Archives: Book Chapters

In addition to the four gospels which alone were accepted by the Church during and after the time of Irenaeus, there were many apocryphal gospels which were favoured by Gnostic and other heretical groups. The most important of these gospels deserve some consideration.

Perhaps the oldest are those named after the groups which employed them: those according to the ‘Hebrews’, the ‘Egyptians’, and the ‘Ebionites’. Hebrews seems to consist essentially of a modification of the Gospel of Matthew in the direction of Jewish Christianity; its hero is James the Lord’s brother, recipient of a special resurrection-appearance (cf. I Cor. 15.17), and head of the Jerusalem church. Egyptians, on the other hand, contained traditions of the sayings of Jesus which portrayed him as having come to ‘destroy the works of the female’, specifically the work of reproduction. The gospel used by the Ebionites stated that Jesus had come to destroy sacrifices; unless sacrifices were terminated (in the temple at Jerusalem) men would not be saved. These gospels exist today only in fragments from which it is hard to draw definite conclusions. It is probable, however, that none of them was written before the second third of the second century.

In addition to these gospels, scholars have discovered a second-century papyrus which contains episodes in the life of Jesus and some sayings ascribed to him; these materials seem to be based on John and the synoptics, along with some extraneous legends.

Two gospels ascribed to apostles are more important. The first, ascribed to Peter, exists in part in a papyrus fragment which describes the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus and breaks off when the author says, ‘But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother, took our nets and went away to the sea, and with us there was Levi, son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord. . .’ This gospel was known to and criticized by Serapion, bishop of Antioch, about 190. The second was discovered in a Coptic version in 1945 but not identified until 1952. This is the famous Gospel of Thomas, a collection of 112 or 114 sayings of Jesus.

Thomas

This work was discovered in a library of forty-nine Gnostic writings in thirteen leather-bound volumes. Earlier, nothing was known about it except the fact that it was used by several heretical groups such as the Naassenes; some church writers denounced it but did not describe it. Only when Thomas was found could the fragmentary ‘sayings of Jesus’, published in 1897 and 1903 in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, be assigned to it.

The words of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas are present as ‘secret’, i.e. not known in the common tradition of the Church, and it is said that ‘whoever finds the interpretation of them will not taste death’ (Preface). The idea presented here resembles that found in John 8:52: ‘whoever keeps my word will never taste death’ -- along with the notion that the words of Jesus have a hidden meaning (cf. Mark 4:10-12, 33-4). The true interpreter (saying 1) is he who does not cease from seeking until he finds (cf. Matt. 7:7-8; Luke 11:9-10). No matter how obvious the meaning of various sayings may seem to be, all have a hidden significance, and Jesus spoke all of them after his resurrection.

The literary (or pre-literary) forms in which the various words are cast are strikingly similar to those used in the canonical gospels, especially the synoptics. They include parables, aphorisms, brief dialogues, and pronouncements beginning with ‘I’. (The dog in the manger of saying 102 is paralleled in Aesop’s fables.) As in some parts of the synoptic gospels, a good many of the sayings seem to be linked by verbal association rather than by similarity of subject matter. In many of Thomas’s sayings, too, we encounter reflections of the Semitic parallelism found not only in the synoptics but also in the Old Testament; this feature does not, however, prove the authenticity of any of the sayings, for it could easily be due to imitation.

It is equally important to observe how different the ‘Gospel’ of Thomas is from the gospel-form employed in the Church. In Thomas there is no attempt at providing a historical framework for the ministry of Jesus (as already noted, the sayings are regarded as spoken after his death); there are no miracles; there is no passion narrative; there is no correlation with the Old Testament. Indeed, there is practically no action of any kind. This means that the final editor of Thomas understood the word ‘gospel’ in the sense in which it sometimes occurs in Matthew and Mark to refer to the message of Jesus about the kingdom of God. The term is not, however, to be found in the book itself; where we hear of ‘secret words’ or of the ‘mysteries’ of Jesus (62) or of ‘the word of the Father’ (79) Thus while the compilation of Thomas is in form not unlike the collection or collections of sayings of Jesus which may underlie the materials common to Matthew and Luke, there is no reason to suppose that the two are related, or that either was originally known as a gospel. Thomas might also be related to a collection of sayings underlying the Gospel of John, but the existence of such a collection is purely hypothetical (see Chapter XI).

