Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (ANRW), 2. Principat, Bd. 25 (3. Teilband): Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Leben und Umwelt Jesu; Neues Testament (Evangelien, Apostelgeschichte)

övvaTO~ EKacrTo~. 9

Kai Toü6' CI TIPEcr[3tITEPO~ eAEYEv' M6:PKo~ I-lEV EPl-lllVEVT"~ nhpov YEVOI-lEVO~, öcra EI-l VllI-l0 VEUcrEV, aKpt[3w~ eypall-'Ev, ou I-lEVTOt T6:~Et, Tex \ITIO TOÜ KVp{OU T! AEXeEVTa T! TIpax6EVTa. OVTE yexp ;;KOVcrEV TOÜ KVp{OV OVTE TIapllKOAOVellcrEV aUT0, VcrTEPOV OE, w~ Eq>llV, nhp
2362

MORTON S. ENSLIN

That Papias is here defending this gospel against some sort of criticism, not unlikely an uniavorable comparison with another gospel, has long appeared to me likely. The key word, 0\1 IlEVTOI Ta~EI, has often been translated "not in chronological order", and the inference drawn that Mark is being compared with John. This is possible, but scarcely likely. The puzzling Ta~EI appears to me to suggest completeness, almost in the sense of "a list" or "listwise". Thus I would translate it, as years ago Father KLEIST urged lO , "not with the completeness of a list". The fact that Mark, when judged by the other two synoptists, lacks so much material - stories oi the supernatural birth and resurrection appearances, not to mention the Sermon on the Mount and most of the parables - early aroused attention and led to the eclipse oi this pivotal writing. Papias may weIl have thought that it was the lack of this material which led the presbyter whom he is quoting to have written OV IlEVTOI Ta~EI, and it is very possible that Papias is correct.

5. Nature of Mark a) Mark a Petrine gospel? While this essay is particularly concerned with Matthew and Luke and with the contention that the evidence definitely demands that the answer to the query, «Compilers or Authors?" be authors, it is surely not out of place to insist that the same descriptive for Mark is equally demanded. Too long we have been misled by the word of Papias, whom Eusebius regarded as a far from reliable source of information - mp65pa yap TOI O"IlIKPOS WV TOV VOVV, WS O:v EK T&'W aVTov i\6yc.uv TEKllllpallEVOV ElTrEiv, <palvETal H.E. iii,39,13) - to regard this first gospel as definitely, if not slavishly, Petrine, and that Mark's part in it was substantially that of a disciple whose memory was keen and who iaithfuIly, but not very creatively or brilliantly, wrote down a sort oi precis oi his teacher's preaching. b) Product of a free author, not a compiler Few assumptions have been more misleading than that which regards our first gospel as such a loosely put together catena of ancient tradition. Rather, on every page, from the terse and dramatic introduction (1.1-13), wherein our author introduces J esus and enables the reader to recognize and appreciate his work as none of his contemporaries, including his chosen disciples could; the brief but tremendous and heart-rending story of futile hostility and pathetic blindness; the terrible account of the seeming defeat and failure, ending with a cry of despair as his last word; the curtain descend-

10

J AMES A.

KLEIST,

1932, pp. 17-22.

The Memoirs of St. Peter or the Gospel according to St. Mark, Milwaukee,

LUKE AND MATIHEW: COMPILERS OR AUTHORS?

2363

ing on that scene, the end of what can only be styled stark tragedy, only to rise for a quick and unforgettable epilogue - the empty tomb, the word of the angel repeating the word so often hinted by J esus to his disciples but which, with their but half-opened eyes, the disciples had failed to comprehend. Few books of greater power have ever been pennedl l . On every page the unfettered author is to be seen, not the 'docile reteller of his teacher's sermons. That it was the death or retirement of Peter which led Mark to this new step in Christian literary activity, while often suggested, appears to me most unlikely. Rather it appears far more probable that it was the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, which convinced our author that the long expected fulfillment of J esus' predictions of the momentary coming of the kingdom of God was now at hand12 •

6. Q, arguments for and against Thus it has long seemed to me probable that Papias is contrasting the Gospel of Mark with that of Matthew, which he believed had been written by Matthew hirns elf in Aramaic, although he hirns elf knew it only in a Greek version. The five treatises (avyypO:I-lI-lOTO lTeVTE) of Papias, which had the title "Interpretation of the Orades of the Lord" (I\oy{wv KVPIOKWV E~­ T)yi]aEWS), to wh ich Eusebius refers 13 , would not improbably seern a commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, which latter is dearly arranged in a fivefold form, with dear-cut colophons at the end of each discourse, not only to round off the preceding discourse, but to serve as connecting links with the narrative which follows. That this was not accidental, but a deliberate arrangement modeled on the Pentateuch, appears to me highly probable. It is not unlikely that the six iambic verses which now stand in a sixteenth-century paper manuscript on Mt. Athos 14 , solely because the

