UN DERSTAND ING THE FO U RTH GOS P EL
UNDERSTANDING THE FOURTH GOSPEL John Ashton
~
iI
1 CLAR EN IJO N PRESS· OX FORD 199 1
I
/1
i L
1 ~ Unlw r";' H "" ...
11'..."," SI_. O>;/ml Qr. 6",
~ 'Vwyortr_
Ilt""
I'< • It """"'" _ A:.r.-IoI ~1'1J ,,< /fM!l «-t 1.~ ._ Cor '" puWic..... _ lot ...,...,....". _""', ''''''''''''",d.
ritn",,*, _ _ ~
ai,
... otIwIoUr. wflM.t
aI 04t>nl V_I§" "...
tJtt """ _ _
8ri1!o11 '"
~
Cc! "
I
SI Andrew" Edinburgh. and Oxford
,i
.., '" ~ Do",
""""" ,... '9 cl , U""'t....,.!i~ ,'" ~"rlh Go>f"'l.
r. 1IJWr. S . T.I""" - C>itleSlloru
3.
Aft..,. Bultmann ehristolosY and fStha,oloer ~. Composfdon: ""'IUS and editions J. Orili"": !n.OUCIlCtS. backaround. rraditioo, +. Audio"c,,: situation lIld clrcumstances t . Theology:
",.m iIprll. '990
ConclUsion: looklnll back and lookJng forward PAU 11:
" "" "
w,9" '"
G[SHIS
Introduction
4.
Religious Dis5enl I . Pullin, the qucsUoo J. F.mily quom: I, 4. Th. n.. of )udDllln
." '" '"
The Community and hs Book
,60
Tbr boot ~. lbe rommUIlily } . lbe mtnmunily Itt lIS boot ~ . A Ioc:ol habitation and a name
,'" ,"
2.
j.
n,
T.
Th. Johannlno 1.\\",
Tj T
'7' '93
Q>nWUS
r.cun.us I: Tbc Flrsi f.dilloo
6.
Duallsm I . The ...'OrIeI 1.
). ur. 4 . 1\Id,"",",' Co.. c1u.1on
25 1
...
r.cumos 11: A Call to hlthlI: I'J- 4'JI
8. Son 01 God S·m_rltan c:onntnIoo 1. Mosoiah and I'r1:Iphet }. Or1lins 4. Mmlon : "On wh .... authortty does he opo.kr 5, .... gency 6, So""hlp Conolu'10= Thw/ogiral Dk"/iofllulI 0/ IN ~',w TtSlCrulioizing some p"""ious attempts 10 explain the Gospel. asking III each case from what pcrspcctil'c the expl anation is being attempted. One reason why this is a u.dul m~thod o[ proceediog is that '[he Johannin e pmblem' is nol one but many, and whell tackling it commcnlllLOn> are sometiolcs convinced [hat [hey have pinoed j[ down withou! rcallo:ing Ihat in anOlh~r of Its prolean shapeS il m~y have duded [hem alt<Jg.ther. If Ihe .un·ev attempted io the first part of thiS t>ook is [0 be proHlable it must also be methodical . and"" il ,,~u be helpful befo,"" embarking on it to off... a f"w p.. Uminary mrthodalogkal oi>serl'alions. , "1th Jolm', O:>.pcl "" life .m d in whO' HUlh ~t Luke. not compl~lely satisfied with hi' awn work and anxious to edit the work of another aionll tbe rlllht lines.' Y~t anoth~ suggestlon Is th ~ Alexandrian Apollos. Paul"s arch·rival at Cor· inth. ' Again. one can ask wb~~ the uthor came from. Was he. if not a Palestinlan Jcw. a nath·~ of Eph~1,1J (lhere Is at least a s!mng Iradltlon that h~ died Ihere) or Antinch or Alexandrta? Was he Greek or ... as h~ Jewish (or prrfIaps Samaritan). when did he write. and what " ·as bis lIath~ langugr. Ar;omalc Of Greek,' Was he a cburdunlIIn. interested. in institutions and rilual. espedaU)' sacramental. or did he OOl"Ocalr a new kind of worship. ODe DOl tied to ptlItk ulW" IOrms Of places2 ). What kind of rt< ItonI.m ~ cl.ti_tno, !be Gospel .... . !be......t lib< C,..... ... CftiDtbus. , A """"*'-' oumlia- 0( >at "'" lUChar w.... !!<man ~ . .."Ol1In",. o( .u h. r=>nl •.
but """" /at.IKdord. .... G.
..... c..u.... ...""
_ani.
..,,1'Ior
')""'1"""'
QuesUollS arul tins"",,,,
Imro,JuCliO"
word Me15iah (,' 41) and of names like Sii(]Q11l (9 : 7), On the other band. he was p,."pared 10 gil"" the 'Hebre"" ,"ersion of C,=k lemlli meaning 'pa"emen!" (19: I 3) or "the p/ac", oftbe slmll' (19: 17). But If his audlence read and presumabl)' spoke Greek. were they '!i!Y.l"e Gr""h. whate
• As c. K. Bam:tl mpJc~ arUcle that SOl out 10 reconcile Ihe two most ancieD! \iews of the purpo5· Quotod by M. Introd",,_,~ . 2] •
• -Z".ed: .. p. ~4 .