Since Thomas is the first of the early apocryphal gospels to be recovered entire, it is important to assign some date to it. The earliest reference to it which we possess occurs in a homily on Luke which Origen wrote at Alexandria before 231, or else in the Refutation of his older contemporary Hippolytus. Since Hippolytus tells us that it was used by the Naassenes, it can be dated no later than the end of the second century. Unfortunately we cannot tell how much older it may have been, since no second-century writer makes use of it or refers to it. The parallels we find in such writers, orthodox and Gnostic alike, are not necessarily derived from this book. It is possible that, as some scholars hold, Thomas was written as early as 140. On the other hand, there seems to be no proof that it was not written a generation or two later.

The theology of Thomas is remarkably similar to that of the Naassenes (cf. Hippolytus, Ref 5, 7-8), though they seem to have used a form of the book somewhat different from the Coptic form; there are significant variations between Hippolytus’s quotations and Coptic sayings 4 and II. But we do not know the precise date or provenance of the Naassenes. They seem to have been an offshoot of the equally mysterious Ophites.

The name Didymus Judas Thomas may point towards Syria, where the Acts of Thomas originated, but the parallels with traditions and apocryphal books known to Clement and Origen suggest Alexandria instead. If this supposition is correct, Thomas sheds some light in the almost total darkness which surrounds Egyptian Christianity in the late second century.

Many of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas are very much like those found in the four gospels, especially the synoptics. It is a question whether Thomas derived his synoptic-type sayings from the synoptic gospels as written documents or from oral traditions also used by the synoptic evangelists. Similarly, when Thomas makes use of sayings which are also found in such apocryphal gospels as those ‘according to the Hebrews’ (i, perhaps 12, 104) and ‘according to the Egyptians’ (22, 37, perhaps 61), we cannot be absolutely sure whether he was using written documents or some of their sources, perhaps including oral traditions. Some of the sayings which he relates are ascribed to oral tradition by the Church Fathers; others are to be found in Gnostic sources which the Fathers quote. If it can be shown that Thomas made use of the synoptic gospels in their present form it becomes fairly likely that he also employed apocryphal gospels in written form. The presence of a good deal of material transmitted orally, however, is not excluded.

It is hard to determine the precise relation of Thomas to oral and written sources because of the fluidity of the situation in second-century Christianity. Perhaps around 125, Papias knew some written gospels but stated his preference for oral traditions; by 150, Justin at Rome reflects a situation where written gospels have superseded most of the oral tradition; but even later at Alexandria oral traditions were still prominent, though tending to be confined to Gnostic groups. Among the Naassenes there was an emphasis on both written and oral materials. A quotation from them given by Hippolytus (Ref 5, 8,11) shows how by combining written materials they could produce the impression that they were relying on secret tradition. ‘Unless you drink my blood and eat my flesh (John 6:53-6), you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:20; 18:3); but if you drink the cup which I drink (Mark 10:38), where I go, there you cannot enter (John 8:21; 13:33).’ Analogously, the fact that parts of sayings in Thomas can be paralleled in several gospels does not prove that the author used a source earlier than them; it may well indicate simply that he was combining gospel words.

Some of the sayings in Thomas fairly plainly reflect his use of our gospels. Thus in saying 14, Jesus rejects fasting, prayer and almsgiving, and then says, ‘if you go into any land and wander in the regions, if they receive you, eat what is set before you, heal the sick among them; for what goes into your mouth will not defile you. . . .’ The ‘land’ and the ‘regions’ are Thomas’s substitute for the ‘city’ of Luke 10:8, a verse from which receiving and eating what is set before one are derived; ‘heal the sick among them’ comes from Luke 10:9, though in Thomas it is quite irrelevant to the subject of dietary laws, with which the rest of the saying is concerned (cf. Matt. 15:11). Presumably the first compiler was simply copying from Luke.