11

12

13

14

Too often Mark is read in connection with Matthew and Luke. Such reading is, of course, imperative; but it should also be read alone, preferably at one sitting. Then its force and intensity are feIt. For development of this thesis see M. S. ENSLIN, A New Apocalyptic, Religion in Life, 44,1 (1975), pp. 105-110. H.E. iii, 39,1. This manuscript was catalogued by LAMBROS as the work of 'Matthew a Monk' (Mcnecx{ov I-lOVCXXOü). RENDEL HARRIS questioned this identification and regarded the verses as a reference to Matthew the apostle (Testimonies, Cambridge, Part I, 191G, pp. 100-117; Part II, 1920, pp. 109-121). HARRIS saw in these verses a confirmation of his view that the 'Logia' mentioned by Papias was a compilation of Christian Testimonies against Judaism. In answer to HARRIS' contention B. W. BACON wrote his articlc: The 'Five Books' of Matthew Against the Jews, Expositor, 15 (1918), pp. 56-66, seconding HARRIS' identification of the "Matthew" as the apostle, but insisting that the work described as "curbing the audacity of the J ews" was our First Gospel. This thesis, together with a dctailed study of Papias' testimony is further expanded in BACON'S monumental 'Studies in Matthew', New York, 1930, which volume is wen deserving fresh attention.

2364

MORTON S. ENSLIN

content of that manuscript chanced to be in five books, are an old allusion to our Gospel of Matthew, which from the second century had been regarded, and rightly, as written with a special eye to the Jews and in five books: MCX'T6aios e'{pyel T(;)V '!ovSa{wv 6p6:aos' "QalTep xaAlvois lTSVTe AOYCP ApSll v CxlTeXaas aVYKa6eiAev alpsaelS' Mtl TllP yap aVTOOV ti 6eOKTOVWV eplS. )I

HMatthew curbs the audacity of the Jews; Checking them in five books as it were with bridles. N ow whoever the infamous error of these (Pure error it is) shall in argument refute Destroys at a stroke all the heresies together; For the mother of these is the strife of the deicide people." Thus any fancied support from Papias of the existence in his day of a writing, independent of but a source of our gospels, vanishes into thin air, and the still not uncommon references to Hthe logia", or Hthe Matthean logia", or Hthe logia referred to by Papias", and ((Q" as parallel titles to this now vanished source are misleading and the source of constant confusion. As one of its champions remarked, in a phrase many tim es repeated, Q found its grave in Matthew and Luke. This is no answer at all. Precisely the same might on the same grounds be expected for Mark, which Matthew and Luke had utilized so completely. But Mark did not vanish. In sum, it cannot be too strongly emphasized that the only support for this hypothetical Q, which so mysteriously completely vanished and of which no slightest mention is to be found in any of the Fathers, is the assumption that neither Matthew nor Luke could have been satisfied to use the other, had he known it, so meagerly. What that really means is that we could not have so done. It is easy to forget that none of these writings, which we prize so highly today, was
LUKE AND MATTHEW: COMPILERS OR AUTHORS?

2365

predecessors and thought he could do a better job15 • Else he would not have written. They were not joining with respected colleagues in contributing chapters for a Festschrift. In recent years modifications of this purely hypothetical Q have been advanced16 • At first it was regarded as severely separate from Mark, definitely the <second source'. Since two blocks of Matthean-Lukan material not to be found in Mark (and so by hypothesis from Q) were definitely more narrative than discourse, it was admitted that this
Certainly Luke states this c1early in his preface (1.1-4). There is also a growing, if belated, tendency on the part of a group of scholars, some influenced by FARMER's revival and support of GRIESBACH'S views, to deny the necessity and probability of the assumed second source, Q. Among such may be mentioned: B. C. BUTLER, The Originality of St. Matthew: A Critique of the Two Document Hypothesis, Cambridge, 1951; A. M. FARRAR, On Dispensing with Q, in: Studies in the Gospels: Essays in memory of R. H. Lightfoot, ed. by D. E. NINEHAM, Oxford, 1955; L. A. FOSTER, The 'Q' Myth in Synoptic Studies, Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society, 7 (1964), pp. 111-119; SEWART PETRIE, 'Q' Is Only What You Make It, Novum Testamentum, 3 (1959), pp. 28-33; THEODORE H. RoscHE, The Words of Jesus and the Future of the 'Q' Hypothesis, }.B.L., 79,3 (1960), pp. 210-220; RONALD D. WORDEN, Redaction Criticism of Q: A Survey, J.B.L., 94,2 (1975), pp. 532-546.

2366

MORTON S. ENSLIN

assumption of Q. Critics who argue that these problems are more naturally solved by seeing Luke as dependent upon Matthew are not recklessly flaunting ancient tradition, not to mention established fact. Instead they are asking that a question, too long regarded as established fact, be re-examined, and that the assumption that one evangelist could not have used the material of another in a way that we would find unnatural after nearly two thousand years of increasing authority be considered once again. In addition it mayaiso be insisted - it is a point so obvious that it is easily overlooked - that the codex had not been invented when our evangelists were at work. Today it is as easy, mechanically, to produce an 800-page book as one of fifty pages. When scrolls were the only medium, this was definitely not the case. There were severe limits of space beyond which an author simply could not go. If, as is certainly to be assumed, Luke had materials of his own which he wished to use or emphases which he wished to make, not contained in either Mark or Matthew, he would have been forced - quite regardless of the latters' values - to omit much which he might conceivably have been glad to include. This would seem a factor not to be overlooked in the question so long regarded final and conclusive: How could Luke have omitted so much in Matthew had he known that book? The answer is easy: He did not have the space.