Goi"ci.
Before Bu/!",ann
the ~bera Ung lnfluence of F. C. Baw-. he had already ahandoned the idea of apostolic authorship. None the less the e,'angelist .... as a disciple of lhe apostle and Iili work w"" '\Titten under his aegis if not under his dlrection. But his soul had been scared by his treatment at the hands of the Jews. which had left him convinced that ·of all the enemit"S of Christianity the [e'H are the moSt malevolent· . This deepscated collviction could nOI bUI colour his 0"11 "crsion of tbe story of Je ..""!In ... DOl by M.tlt "'" by SIIoo. 11>0 Fourth C.ospoi would kw oD It< .~'1>oonI>Ip
~ ..
po
1.8~
&/or( 16 Gospel was the Unllari~n Ed\\'ard Evansoll. sometime Hear of Tewkrsbury, whose aggrtSSlI"e !l1~ book (1 792 ) open~ \11th the affirmaUo:m that 'an tl" all that has been said and written upon Ihe subjm. those E\'an~Uc.J histories oonUlln such gross. ~ncil~ able rontradlCUons Ihal no close reasoning. unprejudie0.' unmy Inccn1p;1~bIe tI"«)' ckil" of w:nSl,.1eouess" with .... ~ ",«(pilot toix1(ty. k'm~. rnoderallon • ..,d ~ ...bjtnion ot our bodily appetites 10 mISOD and rfttatcus dUly. will ~Dd such • mind. as thb Ir>eland discIple Is not a hIstorical person age hul a I!jJlr. E,"entually he defines Ihe problem II.S one of esl abllshlng ·the relalionship
"",,,,.1w '"
, . In f.oonn";l..opn 110. r"""h GcoIp!IIO bi.".. !"Sr. JoI;oo-, ~f. ... I OJ ~
h.,,,.
th.,,,,,,
J"'
_In,
" comprises Iirsl of all ' questions mating 10 the authorsbip and historicity of the book'," Now it may seem (hat the shUt of i n = from authorship to orlgins Is IIOt. afkr all. partlculnrly momelllouS. I'or In both ca~ we are COI1""me.J to enquln: wben and where the Go$]X'1 had its beginning' . In fact. however. the two Questions belong to dltr~ent worlds of djsc(lu~. In the IIrst pla ce. a dccl! ion for apOStolic authorship could be seen as ~ ~ullkient explana[ion In IlSl:lf of the wrwu of the Gospel ('he has seen - and his tesrtmony ls true'~ howe..·er strange and sublime the teaching of the Gospel, its uuth " 'as guaralll=l by lis SOUrtt -!he personal testimony of an eyewil, ness, Ihe bm 1","Cd. of lnw' di$illles and lhI: one most pr1\,. to hili S«f"4 r< rq>Ioo -=I dru "of tbI> c _ ....... 10 hon tlI. Mi}' tlItM.ya.N>ld Schmkdol~ "J'boy alI"on', ho "'j'$. 'wi'~ lilt -....1_" ~ of Chtlo"""I!)' 'n '" m..,~ qLlMllogy rM the Ne\\" Testament " ' 0$ grounded ul"'n the opposition 01 rh. history-ol,,,,Uilons school to whot. with the fOJitol1' ,xcrplion 01 &hlott",. W"" culTtntl. Ihe dominant apl"OOch. I.". one chlclly irlt.r-est.d In """"alled doctrinal- con rept>. In this respecl t~ hlstoty-<Jf·rtl;giorul scbool took a d"cl.h'. st. p towards a bett..- understanding rM th. New T."arnem. for the question ooncemlna the religion of the New T.. t!iJJlent wa, basic~lIy " qu,stion ooncoming Ihe existeotial (.xii/inlkllj m. anin& of i", theological '""pres-.000 •• a fact which also comes to U~h' in the choic~ of the Imn 'de\-otion ' (Fr6mnrigkrill" in pref. rence to tha t of '",ll~ion' and In thauline thought 5ho.., that the ~l COIfIOOl be dated earller than the second generallon ofChlisIians.,46 For !he moment one might just remad that I1 Is hard to see how such assurance can be jtmi6m; a fuller dl$russlon of !hi$: topic must be dcfwed till later. AhhouSh there Is nothing in prloclple about the alms and methods of the hlstory-of-rellglans scboolto pre"ent Jts practitioners from seeking to explain the la~r writings of the ~ew TeSliUllent on
the basl' orlhe earlier, In point of fact they mostly looked eJ~where. One area where one might ha"f expected them 10 look was (3) judalsm .but 11 sa-1IlS to ha,-" been largely left to Adolf SchJauer 10 bunt for parallels 10 johannlne thought and phraseology In rabbin-
Ical sources, npecialiy those of Ihe earUest. so-called (.;Innaitic pertod." Schl.un hifmrlf. for all his ltamlna and th~lcal ~. remained outside tm maimtrcam or Gmnan scholarship. Methodologically he was close to ~e hlstory-of-rellglons school
(thouah ne\'U , m=tbrr) but theoloilcaUy he was on , different plane!. Perhaps th'l ill why hill imponanl Unle work Dit Spr~ und Hdmal W l'itrun El'dngtUsun (I9(U) made 50 IU!le Impact 41
.. 1",,,,,,,,,",,,,. pp. Il!. [,-m mon rrmarbbl ... I. MoIIal·, 'on! ...... ~." of S
..