Sometimes Thomas separates sayings which in the synoptic gospels were combined. Thus in saying 65 he relates the parable of the vineyard (Mark 12:1-9 and parables; Thomas Omits the Old Testament allusions). In the synoptic gospels this parable is concluded with a mention of the cornerstone which the builders rejected (Mark 12:10 and parallels). Thomas turns this conclusion into a separate saying (66), again omitting a reference to the Old Testament.

Another way in which Thomas uses the synoptic tradition or, more probably, the synoptic gospels is by adding materials which make sayings of Jesus look more ‘Semitic’ because of their parallelism. ‘No prophet is acceptable in his village’ comes from Luke 4:24; Thomas balances the saying with the false addition, ‘no physician heals those who know him’ (31). Similarly, in Matt. 5:14 we read that ‘a city lying on a mountain cannot be hid.’ Thomas expands these words thus: ‘a city built on a high mountain and fortified cannot fall and cannot remain hidden’ (32). His addition is both confused and false.

The most probable conclusion to draw from passages of this sort is that either Thomas or earlier Gnostic tradition made use of the canonical gospels at points where we find parallels, and that there is no reason to suppose that any passage in Thomas (in spite of interesting textual variants) provides an earlier or a more reliable version of any saying of Jesus.

Some sayings in Thomas suggest that it, or part of it, arose in a Jewish-Christian environment. For example, Jesus tells his disciples that after he departs they will ‘go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into existence’ (r 2). James the Just is prominent in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, but also among the Naassene Gnostics, who claimed to have traditions derived from him. As a whole, however, Thomas is radically anti-Jewish. If circumcision were ‘profitable’ (cf. Rom. 3:1), would be born circumcised (53); fasting, prayer, almsgiving and dietary observances -- the cardinal duties enjoined in Jewish piety -- are explicitly condemned (6:14). Jesus will destroy the temple in Jerusalem (71). All external rites are irrelevant; when Jesus speaks of fasting to the world and of keeping the Sabbath as Sabbath (27) he is speaking symbolically.

The goal, and in part the present possession, of the true believer is the Kingdom, also called the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of the Father. This Kingdom is not in heaven or (for that matter) in the sea; instead, it is within the Gnostic (cf. Luke 17:21) and the Gnostic is within it; he comes to it by knowledge of himself, i.e. of his true nature as a son of the Living Father (3). He enters it again because he has come from it (49), from the Light (50). The Kingdom is already spread out upon the earth, even though most men do not see it (113). In other words, Thomas has removed most of the eschatological element from Christian teaching. The Kingdom can be entered only when sexual distinctions have been overcome or obliterated. ‘When you make the two one, and when you make the inner as the outer and the outer as the inner and the upper as the lower, and when you make the male and the female into a single one, so that the male will not be male and the female will not be female . . . then you will enter the Kingdom’ (22). Such a process is equivalent to becoming like a child (37; 46); it means that women have to become male in order to enter the Kingdom (114). This notion, perhaps developed from Paul’s words in Galatians 3:28 (‘in Christ there is . . . neither male nor female’), is also found in apocryphal tradition reflected in II Clement 12:2 and in the Gospel of the Egyptians. Another picture of finding the Kingdom is set forth in terms apparently derived from the Gospel of the Hebrews. ‘Let him who seeks not cease seeking until he finds (cf. Matt. 7:7-8), and when he finds he will be troubled, and when he has been troubled he will marvel and will reign over the All’ (2; ‘trouble’ is not mentioned in Hebrews).

The place of Jesus in the system of Thomas is very high. He is, of course, the revealer of these secret sayings (and cf. 28). Simon Peter and Matthew presumably misunderstood him when they call him a ‘righteous angel’ and a ‘philosopher’; Thomas himself should not have called him ‘Master’ (13; cf. Mark 8:27-9; 10:17). Apparently he was not ‘born of woman’ (15, contrary to Gal. 4:4); he is either the Father or one with the Father. He is the Son of the Living One (37) and he is himself the Living One (52; 59). More than that, he tells his hearers, ‘I am the Light that is above them all, I am the All, the All came forth from me and the All attained to me. Cleave wood, I am there; lift up the stone and you will find me there’ (77). Even ‘God’ is subordinated to Jesus. ‘Give what is Caesar’s to Caesar, give what is God’s to God, and give what is mine to me’ (100; cf. Mark 12:17 and parallels). This may be the meaning of saying 30: ‘where there are three gods, they are [merely?] gods; where there are two or one, I am with him.’