11. Critical examination 01 nine sectt'ons in Matthew and Luke which suggest Luke' s direct use and alteration 01 M atthew and which indicate basic emphases 01 the two authors In support of the contention that it would be profitable to re-examine the question of the relationship between Matthew and Luke, both in sections for which no Markan parallel is to be seen as a source, and in the tripie tradition where at times they strangely and clearly agree against Mark, I am listing as sampies, and discussing in some detail, several blocks of material which suggest to me that the least complicated solution is likely to be the most probable. They are suggestive sampies. They are not offered as providing proof positive, but rather as indicating that the question is not, as has been too often asserted, a closed one. They are chosen because of their varied nature. Some of them seem to me more conclusive than do others. They are not to be regarded as factors and so of a nature that if one be zero the product is invalidated. Rather, they are integers to be added, not multiplied.

1. Matt. 4.12-17; Luke 4.14-16a In the Markan account (1.14-15), immediately after the temptation

Jesus goes to Galilee, not to N azareth but, as the immediately following

LUKE AND MATIHEW: COMPILERS OR AUTHORS?

2367

words make clear, to Capernaum, by the shore of the Sea of Galilee. Both Matthew 17 and Luke 18 follow Mark in having Jesus go to Capernaum as his place oi residence or center of activity, but there is a notable difference. Matthew inserts the phrase, Ka:Ta:AllTWV TllV Na:sa:p6:, before the word EA6wv Ka:T4>KT)O"ev eis Ka:cpa:pva:ovll. The reason for this addition seems obvious. He accepts the Markan word that Capernaum, not Nazareth, was Jesus' first seat of activity; but by the insertion he meets the reader's possible query as to why he had not gone to his horne town 19 , and in Scripture 20 he finds a (to hirn) satisfactory explanation. This fondness for scriptural support, and for heavy-handed forcing a quoted word to serve as prophetie of a subsequent act or action, is so characteristic of Matthew that to toy around assuming it evidences some non-Markan source is not only unwarranted but absurd. It is but one of many cases where a Matthean word seems a direct attempt to clarify or explain a Markan word which might perplex his readers. These are among the many solid reasons for regarding Matthew as substantially an eady commentary on Mark, not the work which Mark excerpted. It is surely scarcely coincidence that Luke amplifies the Matthean mention of "after having left N azareth" by inserting his own revision of the later Markan story of the rej'ection at Nazareth 21 , which he makes the portentous prelude of the Galilean ministry, thereby sounding the melodie note of his whole composition. Is it too speculative to suggest that it may well have been Matthew's added phrase which led to this Lukan re arrangement ? It is not to be overlooked that in both Matt. 4.13 and Luke 4.16 the name of the obscure town in Galilee is spelled Na:Sa:p6:, a spelling which occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. The fact that Matthew is satisfied with this slight explanatory gloss and follows Mark in seeing the rejection in Nazareth as happening later heightens the probability that it is Luke who is here following Matthew, not the reverse.

2. Matt. 14.14; Luke 9.11 In their use oi the Markan story of the Feeding of the 500 22 there is a strange Matthean-Lukan agreement, namely, the terse statement that Jesus healed the siek prior to the miracle 23 • That both writers independently chance to insert without amplification this detail at that same spot in the Markan story is most improbable. Nor is there any need of toying with 17 18 19

20

21 22 23

Matt. 4.12-17. Luke 4.14-16a. Matt. 2.23. It is oi interest, perhaps oi importance, that Matthew apparently iails to realize that Antipas, the tetrarch oi Gali1ee, was also a san oi Herod and had presumably been as great amenace as was his brother, Archelaus. in J udea. Isa. 9.1-2 (8.23-9.1, Hebr.). Luke 4.16-30; cf. Mark 6.1-G. See infra, p. 23G8. Mark 6.30-44. Matt. 14,14; Luke 9.11.

2368

MORTON S. ENSLIN

the notion of another source, parallel to Mark, from which they both had independently drawn. Here it is possible, as is not infrequently the case, to follow Matthew's thinking. In his immediately prior section, the rejection at Nazareth 24 , Mark had said, "And he was not able there to do a single mighty deed, save that he put his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them". Matthew tones down Mark's "could not" (OVK eovvoTo) to the more seemly "did not" (OVK hrolT)O'ev) and his "single mighty deed" (ovoell{ov ovvolllV) to "many mighty deeds" (ovvollelS 'Tl'oi\i\oS). Furthermore, Matthew reserves Mark's casual qualification about healing a few siek for this next episode where he inserts it after Mark's convenient mention of Jesus' compassion for those without a shepherd. It is to be noted that in his insertion Koi e6ep0'Tl'evO'ev TOUS &pPWO'TOVS OVTWV Matthew is strictly preserving Mark's phraseology el Ill) 6i\{yOlS &pP~O'TOIS ... E6epO:'Tl'evO'ev. That this insertion into the later story is due to Matthew and not to some imagined vanished source scarcely needs to be argued. That Luke has a mention of healing at precisely the same spot in the narrative is surely most naturally explained as due to his familiarity with the Matthean account. It is also to be noted that while Luke has no place in his rewritten account of the rejection at N azareth for this qualifying ellll) O:PPWO'TOIS ... E'Tl'16eis TOS XeipOS e6epO:'Tl'evO'ev, he utilizes the words TOS XeipOS e'Tl'16e{s in his earlier story (4.40) and reflects Mark's concluding Koi e6ovlloO'ev (Mark. 6.6) in his e6ovIloSov (Luke 4.22). In these several touches by both Matthew and Luke is surely to be seen the readiness of the author to tell his story as he thinks fit, not the unimaginative and docile obedience of the excerptor of materials he can use but not alter. In addition, the critic will wisely not fail to note that what is too often styled "an omission" of a Markan touch is frequently not an omission at all but simply a transfer of the partieular detail to another context, occasionally seemingly to become the core of the subsequent story.