'"'-,,""' ... ......
This mklnuh Is then quotm (in Hrbrew) and lranslated. Then rome a further nine pages of comment and further parallt:b (&-om Pbilo and the Marulaean tens). And Ihal ls all. The lIexl ,·erse dlscnsseo1 is .I: 15. (One $Omellmes "i.h.... wat other commentators on We Gospel would rollow Odeberg·s self-denying ordlnallC"e In .... tricting
Qwstioos and Ansu.vn "themsel,'CS to th~ RCtlons or the GosPel 011 whkh IMy ha,-e something fresh 10 say.) AInong the 'Jewish' sourrt'S rouId be Included tbe Old TQlamenC Apocrypha and P5eudrplgrapba. tbe Tartumlm. the Odts
IlkeJy 10 be exhausted £or- many years. Among the Je""ish wrllings onc might also wish to Indude those of the Alexandrian Je", l'hllQ, But It Is perhnPJ bener to put (4) Hellenistic Judaism (which would also Include Josephusj in a
separate compartment_ Adjoining thb " 'ould be (sl a group of wrlllnKs relating to what C. H. Dodd calls 'Ibe hlllhct religion of Hellenl$1T1: the Hermetic Iiteratu""', For the prtUmtnnry study of both these areas (al lea&! in so far >u they bear upon tbe founh Gospel) we OWe most to Rei~lein and Bousset. and su'*'luenlly to Dodd himself. No\\-aIIays 0"" is indlned 10 I\'onder how deep the resemblances reach, Probably a ma)orlty of Kholars would be incUned to «bo ttw, cautionary IKNe 50WIded by HamllCk I0Il1 ago: 'the rertrence to PbiIo dor:s no( SIIlisfa.:torUy explain e\'eo one or the e>:tlm1al aspttU of lbe plObkm (of tile origin of the /ohannine wrltlngsr and 'e,'en Ihe Logos ha. Unit: more In common with Plillo than !he nume', '· Again , RoUssel dev01Cli a whole sectlon of hill chapter on John In Kyrios Chri' III a Punch and Judy show. has ofieo been flattened bUI SlUt stubbornly rduses l(llie do"'n, Yet the strongest impression the Founh Gospel muSl make upon a reader ((Kntng 10 iI for the firs! lime. especially If he bal'l'=" 10 be acquainted "ith !he vth~r throe. Is one of ext.ravroimuy self.. contulnedn..,;,;. 0 , F. Stnms> SUIIKt"Sted !hat tbe COSpd Is 10 be fquBte
the famous metaphor! hB\'e Just quoted.) Alexander Scbwrizer (IS·P I and H. H. Wendl. wbose romm~nlary on m~ Gospel appeared ~I tbe turn of the (enmf)'. employed mucb me same procedures. " Commenting upon tb~ dogmatically inspired tbeom. from Wclsse to '\'(>ndt. 5ou_t r..markJ that for ail tbeir shortcominlll. tbey led to 'a whole series of good. purely literary observaUons. \\'hi~b dnt'fved better than the wmm~[)' dismissal tbey often [('ceWed iater at the blOnds of the majority of sdtolan;·.~o They are IIlso tbe remote ancestors of aU subSe<juent source theOl:les , An example of the kind of Important observation tu wbicb Bous",,! refe,., i. to be found III ~ lilter work of Welssc (1856)." This , . rh< ","', In whlch Ibls phr ... """'" h qUOl
'"
reshuffiing. 6 ' &sId~ , generally "peaking on~ would expect an author to ha"" spotted the confusion On the return of his manuscript from the ropyist. especially if the le>:! was one that was going to!J., m.cd regularly ",ithin b.is Own oommunity.·· In '907 two scholars working alon~ the same liIles~itldepend_ enll}", but aware of each ther's interesn;"' - ad,-anced reasons for ho lding tbat the displac'emenlli ".-ere not accipeCia1 "'~ IO«mrnt5 and P l" '" the COOS«jU""" or. doddirilIord' IlIld tblnb It p .... b)- \\"cllbaU>rn·' obs< ....otions to ~ r.",lll:r in t ll}iI>lIcoUy lh\'0 roncqxlons a..., Incompatihle: ·One cannot put thr emphasis both 011 the ,isibly prod\lPou> and OD
the Interior Ure.· u BesIdes the author of the GrundK-h,yt and the evangeil5t proper. " aure detects the hand of it redactor. The presenCf: of the COlltradlclions and doublets suggesls an unfinisnrd work. one which h"" Ottn pieced lQiether by .ro\.ided Ibat lestable criteria CIUl be oft"ered then we are surely entitled to pi DC' Ej as far as the e\'kknce ....lIIlake us. Morro'"Cf. as Wdlhausen pointedOUI wben introducing the concept of the Grundsrhrij"t foc the first lime. the hazarth of the enleTprtse do not ob~ternle the data that made It n!""(SsBry In the first place. We have not heard the l&st of KlUrce theorles .
=.
.. IOW!.. P. H O.
