’; but according to the preceding chapter he was in Jerusalem. If chapter 5 follows chapter 6, everything falls into place. (b) Similarly, John 7:15-24 is incomprehensible in its present location; it belongs with the discussion in chapter 5, perhaps at the end; and in this case 7:1-14 goes with 7:25ff. (c) John 10:19-21 must be the ending of a longer section dealing with opening the eyes of a blind man; it therefore goes with chapter 9, while 10:1-18 goes with 10:27-9. (d) John 12:44-50 has no relation to its context; it too goes with chapter 9. (e) Something is wrong with the order of John 13-17, for 14:30-1 leads directly to the passion narrative (‘arise, let us go hence’) although three chapters of discourses follow. Chapters 15-17 must therefore originally have preceded chapter 14 (or, rather, 13:36-14:31).
If these points be granted -- and it is difficult to deny their force -- we must admit that the Gospel has been disarranged. The only question that remains is concerned with the extent of the disarrangement.
(2) The question of the activity of an editor is more difficult to decide.
What criteria are to be employed? Siegfried Mendner has listed four: (a) pedantic dependence on the synoptic gospels, (b) unpoetic inadequacy in word or thought, (c) unrealistic or unhistorical statements, and (d)
compositional difficulties and contradictions.(Zeitschrift für die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 47 [1956], 108.) Not all of these criteria possess equal force. The original author may have had difficulties, may sometimes have failed to write poetically, and may not have known or been concerned with historical events. As we have already suggested, we do not know whether or not he employed the synoptic traditions or gospels.
Bultmann differentiates late glosses from the work of the editor. He finds that the presence of glosses is often indicated by their being omitted in some manuscripts or versions. These glosses include John 7:53-8:11 (omitted by all ancient witnesses), 5:4 (omitted by most early manuscripts), and the following phrases omitted by some witnesses:
6:23 when the Lord gave thanks
13:10 except the feet 14:30 many things
16:16 because I go to the Father.
In addition, Bultmann treats as glosses the following expressions which break the continuity of thought or produce confusion in a sentence:
2:15 the sheep and the oxen 4:1 the Lord knew that
4:11 you have no dipper and the well is deep (too obvious) 21:20 following, who also reclined at the supper on his bosom and said, Lord, who is it who betrays you?
After these glosses have been removed, we have the gospel in the shape in which it left the hand of an ecclesiastical editor, late in the first
century or early in the second. From this form of the work, then, we must go on to remove items which were added in order to make the