3. Matt. 10.5f.; Luke 9.51-56 Matt. 28.16-20; Acts 1. 7-8 The so-called Great Commission in Matthew (28.16-20) may weIl be a striking conclusion to a superbly wrought book. N onetheless it is separated from the gospel itself by a distinct gulf which must be bridged. To Matthew, however much he might approve the gentile mission - and that at the time he wrote the church was predominantly gentile appears to me very clear - it had marked a definitely new beginning. During his lifetime Jesus had neither advocated nor approved it. On the contrary, his word to the Twelve was unqualified and unambiguous: eis 600v e6vwv Ill) 0:'Tl'si\6T)Te, Koi eis 'Tl'Oi\lv LOIlOPITWV Ill) eiO'si\6T)Te' 'Tl'opeve0'6e oe Iläi\i\ov 'Tl'pOS

24

Mark 6.1-6; Matt. 13.53-58.

LUKE AND MATTHEW: COMPILERS OR AUTHORS?

2369

Ta np6ßCXTa Ta anoÄOOÄ6Ta OiKOV ·\crpaiJÄ26. More than that, Jesus had scrupulously followed that prohibition hirnself. Matthew's rewriting of the ticklish Mark 7.24-30 and 31 is explicit 26 . According to Mark Jesus went into the territory of Tyre (eis Ta öp1a Tupov), and having gone into this gentile district entered a heathen house (elcreÄewv eis oiK{av). When he left the territory, he went through [via?] Sidon (01a ~10WVOS)27. Not so in Matthew. As his wont, Matthew retains the Markan incident, but skillfully gives a totally different picture, in Mark's own words. J esus did not go eis Ta öpla Tupov; instead he went eis Ta IJEPTl Tupov Kai ~10WVOS. Far from his entering a house there, the woman actually came out of the territory to where Jesus was remaining (6:no TWV 6p{oov EKe{voov E~eÄeoücra)28. To be sure, Jesus meets the gentile woman, but not on heathen soil; and his attitude toward her, despite all the gratuitous labors of slightly scandalized Christian exegetes, is perfectly consistent with the apparent meaning of the other word which we have also tended to minimize, "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before the swine"29. Thus we are probably correct in assuming that in placing the Great Commission at the end of his gospel Matthew deliberately intended the contrast to be felt. Far from neglecting the Jews - a not infrequent Jewish charge at the end of the first century - Jesus had devoted himself to them exclusively. It was not until he had perished at their hands that his followers received their orders to about face. For Luke this is all very different. It is a far step from the handful of followers in Galilee or the little group in J erusalem to the host of churches established in strategie centers throughout the Roman empire and with its doughty champion at Caesar's court in Rome. None is more acutely aware than Luke of the magnitude of the growth; of what one might almost style the "turns in the road". It was at the time of Stephen's death that a real change became apparent, and Saul (Paul) is appropriately, if somewhat awkwardly, introduced 30 ; it was at Antioch that preaching to the Greeks was inaugurated. Nonetheless, as Luke develops his theme, these are not essentially new departures. At Pentecost there had been a quick, prophetie foretaste of it: not Jews alone but all the world, Jews and gentiles alike, 26 26 27

28

Matt. 10.5f. Matt. 15.21-28 and 29. Fortunately it is not neeessary in this essay to struggle with Mark's geography: Kcxi 1T
29

30

2370

MORTON S. ENSLIN

had for the moment had the word preached to them 3l . Nor was this a postresurrection about face. Like Matthew, Luke has a great commission after the resurrection. Surely Acts 1.8 is essentially the counterpart of Matthew's more famous verses. HJerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the earth" are the precise equivalent of Matthew's Hall the nations", and in the order in which Luke plans to depict the broadening but steady expansion; the baptism «of all the nations" commanded in Matthew is certainly represented by Luke as being performed upon the representative Pentecostal host 32 ; while the whole point of the Pentecost experience - the reception by the waiting disciples of the spirit which Jesus, now ascended to heaven, bestows upon them, even as Elijah had done upon Elisha - could hardly be improved upon as a reflection and interpretation of Matthew's parting word of the triumphant Jesus, Hand 10, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world33 ". This is but another of the many hints that are overlooked when the possibility of a genetic relation between Luke and Matthew is so confidently ruled out of court. I am making no claim for verbal identity. I do feel, however, that the parallel is striking, especially in view of the high probability that the incident, while perhaps geschichtlich, is far from historisch. That two writers independently set such a coda to the narrative is to me hardly likely. Rather I should definitely incline to the view that it was Matthew's statement which led to the Lukan adaptation, with all Matthew's details preserved, but in a setting which corresponded to his own revision of the postcrucifixion days, in which the episode in Galilee is deliberately excluded. Unlike Matthew, Luke has so skillfully and unobtrusively led up to this incident that were it not for the set of our minds towards the nature of Jesus' ministry, which we have received from the more familiar Matthew, we would probably have never thought of assuming that Luke had intended his readers to see any essential change of intention towards the gentile mission in the postresurrection moment. Instead he utilizes, as it appears to me, the Matthean section and quietly alters it to fit his own quite different view of Christian history. This same note is insistently sounded at the beginning of the gospel. The initial event of the ministry is the rejection at N azareth 34 . In this artificial section framed from the materials of Mark 6.1-6, a quotation from