" n.. Fo.r Gcl
)nr " ,he lira vorum"
=
Btfort Buhm.rnn
37 cornsponds 10 Ibis aim III the least hlstorlcal'"' -a cr\tn1on which is obviotuly bound to leU agalnsl John in e\'rry case, But the Synoptisls too are open to the suspicion of heightening what must hal'e been a natural pr~ntimeot on Jesus' pan Into a clear p~ence. So ,,-e IIlIl!I ......""'~ unhi$torkal QUI only otIe of she t'II"O but both ""csullallons of the last hou,... of Jesus beb" IW; arrest. The ooly de", .. of dUtlnCllon belween the historical I"IllIe ofshe Iynoplkol RC(XIUIlI and th~t of John I•. IIuII llIe former Is a mythical product 0( ,be !1nl UI ohnditlonal larmation, Ihe or the RCOnd._or II\OI"e corm;tly, the ono I product of tho second o'~. Ihe orh .. 01 rh., Ihlrd, Th. representallon o;ommon 10 !be S}'Ilopdsts.nd to John, tba' JesuslorO:r>tw IW; .uJrerlnp ...·.,n to Ihe day and hnur at their am~aL Is she lint modlflratlon " 'hleb Ihe pious le&eod to the rul hlllory atjnus: the $Ulmlmt of Ihe $jo'DOplisrs. Ihat be e\."., had an antececknl tiJ*I~ of his sulJerinp. Is !be RCOnd step of !be mythical; whlk. thit although he ro.eknew them. and abo In one insuom:e hi d. foretasle of them Uohn u; ~7 tr,~ he hod J't! Iona bd'orc:bond complelely lriumphed them. and when they ,,000 Imme. 'wIlI give ~ o toldiJ,,",,1 man no mOl< oI/roc"hon • m " w k to kom the rou= of,,·on .. ~.< ",.11 tRJ T".:!ilko>l. ' " l' ~ J, ,., Th< f "",,'h Go>prl. I'l' Tl f.
"'""'t.d '" p<eIIt)dj~I"'ion toiIlCi OD hcro:. but "" Oltrltr.tlOS k 10 "'" ...."'""", ·F.:I'brn k lion re. (;ps)'lICTlIlk work of Marie-fmile Boismard ( 19nl testifies \0 the l'igour of the Frroch 5Coolarly traditlO:>Il. From Ireland ctHIIe'l Archbishop Bcrnartfs ICC commentary. (lld·fllShloned In its apprGach. In the IradlUon of Weslrol:!. but stili useful; In England Sir F.dwyn Hosk)... s ( t 950) and C. H. Dodd - though strictly 'JlCaking hI. /piftrpn!l!tioll (1gB) is not a romm .. ntllry - olfer Innum.rdbl. Inslghts of enduring value: In addllicln there Is the careful work of C. K. Barren ("955/"978); of thrn;e rommentanes that ha,-. appearal afl« Dodd. Bamaba. Undan·. ,·olume In the I-."ew c,,1I nu)" Bible ~ries /1')72 ) is ooe of m., be$t. offering W1 Indepeodenl lie\\' and ada pl lng itself I"Cry success/ul to Ihe a\\'kwanl formal.
FlnaUy from America ,,~ ha,.., the Imponanl Anchor Bible commentary of Raymond Brown (I'I66- 70). Ihe firsl 10 make Ulensh·e use cl the ~ntly disnwem! Dead Sea Scrolls. All mm of no small stature Ihm. eKh occupying his own position in a far from narrow world; ret ol~r them all Rudolf Bultm~nn , un. matched In Ioamlng. bttadth. and undet$tandln&. towers lib a coIo5sus. Neo.·ertbeless. In spite of his pre-eminence. e'-ery answ,", Bultmllnn gives 10 tbe really Important qu~lIons he ra~- ' wronH· Wbere then does Ills greatne.. Uel First In Ihe (Iarlty wltb which he sees Ihe problems. and his tenacious refulal to allow th em 10 be buried under his or omers· learning or 10 be swePI out of sight in the In terfSt.5 of Ildlness or conformity; secondly In the shetr degance of his solullons. In ","bleh are containinK!
"""JIotlon. _ _ ...... PIU"id< • !lot a/ _ .." , , _ ~ eho!I«< oM ....... ollbt t:oopd. 111< ly pb«S ~ tIu_ .... otiC his.,...., ' - " " any tIetail ... , . ) lib mi<wzOttId< public. . . ol1lle C"OIMIttIIaIy In '9' to
'r!:!......
• °Hindt°s "'El "n,·o Po " 7.
