The Gospel of John

The Gospel of John The Difference between the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew Mark and Luke) and the Gospel of John is: The Central message of Jesus in the Synoptics is “Come and follow me”. Where is the Gospel of John the central message of Christ is: “Live in me; remain in me; Abide in me. 1. Authorship—Who Wrote the Fourth Gospel? In the popular imagination the author of the Fourth Gospel is normally viewed as the aging Apostle John, but it is important to remember that nowhere in the Gospel does the author actually state his name. External Evidence Concerning Authorship There is no writer who mentions the Fourth Gospel or its author before Irenaeus. Irenaeus (born AD 115-142? – died ca. AD 200). Scholars date the birth of Irenaeus between these two dates, chiefly on the basis of whether they give credit to his claims to have known Polycarp. In his work Against Heresies he states that the author of the Fourth Gospel was John, the Lord’s disciple; that the Gospel was published at Ephesus and that John remained at Ephesus until the time of Trajan.4 Eusebius, who reported this, says that Irenaeus’ authority for these statements was Polycarp, who learned truth from the apostles.5 According to Eusebius, Irenaeus himself, in a letter to his friend Florinus, reminisces of their childhood conversations with Polycarp.6 Irenaeus’ testimony has been discounted by many modern scholars, chiefly because they have concluded on other grounds that John the Apostle could not have written the Gospel. They simply claim his memory failed. However, this presupposes that Irenaeus’ only source of information was Polycarp. But Irenaeus mentions another anonynmous Presbyter (bishop), whom most think was his predecessor as Bishop of Lyons, Pothinus, a man born well before the end of the 1st century. (He died in AD 177 at well over 90 years old.) Also, Irenaeus was in close touch with Rome, and must have known the traditions there. J. Drummond states: “Critics speak of Irenaeus as though he had fallen out of the moon, paid two or three visits to Polycarp’s lecture-room, and had never known anyone else…he must have had numerous links with the early part of century.”7 All writers subsequent to Irenaeus assume the apostolic authorship of the Gospel without question (Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen). If they were merely reporting Irenaeus’ opinion, they must have considered it worth reporting—without suspicion. The Muratorian Canon (a document probably written in the last quarter of the 2nd century with firm ties to Rome) describes the Fourth Gospel as proceding from John after a vision given to Andrew that John should write and the others revise. (This is problematic for those who hold a late date, though, in light of the probability that Andrew did not survive that long). But this probably indicates John was associated with the Gospel in Rome at the time. In conclusion, while more might be said, especially concerning theories relating to the early martyrdom of the apostle John, it should be noted that these contradict Johannine authorship only if a late date is assumed for the Gospel. Such a late date is by no means certain. Also, there really is not much evidence at all for the early martyrdom of John. The evidence is as follows: Now we need to consider the internal evidence of the Gospel regarding authorship. 2. Date—When Was the Fourth Gospel Written? Given the diversity of opinion concerning authorship of the Fourth Gospel, the consensus on its dating is remarkable. A century and a half ago, F. C. Baur and his adherents, who became known as the “Tbingen School” because they were located at the University of Tbingen in southern Germany, advocated a date late in the second century for John’s Gospel (ca. AD 175). They did so mainly on the basis of the similarity between the Fourth Gospel and Gnosticism, which flourished in the mid- to late second century and was thought by many to be the background for “Johannine” thought. Today no New Testament scholar would advocate such a late date, primarily for two reasons. First was the discovery of a small fragment of papyrus containing a couple of verses from John 18by a British scholar, C. H. Roberts, while studying fragments of uncatalogued fragments in the John Rylands Library at the University of Manchester in 1934. This fragment, which has become famous as 52, is now dated (by a consensus of NT scholars and papyrologists) ca. AD 125.14  Since no one believes this fragment is actually part of the autograph (the original document), and since it came from Egypt, it is generally conceded that it would take several decades for the Gospel of John to be circulated, copied, carried to Egypt (and end up buried there). This suggests a date for John’s Gospel late in the first century. The second contributing factor to such a date was the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947. The scrolls exhibit much of the imagery and symbolism that had formerly been attributed to Gnosticism. For example, the so-called “War Scroll” from Qumran is properly titled The War of the Sons of Light With the Sons of Darkness. Concepts which were thought to indicate a late date for John because of their connection with Gnosticism have now turned up in documents written (in some cases) as early as the second century BC. W. G. Kümmel says: “If John was known in Egypt in the first quarter of the 2nd century, the beginning of the second century is aterminus ad quem. On the other hand, John’s knowledge of Luke is extremely probable, so it could not have been written before ca. 80-90. The assumption that John was written probably in the last decade of the first century is today almost universally accepted”.15 [my