In Thomas the Jewish and Christian doctrine of election is pushed to its Gnostic extreme. ‘I shall choose you, one out of a thousand and two out of ten thousand’ (23); the disciples are few in number (73-6; 107); only those who are worthy hear the mysteries or secrets (62). They are hated and persecuted (68-9); in turn, they hate father, mother, brothers, and sisters (55) though at the same time they either truly love their father and mother or else love their true, heavenly father and mother (101). In telling the parable of the dragnet (Matt. 13:47-8) Thomas therefore has to change its point entirely. In the parable, good and bad fish alike are retained until the last judgement; in Thomas, only one good fish is kept (8).

Along with sayings based on the gospels and on known Gnostic traditions, Thomas provides some highly mysterious materials which reflect his theology. One such item is found in saying 7: ‘Blessed is the lion which man eats and the lion will become man; and cursed is the man whom the lion eats and the man will become lion.’ This may mean that by killing and ‘eating’ the world the Gnostic overcomes it by assimilating it to himself; if the world eats the Gnostic he is, of course, vanquished. Again, in saying 11, we read that ‘on the days when you were eating that which is dead, you were making it as that which lives; when you come into the light, what will you do?’ The Gnostic consumes dead matter and makes it live, but when he comes into the light he will have nothing to do with matter. ‘Whoever has known the world has known a corpse, and whoever has found a corpse, of him the world is not worthy’ (56; cf. 80). The ‘corpse’ here seems to be the inner, spiritual man who has died to the world, as in Naassene theology.

The principal problems raised by the existence and nature of the apocryphal gospels -- especially Thomas -- concern the historical and theological value of traditions not preserved in the canonical gospels. A priori it is quite possible that ‘apocryphal’ traditions can be valuable historically. As Jerome suggested, there may be gold in the mud. It may be possible to show, however, that (1) sayings reported in Thomas but not in the canonical gospels reflect special (e.g., Gnostic) tendencies, while (2) sayings reported in Thomas and in the canonical gospels have come from the canonical gospels to Thomas. Admittedly, absolutely convincing proof cannot be provided in all instances. It may be that sometimes Thomas uses written sources, sometimes oral. But it should be added that since the norms for determining authenticity must lie in the canonical gospels, it is hard to see what contribution apocryphal gospels could make even if some of the materials in them should be judged genuine. It should also be said that their theological outlook can be of great assistance in dealing with the history of doctrine, but that since the Church generally rejected them at an early date (see Chapter 1) they illuminate byways or alternatives rather than the main roads of Christian thought.

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.

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:

In addition, Bultmann treats as glosses the following expressions which break the continuity of thought or produce confusion in a sentence:

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 gospel conform to late first-century sacramental views or synoptic eschatology or history. The editor had the double purpose of making the work harmonize with church life and with the Church’s gospels.

Proof of the existence of this editor is provided first of all by noticing the most obvious additions he has made. The Gospel clearly comes to an end in 20:30-1; we must therefore assume that chapter 21 is an addition. Furthermore, the poetic style of the prologue is interrupted by prosaic verses which refer to John the Baptist (1:6-8, 15; cf. 1:30). Therefore we can go on to discover other additions which break the formal continuity of the book or produce contradictions.