the or4:inal order does not depend upon a n.wering tlli:s [seroDd1 qUesUOD $UlXt$Sfully·o· In point of fact aull.mann·s own hypot:herical restoratlon Is aslonlshlngly bold. for Instance. the order he follow. in the sed;';m of his commentary headed The Ughl of the World· Is as folloW$: 9: 1- 41; 8: U ; 11; "'4 -50: 8: H~: 12: 34 - 6; 10: 19n 1.1. Other bIts of c hapter 8 an:'! ~allcred e,°et! further afield.: 8; 11-1.0 15 ~aled along wIth chapttt S ("The Judge·) and 8: JO-",O much later. tlllder the heaWnIC .he Way to lbc C""",·. One may blink Of" one may $fII.l1e. but the uncomfortable fact Is Utat once one h~ acapted the aocul1lcy or trn. original obsen",tIons there is 00 proper ..-ay of e'·a dinll the c haUenlle to which Bultm.ann hi""",lf h::spoFlds so ,,·hoIe-hcancdly. Thc JikeUhood, the lnevilability e,·en, that seholars .vlU continue to "Tangle 0\"eT any proposed solutinn 00... nor. me~n that there Is no poinl In offering oneo All II m eam is that sucb solutions as are put lOrwani by those bra\"C enough to take u p lhe challmge must in the nature of the case be both spe-culati,·e and lentat!\"e. All theen spoken by Jllhn the Sapwt). •he pal.53ge cenalnly 615 In "ith the InIln (If th(lught (If the Nicodem..s episode (probably 8t the end. aner 3: 2t). Tbe redactor found it on its own (as a loose sbeet) and put 1I Into Its prrsent place afln the ~h of the Ilaptlst. 3: 2 7- 30SoedIKfd h the SllDle coosidl"ratioru that prompt modem ""q;"tes e\'m now when they try to explain 3: 31-6 as a speech or tM Ilaplist. \\lth a little good will some kind of train 0( thought can always be constructed" Rather h~lanlly BW!mann suggl'St5 the tInd or hypothesis "'C have already seen delcnded by Streeter. aeparafe sheets a.s=tbled in the wrong order. Buf h .. 5I"e$ fhat mis will not \Oo'ork 10 e\'ery case: 'the devastatkln must, af teasl in some places, ha"., been mote extensive, as I belle,·., is shown by the pl1:!ient disorder of ch apters ~ and 10.'" • Ibid.
, lbid,
• lbid.
So Bultmann wheds in the '....rutty ~ by 1\".,.... 11«b in his "'i"""'~' pp.. 6_ "'~ ..-hldllo ..-hy I b... t<J _ _ ""'" It .-ay <XIeIUIvl'ly . ..Itm.... •• rectMUUUCI"" 01 ,h. r _ mj"tb mo, aJoo be Iound ID h" l'rI.. ww (Iori:","";,,.
toltl:twP pp.
K (lIe5h). If But slllCe Bousset mulntalned none the less thllt John was indebted to Paul he " 'lIS unable 10 Re the problem In aD its ItCUten=. If It be sald that both wrlters life prmcruplcd with the relation bel,,'een Christianity and Judal$m, the "nSwer mUSI be Ih a! the locus Is eompletdy different In cbe n..., c~SC:l , John shares n"ne "I Paul', obsession ,,1th the La",; he nel'er speaks of the righteousness 01 God. or set.'5 human history In terms of God's plan for the world. Such resemblances as th= lire lend no plausibility wharso..,..,.- 10 the thesis that John 'stood on Paul'. shoulders'. This means thllt an IIlternati"e """la has to be sought for John'. central ideas. espOCiaUy his high duis[o/ogy Ce.g. the notion of pre-rxlstmcr). which far transcends anything In th e Synoptic GosPl.'ls. Martin Dibelius once wrole thatlhc m~ln problem of chrlstnlogy I, [his: 'How did knowledge of th. historical Jesus change SO qulckl)' Imo faith In the hCal"Cllly Son of Godi" ' But one answer wtU BO kmier suffice: to Re hOl\' Paul reached this position d.,.,. not help us \\'Ith John," Dibellus"s problem b", to be soh-ed not OIlce but twice." " Thillrip!t dI'1fIon . .. Wch rorm..d "'" ft........·otI: orRul''''onn·' ..rIk.-,,-od on th, Sj'n",,"" r",,~,. """Id bt '*flc or r.uline oo.l",uo for this or tbat expression of l.... n, or in c"",parln~ on. term tUtI! In l$oIallon from tM rest tluch •• 'Ughf or 'Iife') .. Itb tXjMsslons dntwn from lhe Old Ttslamrn. a ..... lnJinil1n: of I'" ....,.6 hi «lllh..., "...,J . r. SynonYIDOUS. and whooe ""'~ declares that &6fo. lalorJrl I. l.
" ·lIodtu""". I-
~7_
.. "'"
Bull"""", ""'" In Jmu.