31

32

33

34

The assembled multitude who hearken and understand Peter's word are not Jews but representative of all the nations. On the basis of both transcriptional and intrinsie probability the deletion of KCXTOIKOUVTES' '/OVÖCXiOl (2.15) is warranted. Because of their sin the primitive speech of men had been confounded at Babel. In the future this will be remedied and once more the saved will have the original speech restored: Kcxl EO"EO"eE EIS' ÄCXOV KVp{OV Kcxl yÄWO"O"CX ~{CX Kcxl OVK EO"TCXl EKEi 7TVEU~CX 7TÄCxVT}S' TOU BEÄICxP (Test. XII Patr., Judah, 25.3); cf. also EVcx ß{ov Kcxl ~icxv 7TOÄlTE{CXV Cxvepc.:mwv ~CXKCXp(WV Kcxl 6~o­ yÄc.OO"O"wv 7TCxVTWV YEVEO"eCXl (Plutarch, de Iside 47). Acts 2.38-41. Matt. 28.20. Luke 4.16-30.

LUKE AND MATIHEW: COMPILERS OR AUTHORS?

2371

Isaiah, references to Elijah and Elisha, and, as already suggested35 , a suggestion from Matthew, Luke sounds the melodie note which he is to echo to the last page of Acts: Salvation has come to an men irrespective of birth, of race, of status. I t had been in the world since the moment of Messiah's birth and had been hymned by the heavenly host: "Glory to God in the highest and on earth; Peace to the men of his choice 36 ." Now it was being prodaimed openly and would continue through an time. Thus Jesus can refer to the experiences of Elijah and Elisha - the one with the widow of Sarepta, the other with Naaman the Syrian. In his first appearance at Nazareth, in the attitude of the Samaritan traveler, in the gratitude of the Samaritan leper, in the assembled multitude at Pentecost, in the word of Peter to Cornelius, of J ames to the hearers in J erusalem, of Paul before the Areopagus, in Paul's final word at Rome - "Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the gentiles; they will also hear" - this note rings out unmistakably again and again. From the opening page of the gospel to the dosing page of Acts there is thus a steady and orderly advance. It is an part of the eternal purpose of a God who knows the end from the beginning and of whom it cannot be said, "He repented hirnself and made a new beginning". Is it surprising, then, that of the three synoptists it is Luke alone who has any Samaritan incidents? N either the word 'Samaria' nor <Samaritan' occurs in Mark. In Matthew the only occurrence of either is in the warning addressed to the Twelve, which we have already noted: "Enter not into any city of the Samaritans." In Luke, on the contrary, there are three incidents in which Samaritans are referred to, and in two of them with evident commendation 37 . All three of them occur in the long section, formerly, but not very happily, dubbed "the Perean ministry"38; and all three are significant when once Luke's intent to show the gentile mission as apart of the divine plan is recognized. The first of these stands significantly enough at the very start of this long section which is commonly regarded the chronicle of the fateful journey to Jerusalem. The words, Kai O:lTEo-TElAEV O:YYEAOVS lTPO lTP0o-WlTOV aVTov. Kai lTopEv6EVTES Eio-T)A6ov Eis lTOAl v [var. Kc.Ollfl V]39 2allaplTwV Wo-TE ETOlIlo:o-al aVT~ have long caused difficulty to the commentators. Mark

35 36 37 38

39

See p. 2370. Luke 2.14. Luke 9.51-56; 10.29-37; 17.11-19. Luke 9.51-18.14. Most modern editors prefer Kc.0IJT)V. Both readings are well attested. The possibility of scribal harmonization on the basis of Matt. 10.5 probably has been influential in the preference for Kc.0IJT)V. If, however, as is suggested below, the Matthean verse is in Luke's mind as he wrote in contradiction, 1TOAIV is to be preferred. In that case the variant is to be explained as due to harmonization with Eis ETepcxv Kc.0IJT)V (v. 56).