The editor was not concerned with synoptic tradition alone. lie was anxious to relate the gospel to the sacramental teaching of the Church and to its eschatology. Therefore he added 6:51b-58 in order to correlate the bread of life with the Eucharist, and 19:34b-35 to show that both baptism and Eucharist were established by the death of Jesus. In addition, he inserted the words ‘water and’ in a reference to birth from the Spirit (3:5); the parallel in John 3.3 speaks of birth ‘from above’. Water is irrelevant. As for eschatology, the true Johannine view involves present realization alone. ‘The hour comes and now is’ (4:23; 5:25). ‘I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, even if he dies, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die’ (11:25 -6; cf. also 3:18-19; 9:39). The editor is responsible for additions which speak of resurrection and judgement as future (5:28-9) or of a future gift by the Son of Man (6:27), or refer to ‘the last day’ (6:39, 40, 44, 54; 12:48). His view is the Jewish eschatological view expressed by Martha in John 11:24 (‘I know that he will rise in the resurrection at the last day’) and corrected by Jesus.

The points about sacramental teaching and eschatology obviously depend upon a prior assumption that in the evangelist’s thought water had nothing to do with birth from above and the bread of life was not related to the Eucharist; similarly his eschatology must have been either futurist or realized. The question, then, must be raised whether or not the evangelist’s mind worked as clearly and sharply as does that of a modern literary critic. When Bultmann deletes ‘water and’ largely on the ground that other critics of the liberal school have done so, his argument is not very convincing.

It should be said, however, that the attempt to disprove Bultmann’s claims by pointing to the unity of John’s grammar, syntax and vocabulary is not convincing either. An editor who believed that it was important to revise John’s work would surely have had some acquaintance with his mode of expression. Moreover, the essence of style, whether ancient or modern, is a certain variety along with some measure of uniformity. No author uses nothing but formulas.

But this variety in thought and word leads us to suspect not only the argument based on Johannine unity but also the argument for the existence of the editor. It remains quite possible that the mysterious editor was also the author of the gospel, although he probably did not leave his work in precisely the form in which we have it. To an editor or to editors we should hesitate to ascribe much more than John 21:24-5, the last verses of the book:

Sources

It is fairly clear that the opening verses of the Gospel are somewhat different in atmosphere from the rest of the book. This fact has been taken to show that the author was revising an earlier hymn or poem to the creative Word of God, but such an inference is not necessary. He may well have composed the prologue specifically for use in the gospel.

In addition, critics have argued that he made use of a book of ‘signs’ or significant miracles, and that he reinterpreted the contents of this book for his own purposes. To the ‘sign book’ Bultmann and others have added special sources consisting of sayings which originally came not from Jesus but from some Gnostic group, perhaps disciples of John the Baptist.

The difficulty with this source analysis lies in the fact that, as Charles Goodwin has pointed out, when John uses a source we can check on -- the Old Testament -- he does so very allusively. If we did not possess the Old Testament verses to which he alludes we could not reconstruct them. Therefore we cannot reconstruct his other sources, whatever they may have been.(‘How did John treat his Sources?’ -- Journal of Biblical literature, 73 [1954], 61-75).

Indeed, unless we have the benefit of a genetic theory of the development of Christian thought, we might even suppose that in his gospel he combined memories of what he had seen and heard with interpretations based on these memories. Presumably revelation, or encounter in general, involves response, and in the absence of photography and tape-recording John was likely to write down what Jesus meant to him rather than to paste together sources which he did not quite understand.

We are left, then, with some very general conclusions which do not greatly assist us in dealing with the gospel. It was written, probably in Greek and not much later than 70, perhaps in Asia Minor. It presents a portrait of Jesus different from the general synoptic picture. According to a tradition certainly in existence by the middle of the second century, its author was John, the disciple of Jesus -- perhaps the son of Zebedee. The difficulty with identifying this John with the author of Revelation is that there are conspicuous differences in vocabulary, style and theological ideas. Perhaps there has been some confusion between the two; perhaps both came from the same area and belonged to the same ‘school’; but any definite conclusion runs into difficulties.

Was the author a disciple of Jesus? If the synoptics are taken as the norm for the life of Jesus -- and the traditions in them seem to underlie later New Testament books as John’s do not -- we may wonder how a disciple could have written as John does. But it is worth observing that the ‘beloved disciple’ often identified as John comes on the scene only in or near Jerusalem in this book. Perhaps his ‘historical’ memories were concerned chiefly with what took place at the end of Jesus’ ministry; and in any event it is obvious that he regards remembering as related to the creative work of the Spirit (2:22; 12:16; 14:26). Again, if he is somehow related to the Dead Sea community and its fate after the monastery was destroyed in 68, some of his special emphases can be explained in relation to the audience which he hoped to win for Jesus.