and lbat thi< ,i
" IV.,.... Mftb mnarb!hot friOw'r t~I ...... bt. ml<prfnl
.-.n
10< Erio1.>rr no< conlAin 1h< ""'''''' of "Ill
cen soll'ed but it has been brought closer 10 a solution·.... The fnll solution. in hi:! eyC$. was reached when h. was finally in a position 10 isolate hi' re"elation-discou,""" sourChfuI tIllnkIns., !be ond of a""" life. It< mole> · · ,rlly !be _ ",",,' In OD . . - ... tItkd .0.. Poolkm i¥nlng the rn)"thlcal dcmcnts of the Gospel to a $(ltII«. M..nm.... Ihf tl'dngtlil! ~I/ to do his ""'" dtm!lthoio9J!lIlg.·· All the inter· pffi:er has to do Is to Wldtrs\Qnd. to understand. that Is.. ha,," the ",'an¥ellst Is O!",filltng and his rnotlves for doing $0. $0 that his owo imerpretallon can be simply the obvene. the public Side. $0 to s!",al:. of hl~ prl\"8te uuderstaoding. The exegelt who rel«1S Bultrnann', 5Olu\lon QS5Umes tn so doing the burden of Imcrpretfltion and .plilS understanding Into [wo distinct function!. a split Ihat Is the price modem exege$is bas had to play Ia[ claiming the it3111S of a .."le ntt. Before the critical qu~101l " "as poSed-bef~. that is. the gap between the old ten and the rroookm ruder became too wlde 10 be l&nored - no dispel. aulunann suc~ ' e:ls in recovetinll an ancient Innoceoce. and he does SO In tN. proass of offering a sdenti6c so-lulion and Without in any wa)' having 10 compromise the standards or !lCholarly exegesis be h~ruetf regarded as tak.ing prccedence o,·et: theclogy. To pu[ the matter In another way: If the Gospel I1 10 make ItS fun and proper Impact It must be strlpped of the stran ge eXllllc clothing whicb the evan~eUsl bllS borrowed from his Guoslk source. !he exegele'.lask. lIS he a~tsts ""lIh Ihe stripping. Is simply la ensure that Oesb is 001 confused With fabric. or the myth mistaun for the IIlC$$iIge. And this is to conform VCI'Y precisely to the Intentions of the e,'angdisl himself, for Ihis is one cru;e in whleh mO$l decidedly the medium is
the m· "KC. AR this helps 10 explain why Bultmaon·, conuncniary is so much
IIOf
m()nl urgent and exdting than run-d·the·mUl (XIlllmMtaries th.aI have IOIlowed IL He is .... il "'''"'. gettinglnsldc the evangellst"s head -""..".,.. Bul!mIm ~_ t "" C"Von!,clium'. Who! ;, fkn:d her< ;, nO! H""'prcb<m· 1\." 1Ul'\'''y of th= v. rious W1i t inll~ "'" >imply . criOidsrn of . >iDp, thftne. the one
llul,,,,.nn hlm>
Ibid.. U. 4 , .
" Ibld .. ii. 6,. ThI, ln ·hot Hult"""'" ""l">OO thiHUbj'ClrIanl consequences follow, l! was Bultmann's own very '!>Klal Inte'1"~tallon of the evangeUst's chrlslology Ihat as he saw , required a special kind of explanallon, nne which he hiIru;elf sought In Mandaean Gnostlcism. But If he Is wrong about the cbrl$toJoay. and John's cemral conception I1 n01 wbat he liolIys 1\ is. Ihen perhaJlS I dll'ferem kind of expjanalioo must be sought. M Kas..mann says. 'the theoLogical problems [of the Fourth GospdJ mUSt. afln- ijU. point to ij specific sec1(lr 0( primltl'"e Cblistian beUef. and. colwersely. we mU!il be ab'" to deduce il from Ihnn· ..... Ono: again . this is a question that cllIlDOl be pursued here. though U m= be suo ed that any particular IInswer I(l 8ultmann's second riddle wlU Iea\"e the first Intal."L ThaI Is to say. John'l dc"eloped christology. ho .."t\'er Interptelm. Is diffen:m enough from the Synoptk traditioo (and from Paul) to mjulrea new account. and an especially strllng and coherent one. of how It a""". And If we dismantle the fantastic apparatus of Mandaean Gnosticism. reminiscent to an Englisb eye of one of Ue~th Roblnson 's more extravagantly COnStructed machines. then we must replace It by something suffictently po ...·erfuJ to ha"e generated the extraordinary. Indeed the unique .ision of John the E'·anaellst.
.. rlSllmml. po. }.
L.
THEOLOGY: C LlRL5TOLOGY AND ESCHA T OLOGY
Jo h~nLltne
studies burgeoned after the w~r. To keep pac:e with them would be a full·time occupation. ' Some of the monagraphs on slngle words and/or themes are themselves maJor contributions towards the understanding of the Gospel. Clearly any comp~ btrul\'e slIIW)' Is out of the quesdon. und Ihls scetIon ...iD be restricted 10 tM ~n of a oumber of "'Ortl which. In differem ways. ha,'e a particular beariug upon Bultmann's second great pu:zie: what Is the central concept of the Gospel. Its Grlmd-
....."
fO Hoskyns and Bullmann are a~ upon the answer to this question: IC'o·dalioo. Where they dlfl"er-,·ery profoundly- ' m their .1e w of Ihe 00111.,01 and nature of this revelation. and of the faith that gl.·o:$ II wdcome. Under one of IU aspects tbe coming of Christ Is seen as God's Judgement upon th~ world. a judgemeot In ... hleh humill bein gs are necessarily Implicated in so far a. Ihey are Qbllgcd to lake .ome stand. negative or positi~e as the case may be. towards the !"e'.'eJaUon with which they are oonfronttd. Those who rejn:t Chrut lire siding with dartn""" against light. prefmtng falsebood 10 \11,Ith. and In so doing are imposing upon 1he!ru1elves their own sentence of condemnation. Th~ who 'bellC\'c' in him. embradng the- truth and aligning th~I,'es ,,1th the UghL win etl'mul Wc ha'~ to do then With I $UIes of interiocking Iflt,mcs: light aod darkness. uuth and falsehood. flLltb and life. and finally Judgemn>tllnd coodeIl108tlon (1Or whleb Greek has the one
me.
""';Q_ ..."",..,...
, H. Thy.... __ on r f".mh [_lis, onO 1"1>< FOo.Jrtb ~'.