emphasis] J. A. T. Robinson likewise says: “Indeed one of the facts about the remarkable scholarly consensus which we shall be noting on the dating of the Johannine literature is that it cuts across almost every possible division. Those who believe that all five books—the Revelation, the gospel and the three epistles—are by one man, and that man the apostle John, and those who hold to none of these, or to almost every possible permutation of them, find common ground in dating both the Revelation and the gospel and epistles in the years 90-100.”16 [my emphasis] External Evidence Regarding the Date of John’s Gospel: I. That the apostle John lived to a very old age is widely attested: A. Irenaeus in Against Heresies claims that John lived into the reign of the Emperor Trajan (AD 98-117).17 B. Eusebius repeats Irenaeus’ statement about John living until the time of Trajan.18 C. Jerome placed John’s death “in the 68th year after our Lord’s passion.”19 II. That John was the last evangelist to write is also well attested, mentioned by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. iii.1.1), Clement (according to Eusebius, HE 4.14.7), and Eusebius himself (HE3.24.7). III. But that John wrote as a very old man is an inference which only appears later and combined with other statements which cast considerable doubt on its accuracy. A. The Muratorian Canon (probably ca. AD 180) describing the origin of the gospel (the vision that John should write and the others revise) suggests no date, but it presupposes that John’s “fellow-desciples” including Andrew are still alive and with him, and thus argues against a very late period. B. The Anti-Marcionite Prologue20 records that “the gospel of John was revealed and given to the churches by John while still in the body” (some manuscripts add, “after writing the Apocalypse”). The Prologue also claims the authority of Papias for this statement, and says that John dictated the gospel to Papias. The Prologue adds that Marcion (who taught in Asia Minor ca. AD 130) was “rejected” by John (i.e., Marcion’s theology was disapproved by the Apostle). However, Eusebius knew Papias’ works, and quotes nothing from him about the origin of the Fourth Gospel.21 It seems unlikely that the gospel was dictated to Papias, and impossible that John knew of Marcion. C. Victorinus of Pettau (died ca. AD 304) also says that John wrote the Gospel after the Apocalypse, but sees it as written against (among others) Valentinus, a Gnostic who taught in mid-2nd century. D. Epiphanius (ca. AD 315-403) says explicitly that John, refusing in his humility to write a gospel, was compelled by the Holy Spirit to do so in his old age, when he was over ninety, after his return from Patmos and after living “many years” in Asia.22However, this is combined with the confused statements that John’s banishment took place “under Claudius” and that he prophesied under that emperor “before his death.” Claudius reigned from AD 41-54 (but Epiphanius could be referring to Nero, whose full name was Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus). E. George Hamartolus (9th century) stated, “After Domitian, Nerva reigned one year, who recalled John from the island, and allowed him to dwell in Ephesus. He was at that time the sole survivor of the twelve Apostles, and after writing his Gospel received the honour of martyrdom” (Domitian reigned from AD 81-96). F. Note, however, that Irenaeus and Eusebius did not say John wrote when a very old man. This is basically the extent of the external evidence. J. A. T. Robinson summarized well: “With marginal variation at each end (and even Bultmann goes down as far as 80 for the first composition), the span 90-100 is agreed by Catholic and Protestant, by conservative and radical, by those who defend apostolic authorship and those who reject it, by those who believe that John used the synoptists and those who do not. It includes virtually all those who have recently written commentaries on the gospel, not to mention other interpreters. It is one of the relatively few points at which over a span of two generations Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible and The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible agree, and the consensus includes now the redaction-critics. Indeed many commentators (e.g. Schnackenburg) scarcely bother to discuss the issue of dating, and the space it occupies in introductions, whether to the New Testament or to the gospel, compared with that of authorship is minimal. Kümmel’s two-sentence summary…[mentioned previously] is typical: the question appears to be settled.23 Internal Evidence Regarding the Date of John’s Gospel In the opinion of many interpreters, John’s use of the synoptics (especially Luke) must indicate a later date (toward the end of the first century).But much scholarly disagreement over the use of the synoptics by John exists, especially over their precise relationship. In any case, John could be written after the synoptics and still be early. For others, John’s highly developed theology and ecclesiology must date from the end of the 1st century. But other books such as Romans and Hebrews have highly developed theology and are not necessarily late. Mention of the “spiritual” significance of sacraments (ordinances) like baptism is characteristic of John’s point of view (note the literal/figurative interplay throughout). And John does not even mention the “sacrament” of the Lord’s Supper! John makes no reference at all to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Thus it is assumed this must be far enough removed not to seem as important. But of all the NT writings with the exception of Hebrews and Revelation, the Fourth Gospel is the most likely to contain an allusion to