2372

MORTON S. ENSLIN

apparently has Jesus go south from Galilee via the Perea to Jerieh0 40 • \Vith this Matthew eoneurs 41 • Luke leaves Mark at 9.40 (= Luke 9.50), to rejoin hirn at 10.13 (= Luke 18.15) immediately before Jerieho. Is this due to Luke's ignoranee of Palestinian geography, leading hirn to ass urne that the way from the north to Jerusalem lay through Samaria42 , and without realizing where the obseure Jerieho lay on that route? This is highly likely, but more is involved than amistake in geography. It appears to me very probable that the puzzling seetion in Luke is of his own eomposition and is intended as a deliberate and eonscious ans wer to Matt. 10.5. Matthew had written: eIs lTOi\lV IalJap1TOOV IJTl elO'ei\611Te; Luke eontradiets: Kai lTopeV6evTes elO'f}i\6ov eIs lToi\lv IalJap1Toov. If this be so, the reason for placing this incident at the head of the 'whoIe section is at onee intelligible. This rejection in a gentile village is a eonseious and deliberate parallel to the rejection at N azareth whieh was arbitrarily plaeed at the start of the
He is not drawing from a eonvenient already artieulated souree. Instead 40 41 42 43

Kcxl ~KEieEV (Mark 10.1; that is, from Capernaum [Mark 9.33]). Matt. 19.1 Cf. Acts 15.3. The verbal agreement between II Kings 1.10-12 (IV Kingd. LXX) and Luke 9.54. Kcxl KCXT~ßll 1TVP ~K TOV ovpcxvov Kcxl KCXT~q>CXYEV CXVTOV Kcxl TOUS 1TEVTtlKOVTCX cxliTov with nvp KCXTCXßiivCXI a1To TOV ovpcxvov Kcxl avcxAwacxI CXVTOVS is scarcely accidental, and was early noted; cf. the apt gloss, OOS Kcxl 'HAlcxS' ~1TolllaEV (C D pm it). Luke 10.1-16, 17-20. There can be little question that the seven "deacons" (Acts 6.3), who speedily become preachers, in some way correspond to these seventy. In this connection it is not without interest to remember the 120 (10 X 12) brethren of Acts 1.15, and that according to the Mishna (Sanh. 1,6) 120 is the smallest group to be able to have a sanhedrin and that the chiefs in the community are in the ratio of one to ten.

e

44 45

LUKE AND MATIHEW: COMPILERS OR AUTHORS?

2373

it is in a real sense his scrap basket, composed of several stories which he wants to preserve. On the other hand, the more I study this seetion the less confident I am that this accounts for all the stories. Several of them appear to have been of his own composition; some are palpable doublets to stories which he utilizes elsewhere - and regularly Luke avoids doublets! Not infrequently interpreters of this gospel ha ve detected a similarity between the so-called
46

Acts 7.51-53.

153

ANRW Il 25.3

2374

MORTON S. ENSLIN

is an attitude of regretful sorrow that they are so blind, so deaf, that they will not see and rejoice that God's great gift which embraces all men embraces them too. Thus, returning to the initial story of the nameless Samaritan village, it appears to me severely of Luke's own composition, and a deliberate and intended contradiction by Luke of Matthew's view of the nature of Jesus' ministry, with which he (sc. Luke) is in total disagreement. Ta recognize this very definite relation between Matt. lO.5f. and Luke 9.51-56 and that the story in the latter is due to Luke's total dis agreement with Matthew's basic emphasis on the scope of J esus' ministry which he epitomized in this ward to the Twelve as they depart on their mission, maywell throw a beam of light on several points of gospel criticism and of early Christian history lang obscured. It is so definitely essential to his purpose, so closely fashioned after the earlier rejection in N azareth, that it appears to me fruitless to posit it as found ready-made in same imagined source. Ta me the basic weakness in much source analysis is the assumption of the use of same different source every time one author alters or changes another. Luke corrects Matthew because he thinks Matthew incorrect, not because he chances to find a different version of the event in same source which he chances to have in his hand or in his memory. One of the fatal symptoms of what I have styled <sourceomania' is the in ability to recognize the evangelists as authors who had ideas and were ready to express them. They did not conceive themselves as weighted down by the awesome responsibility of preserving unaltered aseries of facts for future generations who would study them under the critical magnifying glass as contained in Holy Scripture. The dependence upon the Elijah story already noted Luke finds in the Elijah-Elisha saga much useful material - suggests his own craftsmanship. N or is it to be overlooked that the role of J ames and J ahn, ready in their indignation to call down fire from heaven, is amazingly apt in view of the Markan ward, KCXl ElTe611KEV cxtlTois övol..lCX Bocxvl1Pyes, Ö EO'T1V viol ßPOVTllS47, which Luke omits in'his parallel48 . A careful study of the occasional Markan details which Luke seems deliberately to edit out of his parallel version, only subsequently to employ them in same later story - especially in Acts - as a significant, if not central, detail, would probably result in greater caution in postulating manifold and convenient soure es from which he drew, and might weIl enhance his reputation for ingenuity and able craftsmanship, though perhaps at the expense of his historical reliabilty. And finally, it may beworth pondering whether in his framing of this important, but fragile and artificial, little narrative he is not also influenced by the Markan story of the preparation made for the entry into J erusalem 49 •

47

48 49

Mark 3.17. Luke 6.14. Mark 11.1ff.

LUKE AND MATTHEW: COMPILERS OR AUTHORS?