"'' '.. fI>nbo< •• _ _ ID Cb. 6.
_n', ....
• 111,,-' W... Sa. • I ha,.... _poed all .......,. of IIlIo lInd '" 0.. I t . o EDm...-IoCJoIP-!, t .S-,....,pp.7[ , !Md.. p. 8.
'L.ogl. 1'1', 6~- "5'
10114""1,,, fp/>lltflLondoo. ' Y7]l
et. I, (..
$krns. PtS, 1'1', ~6 [ Th< phra>< -Mot"", as openotln
U....
''''''''.' iOn. HiI'srkms nnd
,h l.1'11'tr$
$I.IilII'tts that he Is Ir>dlnrd w ~i,"" lh" tasI: of inKing the origins or John's highly Idlos)'Ilcratic picture ofJ~ ",hleh is mort prculiano him than Is hnplled by Mussrn.r's phrasoe ' his actua lization ohh" pas! fOr !he prnmlltnd In Ihe presenl'. Anotncr swdy ... hieh. Ilk ~Iussnrr·s. derin" lnspirulion from the philosophical lu.-rmmeuliC!i of II.-D. Gadamer. Is Takashl Onu],;i", Gtmtil'llk wrd IV, lr Im JohQ"I1t'~"1l!Itljum (1984). Although its
ostemlble suhjecl Is loIl"""i"" dualism. this book Is remarkably wio,le.ranglnll. Tt puts (arward the
\' ;"w
th at the Gospel cannot be
understood one-sldedJ)' eith~, from the pcrspccU\'C of Jesus' Situation ols-ful £or 1"'0 rt'lls0n5. 1be first is that they depend on the false premiss tbat individual ptlp)"rus IDee", ..ill h al"(! generally lermlnaled atlhe end ofa period. or sentence. (Other thoorles depend an Ihe na less false ~uppo5l1lon that andent scrit>e5 II"late pages containing an equal number of lines and lines containing an equal number of tellers .)ll The second reason I~ that they oifer. T am con vinced. the wrong kilid of ~~plana tlon of the phenomena. Nevertheless such theories. ho,,'el'er untenable. do 8tleast SQuare up \0 the Iltelllry pu~es presented b}' the Gospel. 11tose who " flit Go.p.-I r/ 5qoa. Po I n. I.
.. lhoo'p ............ ofmmtrom _ _ (!'c ' wdond8tctalloiq-.bIe "' ...... Iood~ ......, b .. - . .... d<artb d. "'U ,,,'" dnltDl ""'" _ _ or _ _ "' .... q.......,., _ oPP'On..gln ,., : ... ,.,..,... ... as..-.lt . . . n _ of Om opID tbiI ","","" ., r\ly "UT """,,,,"t. f or tbo- pttjDd up '" '~~5 k w 0 . " this t;
already compOsed along Johannlne Unes whhln El Johannlnc school. Wc muy point to SOme of th= in the pr~!ll Gospel. bullhe Idea of a G,muU.'lr rifl Is mi,]euding. The possible pcnllulaliuos of Ih= theories 21"1: endless and this IUI"I'~' \\111 be confined to tll~ \\'()fk of the four scholars alreadJ m~nlkm..d,· '
W. Wllkens" differs from the other three In poslulaling a single author (",horn he thinks ora,; an c)"c"irness ) who twice re,·jsN IlDd upooded an original document of hi$ own composition. This is a con!(Cious /e.'cnion to the early suggestion uf WdlhDU5en. ~ Gnmthelr'ifl ronsistrd of an account of jcsuf Signs In Galikr. his entry InlO Jerusalem, lhe ewnt. "'ading up to the passion. ""d lhe poosslvn Itself, In his firs I'e\'isloo the evlUll(ell.R Introducnl much of the dlSl'OUI'Se m"teriaJ, but il i. hi. s«ood r~'lllvn Ihat ga"e the '.05pelthe 'pa$Char character it now ha. by transfclTlng to the first half cntuln episodes originally aSSOCiated with the paSlllon, llameJ}' the cleansing uf the trnlpJe (2: I)-n, Ihe ~n()lnUng al !lethallY (I z: ,- t t ), and tlrat pari of chapter n (V\'. 5 I c- 5 8) which alludes most directly TO the sacra ment ufthe EucharisT, Attbe same time h e c~Pi'nded the p"",1on narrart,'c in oruer 10 gl"c It an O"ertly paochaJ charancr, Subsequently a final redaClQr (nvl John hlm,cI!) made some further additions. nOlably chap(er z t • !WlIo:n. In hi, commeotary.4' po:- of _ ', mulu.. .... po H for • - . of .... b~ 6nI .dIPlon of .... C.o
8,
Bwlmarm
is invalid to begin by treating an obscurity a. ,",conda" ,'. sin"" it might be'a ,'aluable due to the ~"angelist's meaning'" that can be pe=i,'ed Ihrough llis handling of ,arlier material:' " What such a principle amount, 10 is . imply an option 10 caU tbe final redaclOr the evangd isl. so that the work liS we have it Is to be assigned 10 him a nd the aporias regarded as ensuing from the intractable nature of the material he Is working with. Exit the ecclesiastical redactor! (We shall return to the question of nornendature at tile cud of Ihill section.) This is in itself of course a perfectly permiMible option. A~ all. we do not think of Mark or Q as the 'author,;" of Matthew and Luke: in the ca", of the Synoptic Gospels the ·redactors ' are readily conceded to be authors in the full scnsc ..... nd if Fortn a's hypothetical