the fall of Jerusalem. The focus of the gospel is on the rejection of Messiah by “his own” (1:11). The visitation and rejection must mean divine judgment. Ultimately, the temple (2:21) is replaced by Christ himself. Yet in chapter two there is no mention of Jerusalem’s fall. Instead, Jesus’ prophesy is seen as a prophecy not of what the Romans would do in destroying Jerusalem, but of the events of AD 33—what the Jews would do to Jesus. With an author as reflective as John, it is very strange that he does not see something of the coming doom in all of this. A possible indication that Jerusalem was still undestroyed at the time the Fourth Gospel was written is found in 5:2, which speaks of the pool of Bethesda (Bethzatha according to some manuscripts) with its five porticoes as still standing, using a present tense. The present tense is the only one in the immediate context—the writer uses imperfects for the rest of the description. This appears to give it special significance. Elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel (4:6, 11:18, 18:1, 19:41) John assimilates such topographical descriptions into the context. The natural inference from this use of the present tense is that John is writing while the building is still standing. H. Hoehner thinks that because of this, the city might actually have been under siege, and Bethany (11:18) and Golgotha (19:1 ff.) had been destroyed, but the pool of Bethesda was still there. D. B. Wallace also argued that the present tense in 5:2 is not to be understood as a historical present, and thus provides a significant clue to the early dating of the Gospel.24 In response to these suggestions, though, it must be noted that (1) while we do have some descriptions in Josephus of the general nature of the destruction in various quarters of the city, we do not know whether a feature like the pool of Bethesda would have survived the destruction or not; and (2) it is possible John, writing after the fall of the city and from a distant location, did not know whether the pool had been destroyed or not, and so naturally wrote as if it were still there, when in fact it may not have been. Finally, the strong Palestinian influence throughout the gospel also suggests an early date. After John left for Ephesus and lived there for many years, such details would tend to fade and blur in memory. In conclusion, the Fourth Gospel was probably written shortly before AD 70 and the fall of Jerusalem. 3. Literary Point of View One of the most important developments in the field of literary criticism in the last century or so has been the study of the so-called “literary point of view.” For our purposes we can define “point of view” as the position where the author stands in relation to the events he is relating to his readers. It is the “stance” he adopts as he relates his story. To determine the point of view, one can ask the following questions: (1) Who is telling the story? (2) From what physical point of view (or angle of narrative) is he telling the story? (3) From what mental point of view (or mood [but not grammatical mood, however]) is he telling the story? The first question (who is telling the story) is really the least important, since except in the case of an anonymous work it is relatively easy to determine who did write the story. The second question (about the physical point of view) is basically limited to 2 choices: 1. The author may adopt a first person point of view. Here the person telling the story is actually an observer of the events he relates. It is like a news reporter on the scene of a story describing what is taking place at the very moment as it happens. [Note: This does not necessarily involve the use of 1st person pronouns, just as a news reporter on the scene describing actions in progress may use second or third person pronouns.] 1 D Advantage: The first person point of view gives a great feeling of immediacy and closeness with the reader. 2 D Disadvantage: It greatly limits the range with which the author can deal with the events—he cannot present himself as knowing another person’s mind or knowing the future, for example. 2. The author may adopt a third person point of view. He tells the story as if he were separated from the events which are being described. He describes events like the narrator of a documentary. 1 D Disadvantage: this loses the feeling of immediacy and closeness with the reader. 2 D Advantages: 1 E A greater range of perspective from which to tell the story is available to the author. 2 E The writer may include later insights which the characters have received through the perspective of time, upon further reflection. 3 E The writer may interrupt the narrative to give his readers additional details and information they could not otherwise have—notes, explanatory glosses, comments, etc. 4 E Allows the readers to survey the lives of characters from a height, participating in the privilege of a novelist. 