2375

4. Matt. 4.1-11; Luke 4.1-13 The simplest and most natural explanation of the Matthean-Lukan form of the temptation story 50 is that it is secondary to the Markan narrative and a deli berate recasting of it, not a parallel story from another source which Matthew and Luke independently preferred and substituted for the Markan. Attempts to see it as a more primitive story - or at least as one preserved in a source earlier than Mark, and possibly known to hirn - appear to me, as already remarked 51 , too ridiculous to demand serious reply. And by all rules of the critical game, if a fancied Q 1S to be seen as providing the non-Markan paralleis of Matthew and Luke, this ornate and scarcely primitive-sounding story must be seen as one of its incidents. The Markan story 52 is simple and clear-cut, the climax of his carefully framed prologue, for only so can 1.1-13 be properly styled 53 ; the gospel starts with Jesus' appearance in Galilee (1.14). Jesus is driven into the wilderness by the Spirit which had recently come upon hirn. Here for forty days he is tempted by Satan and providentially fed by angels in a mann er surely reminiscent of Elijah's experience en route to Horeb 54 . The mention of "wild beasts" (IlETO: TWV ellplwv) can scarcely be a prosy reference to wilderness animals but to the demons. whose power he is to thwart. Here is the Markan explanation of the fact that thereafter the demons - and they alone! - recognized hirn and knew that they were worsted 55 . It was due to this (eschatological) triumph that J esus came with confidence into Galilee with his unqualified prediction of the immediacy of the approach of the kingdom of God. The bell has sounded: the kingdom of God is at hand! This theological explanation was not shared by Matthew. Instead stood the bare and unsatisfactory statement: "He was tempted." The natural question was "How?" And Matthew anticipated his readers' question and presents an answer. Here we have but another instance of Matthew's deliberate attempt to explain what appeared to hirn - and so probably would to his readers - an obscurity or infelicity in Mark. This is but another case where not only is the order Mark -* Matthew certain but also where the likelihood that Matthew is in a real sense "an early commentary on Mark" is definitely worth pondering. Certainly the recounting three temptations - so reflective of the element 'three' in parables - and the

50 51 52 53

54 55

Matt. 4.1-11; Luke 4.1-13. See p. 2359. Mark 1.12-13. This recognition of the nature of Mark 1.1-13 was stressed by R. H. LIGHTFOOT in his masterful volume, History and Interpretation in the Gospels, New York and London, 1934, esp. pp. 61-66. I Kings 19.5-8. CL Mark 1.24,34. The demons also serve for Mark an apologetic purpose, for they guarantee to the reader the reality of J esus' identity and power, which he ne ver claimed for himself and which none, even his closest associates, fully realized until the resurrection. The demons knew and trembled.

153""

2376

MORTON S. ENSLIN

neatly supporting buttress to J esus' answers in appropriate quotations from Scripture suggest a far from primitive touch to the story. It had been pondered long. The nature of the three temptations would seem a reflection of the basic nature of J esus' wh oie ministry: his refusal to use miraculous power for his own advantage; his refusal to yield to a fanatic disregard of consequences by seeking to force God to rescue hirn from his own deliberate indiscretions; his refusal to turn corners, to tone down his message - God's message - for the sake of popular support from those able to extend it. N or should it be overlooked that in the Matthean version there is another change. It was not until the end of the forty days that the an gels came and fed hirn. Instead of the experience of Elijah, that of Moses on Sinai, with his fast of forty days and forty nights, is clearly suggested 56 . That this recasting the story to show J esus as the greater Moses is not due to a suppositious source, but to Matthew hirnself, who constantly draws this paraIlel 57 , appears to me highly probable. Thus the normal conclusion that the Lukan account is dependent upon the Matthean seems inescapable. The only real difference is the rearrangement of the temptations: 1,3,2 instead of 1,2,3. Nor is it necessary to attempt recondite explanations for this alteration. By so doing, the two temptations in the wilderness are not interrupted by areturn to Jerusalem. That such an alteration would appear necessary or preferable to Luke - transportation is scarcely of moment in the realm of magic - may seem surprising to modern readers. It is unnecessary to say more than that it may weIl give a slight insight into Luke's habits of thought or of their expression.

5. Matt. 8.5-13; Luke 7.1-10 Unlike the Matthean-Lukan temptation story which certainly seems to be a later expansion of the simpler Markan tale, the healing of the centurion's servant (Matt. 8.5-13; Luke 7.1-10) is not a Markan story. In Matthew it stands at the start of Book 11, as the second of the ten miracles wrought by J esus. I t foIlows the story of the healing of the leper and precedes the cure of Peter's mother-in-Iaw, thus seemingly replacing the Markan story of the exorcism in the Capernaum synagogue, from which Matthew, who knew the story, had utilized the opening word, "for he taught them as having authority, and not as the scribes", to serve as the rounding off of his Sermon and the joining link to his next section 58 . He compensates for the

56 57

58

Exod. 34.28. Cf. the Matthean story of the Slaughter of the Innocents (Matt. 2.16-18) - save for its occurrence here, an entirely unknown story - with the similar hazard which the infant Moses faced and escaped; the constant emphasis, "It has been said ... but I say unto you"; the deliberate casting his gospel in five sections, each concluded with a paral1el colophon, suggesting very definitely a new Pentateuch. Matt. 7.29 (cf. Mark 1.22).

LUKE AND MATTHEW: COMPILERS OR AUTHORS?

2377

omitted story of the exorcism by doubling the exorcisms at Gadara 59 • Certainly his eicreA66vTOS oe cxtITOV eis Kcxcxpvcxov~ (1. 21) and by no means suggests that in the story itself there was any reference to Capernaum as the site. Luke's similar setting eicrflA6ev eis Kcx
61

Matt. 8.28-34. Matt. 15.24. Vide supra, p. 23G9. Mark 5.35; Luke 8,49.