Signs Gospel ..,:ere the only material the final redactor Uohn ) bad to handle. this initial stance of Fortna'" would require no special defence. But one of th~ inbuilt weaknesses of his work is tha t it lea,'", out of account Ihe discourse material. Even if the simple piclllie of sourcc and maction adequately accounted for Ibe compo.ition of the narrati.'e sections (and I agree with BoIsmard and Lindars that it dot"S not) it dearly breaks down If applied to the discourses- in partlcular the notorious puzzle of the conclusion of chapter '4 _ Anotber reser':ation regarding Fortna's wor~ concerns a different kind of presupposition. tbe assumption that in adapting his source tlle evangelist proceeded by a simple method of addition and subtraction. [n trying to recom
introduce a single compllcatloo and the ,;,~ ~, ;; transformed. for suppose IhalinJlead oflwoStagn; thn't 11
iI~
actually thlft: basic dorument. adaplallon Into the Gospel fDlIll.. subsequent "mIction. This is m~ or less Bultmann's posUlOll. eJCceptthat he postulates not one basic document but three. H~ has no doubt aboul where to look for thc e"MlleIISt: he 1$ the wrilce responsible for Stage 2 . Stage J is asslllned 10 Ihe 'ccclesiastical ,edacto,' (a lthough of COUISe Buhman n Ihlnks tbal many of the addJllon al commenu-or glosses_In tbe Gospel are 10 ~ seem!· lied 10 the hand or 'Ihe e"" angdist' himself). Now if this 1$ our pktu~ of the Gosptl we may be Inclined to dismiss as somcho\\' (,,) the sources-sucb as the GnO$t1c document o"er and adapted b}· thc evangelist. and (b) or the redadOr. such as. In Bultmann's IhCOll'. and the bits or fumeoowce lad!: Ibt I.Uer is..,.,....,.. In tbt .....un. but I> """-' ontr _ID joIm. It is IIatd 10""" _
rCII"tIUI ,h., .... ba.., ...... ·. ..IIInJ 11... ohlblrs' IJL
1 Bous!;et and hI!; colleijgues. bowever. fascinated as lhey wcre by Ihe z"lIgcisl of Ihe New Testament. bad a more liKorous programme in mind. iloussel POinled to para llels in Hdlenisik: literature which could tllro,," light on rh e genesl, of the Compel. For these pantllel! were more than cuMous resc.mblances. To Bousset Ihey SUIlEC5led a shw-ed. culture. The currents of rhough! s,,1rling round th e evangel· 1st were concel\'ed il5 tlowlng Inro his Go.pd, pro"ldinK ~5 it were an ''I a(\dllional ""ura of IMplr~tloo. independent of Ihe Olristlan re,..,la. t breach marks an abandonment, ~I least in emaln circles. of Sultmann's problematic In fu\'our of a less prectse and Icss th~atening ~ind of qU.,;Uon. This move Is ~gnBlled by the substitution of the Cmn 'backgruund ' for that of 'origlru', Wa}'ne Mecks commences rusoulstanding dl=rtalion, ~ f'ropht'tol(ing (1967). with 11 «illeal account of IM Ihemi"" or Hos~s and Sullmann. He concludc:s: -[I ill no n~ucratJon 10 say that BuhllUlnn has earned the field In Johannine studle5. at Iea.t In the "'""lie that the quelrion of lhe .;xlra-biblical background for the chrislology or John has become una,·oida ble. Even C. H. Dodd, who stands closest 10 Hoskyns in h is approach to John, ne"crlhctess del-ales more than oae-founh or his study of the Fourth Gos;pelto "the backif(M.llld·-:·' The quallfkatlon. 'at least In the scnsr .. : ill important -and re,·ealing. It marks a shift In perspecth-e Ihal blun> the focus InSlead of sharpening il, as Sultmann had done, and has as B consequence allowed mnch subsequent !lCholaMip 10 c,-ade th~
USqe.
.,
JbXl..~ . ,~ .
"
quntlous he rllised. A knowlmge of W 'background' of the Gospel can newr comaln the answer 10 W question of Its ooi\llS. if 001.,· because the tmn Is 3 ncutral one a nd does nOllD IlSeIf lrnply d Im source or Influence. Early 01110 the book Mn,u Win U~1t 10. C.li. Dodd says this: ",. fItCI Is !h~1 .h. though! cl Ih .. ppeI .. .., ""Sinal ""d "911,-.
e>'angellst may
ha,-. producrd §OIIIfthlng rich and stnInge. b=aring
DO more eg DUal miftIlblance 10 his "WlU't't'S' or 'InflunJCeS' than COMII 10 old holIeS. (X COI.lJ5e kno",ledae of the backlll'Ound "ill facilitate understanding: J)(l( juS( Individual pa5S8gt'S but large and rompleJ themes wiU br iUuminated; but understandlng hen: entails knowlna wh&tthe wort means, and thal ls ~1l.1.lodd declines tu offer the kind of expIanallon demanded by Bulfmann. fhat Is 10 sal' an explanullon of when: the Gos[lel '