We conclude that the author was probably not the son of Zebedee but a Jerusalem disciple of Jesus who wrote his gospel around the time of the Roman-Jewish war of 66-70 (probably not long after it) in order to present faith in Christ to bewildered and distressed Jewish sectarians. These sectarians lived either in Palestine itself or in the Dispersion.

Appendix: Bultmann’s Rearrangement of John

Prologue (1.1-18)

The testimony of John the Baptist (1.19-51)

I. The Revelation of the Glory before the World (2-12)

Preliminary revelation (2.1-22)

A. The Encounter with the Revealer (2.23-4.22)

1. Jesus and the teachers of Israel

(2.23-3.21; 3.31-6; 3.22-30)

2. Jesus in Samaria (4.1-42)

B. The Revelation as Judgement

C. The Revealer in Conflict with the World

1. The hiddenness and contingency of revelation

(7.1-14; 7.25-9; 8.48-50; 8.54-5; 7.30; 7.37-44; 7.31-6; 7.45-52)

2. A fragment (8.41-7; 8.51-3; 8.56-9)

3. The Light of the World

(9.1-41; 8.12; 12.44-50; 8.21-9; 12.34-6; 10.19-21)

4. The Good Shepherd (10.22-6; 10.11-13; 10.1-10;

10.14-18; 10.27-30)

5. Conclusion (10.31-9)

D. The Revealer’s Secret Victory over the World (10.40-12.43)

1. The decree of death (10.40-2; 11.1-54)

2. The way of the cross (11.55-12.33; 8.30-40; 6.60-71)

3. Conclusion (12.37-43)

II. The Revelation of the Glory before the Community (13-20)

A. The departure of the Revealer (13.1-17.26)

1. The Last Supper (13.1-30)

2. The Farewell Prayer (13.1; 17.1-26)

3. Farewell discourses and sayings (13.31-16.33)

a. Departure and empowering (13.31-5; 15.1-17)

b. The community in the world (15.18-16.11)

c .The future of believers as esehatological situation

(16.12-33)

d. Communion with Son and Father (13.36-14.31)

B. Passion Narrative and Easter (18.1-20.29)

C. Conclusion of the Gospel (20.30-1)

Appendix: Bultmann’s ‘Sayings-Source’

The Logos 1.1-5, 9-12, 14, 16

Flesh and Spirit 3.6, 8, 11-13, 18, 20-1, 32-6

The Water of Life 7.37-8; 4.13-14

The Bread of Life 6.27, 35, 48, 47, 44-5, 37

Father, Son, and Eternal Life 5.17, 19-21, 24-5; 11.25

The Glory 5.31-2, 39-44; 7.16-18; 8.14, 16, 19; 7.7, 28-9; 8.50, 54-5; 7.33-4; 8.43, 42, 44, 47,45,46,51

The Light of the World 8.12; 12.44-5; 9.39; 12.47-50; 8.23, 28-9; 9.5,4; 11.9-10; 12.35-6

The Shepherd-Door 10.11-12, 1,4,8, 10, 14-15, 27-30, 9

The Coming of the Hour 12.27-8, 23, 31-2

Freedom through Truth 8.31-2, 34-5, 38

The Revelation of Glory 17.1, 4-6, 9-17; 13.31-2

The Vine and the Branches 15.1-2, 4-6, 9-10, 16

Departure of the Revealer / Arrival of the Paraclete 15.18-20, 22, 24, 26; 16.8, 12-14, 16, 20, 22-4, 28; 14.1-7, 9, 14, 16-19, 26-7 (18.37?)

Since many have undertaken to draw up an account concerning the events which have taken place among us, as those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the matter delivered (accounts of them) to us, it seemed good also to me, since I followed all of them carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for your excellency, Theophilus, so that you might possess accurate knowledge about the matters concerning which you have been informed.