3. The so-called “Omniscient Author” convention—with this variation of the third person point of view, the author includes not only information the readers would not have, but information that even a firsthand observer of the events could not know. For instance, the writer may give the thoughts and feelings of more than one person at the same time (assuming these were not verbally expressed). The third question (mental point of view or “mood”) is just as important as the physical point of view. It must be coherent with the physical point of view. The author’s mental analysis of a situation must agree with the physical point of view he adopts. What is meant is this: an author cannot adopt a 1st person point of view and yet tell the story as an “omniscient author” who knows the outcome. That would create a lack of coherence between the physical and mental points of view and would ring false to the reader or hearer. In summary, we have seen that we may ask three questions to determine an author’s point of view. They are: (1) Who is telling the story? (2) What is his physical point of view? (This may be divided into 1st person or 3rd person, and if 3rd person, may involve the “omniscient author” convention). (3) What is his mental point of view? (This must be consistent with the physical point of view adopted). Now we will apply the above analysis to the Gospel of John. 1. Who is telling the story? We find the answer to this at the end of the gospel itself— 21:24. The disciple whom Jesus loved (cf. 21:20) is the one who has written these things. From our previous discussion of authorship we concluded that this disciple is most likely the Apostle John. 2. What is the author’s physical point of view? This is the basic difference between John and the Synoptics. The synoptics are written from a 1st person point of view (as if the author had personally observed all the events) while John is written from a 3rd person point of view (i.e. removed from the events he describes). While the author claims to be a participant in the events he very carefully separates himself from the events. However clear it is that he was an eyewitness of the life of our Lord, it is no less clear that he looks back upon it from a distance. While we see the events through his eyes, we are carefully guided to see through those eyesnot as they saw the events when they happened but as they now see them. We see more from the position the writer now holds. We might suspect, even from the opening words of 1:1, the panoramic sweep of John’s view of the life of Christ. There are numerous passages which could serve as an example of John’s 3rd person perspective. Four will serve as examples: a. 2:17—ejmnhvsqhsan oiJ maqhtaiV aujtou' o{ti gegrammevnon ejstivn... b. 2:22—o{te ou hjgevrqh ejk nekrw'n... c. 12:16—tau'ta oujk e[gnwsan aujtou' oiJ maqhtaiV toV prw'ton... d. 20:9—oujüdevpw gaVr h[/deisan thVn grafhVn... In each of these passages it may easily be seen that John has adopted the “post-resurrection” point of view. He looks back on the events and emphasizes the inability of the apostles to understand the things that were happening in their true perspective at the time they occured. It is only possible for us to understand these things when we consider the resurrection and its significance in God’s plan. But John has also chosen to use the “omniscient author” convention. 1 C Details he specifically explains to his readers— 1 D The place where John was baptizing (1:28) 2 D Jewish purification customs (2:6) 3 D The state of Jewish-Samaritan relations (4:9) 4 D The existence of “secret believers” among the Jewish leaders (because they wanted to retain their positions) (12:42-43) 5 D Details of Jewish burial customs (19:40) 2 C The disciples’ lack of understanding is repeatedly pointed out: 1 D Jesus’ exchange with Judas in the Upper Room (13:28-29) 2 D Jesus’ teaching concerning the resurrection (20:9) 3 D The disciples did not at first recognize the glorified Jesus (21:4) 3 C Explanation of yet future events: 1 D 11:2—Mary mentioned as “the Mary who anointed the Lord” before this takes place (not until 12:9) 2 D The coming of the Holy Spirit mentioned by Jesus (7:39) before Pentecost 4 C Things a firsthand observer would not know: 1 D Judas was a thief (12:6) 2 D The appropriateness of Caiaphas’ prophesy (11:51-52). He spoke “more truly than he knew” 3. What is the author’s mental point of view? It is, in general, consistent with the physical point of view he adopts as omniscient author. The mental point of view chosen by the author has allowed him to choose material which the other gospel writers did not use and to present it with the confidence that his readers, also viewing it from the post-resurrection point of view, would understand it in its true light. Those to whom the teaching was originally delivered did not understand it at the time. For example, concerning the doctrine of the coming of the Holy Spirit: Jesus relates in 7:38 that “out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water”. The following verse gives John’s point of view when he says: “He spoke this concerning the Spirit which those who believed in Him would receive, for the Spirit was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified.” Finally, Jesus breathes on the disciples (20:22) and (in some sense) they receive the Holy Spirit. But believers, looking back with the author, could understand the teaching in 7:38. Another example would be Nicodemus in chapter 3. He apparently did not get the point of Jesus’ teaching until after the conversation some time later. But let the reader understand! 4. Conclusions This has been a brief attempt to deal with literary point of view in relation to the gospel of John. We have seen that John consistently has adopted a “post-resurrection” point of view, looking back on the events with the benefit of further insight and seeing their theological implications. As an “omniscient author” he uses his access to information that a participant in the events could not have had at the time the events occurred. 5. An additional note on the frequency of historical presents in the Fourth Gospel: This technique allows the author to use the 3rd person point of view, with the “omniscient author” convention, and still preserve, at the same time, some of the immediacy and vividness of a first person point of view. Perhaps this is the reason for the large number of historical presents in the Fourth Gospel. Extensive use of the historical present is a characteristic mark of Johannine style. -The End- Page 13 of 36