2378

MORTON S. ENSLIN

During his work in Galilee Jesus avoided all such contacts; but when his work there had been finished he anticipated the gentile mission? Perhaps, however, the touch is simply to magnify J esus by heightening the deference shown to hirn. In sum, I can find nothing in this story not perfectly explained on the assumption that Luke obtained the story direct from Matthew and that the variations are of his own composition, not variants which had developed independent of Matthew, but rather his own variants of points most naturally to be ascribed to Matthew, who may be not the purveyor but the author of the story.

6. Matt. 10.2; Luke G.14 In the Markan account of the call of the Twelve, Andrew is mentioned as fourth (Peter, J ames, J ohn, Andrew)62. Matthew alters this, putting Andrew in second place 63 . So does Luke 64 . This alteration in Matthew is not surprising, for it preserves the order of the call of the two pairs of brothers in the earlier story65, and is characteristic of Matthew's exactness in small stylistic details. The Lukan agreement with Matthew's in the alteration of Mark's order is significant, however, for, unlike Matthew, this is the only mentioll of Andrew in Luke, who fails to include him in his story of the call of the first disciples 66 . Why he should, accordingly, hirnself have altered the Markan order is not easily answered. That in this he is simply following Matthew would surely not be unlikely. This is but one of the many minor Matthean-Lukan contacts in Markan passages which deserve more study than they have as yet received.

7. Matt. 8.1-4; Luke 5.12-16 and Luke 17.11-19 Another example, and one which evidences Matthean-Lukan agreements in modifying a Markan passage, is the eure of the leper 67 . Both Matthew and Luke omit the participle evidencing J esus' emotion O'lTAayxvI0'6Eis; variant 0PYI0'6EiS (vs. 41) - and the subsequent Kat EIlßpQJl1O'O:IlEVOS aVT~, Ev6vS E~EßaAEV aVTOV (vs. 43). Both of these omissions have been frequently explajned as due to the wish, shared by both later evangelists, of freeing J esus from emotions common to men. If the reading O'lTAayxv10'6Eis was before them in Mark's text, the argument seems Ull-

62

63 64 65 66 67

Mark Matt. Luke Matt. Luke Mark

3,18. 10.2. 6.14. 4.18-22. 5.1-11. 1.40-45; Matt. 8.1-4; Luke 5.12-16.

LUKE AND MATIHEW: COMPILERS OR AUTHORS?

2379

warranted, at least for Matthew, for the latter uses this word without hesitation of J esus in four other passages 68 , reproducing Mark in the first three, but hirnself inserting the word in the Markan story in 20.34. For Luke it is different. Only once does he use this word of J esus 69 , twice omitting it in passages where either Mark-Matthew or Matthew alone had used it. Thns, if crTIAOyxvlcr6e{s is the original reading of Mark in the story of the eure of the leper, it might well be argued that Luke's cancellation was at least supported, if not suggested, by the omission in Matthew. Despite the strong textual support for crTIAoyxvlcr6e{s, the variant ("western") reading opYlcr6e{s70 has much to commend itself on the grounds of transcriptional probability and suggests that the earlier form of the story was of an exorcism and that Jesus' anger was directed at the demon whom he subsequently "drove out" (ev6vS E~EßoAev). If this was the reading which Matthew and Luke found in their copies of Mark, their omission of this unseernly and superficially unwarranted emotion is not surprising 71 • The second omission, that of Mark 1.43, has also frequently been explained as due to the desire to free J esus from such outbursts of emotion. One point to be noted, however, is that its omission here by Matthew is hardly an excision. Rather, he seems to be reserving it for use in a later section, the healing of the two blind men 72 , which section is palpably of his own manufacture from the Markan story of the healing of Bartimaus 73 . Not only does he utilize Mark's EIJßpllJTlcrcqJevos OUT0 in his EveßpllJi)6Tl OUTois, but concludes with the words oi 5e E~eA66vTes 51eq:>i)lJlcrov, which reproduce Mark's E~eA6wv . " 51oq:>TlIJ{selV which he had omitted, that is, reserved in situ. Thus while both omissions in Matthew and Luke can be explained as due to independent dissatisfaction with the Markan account, it is perhaps slightly more probable that Luke found his own objections supported by Matthew's editorial changes. The other Matthean-Lukan agreements against Mark in this section are aelmittedly minor. They consist of the insertion of Koi i50v anel Kvple, the omission of Mark's ÖTl before EOV 6EATJS, and the change of order TT)V Xeipo l1YJOTO OUTOÜ pro TT)V Xeipo OUTOÜ 11 YJOTO , and the substitution of a participle (AEYWV, Matt.; eiTIwv, Luke) for Mark's Koi AEyel. While these variants are confessedly minor, and are characteristic of the style of both Matthew and Luke, it is not to be forgotten that the larger the number of such agreements - here both minor and major - the less satisfying the claim of coincidence. It should also be noted that in every case the alteration, whatever the explanation, is to be recognized as a later 68 69 70 71

72 73

Matt. 9.36; 14.14; 15.32; 20.34. Luke 7.13. Daff2r. For Matthew it must have been unthinkable, for J esus had so straitly forbidden such an attitude: eyw OE Aeyw vlliv ÖTI nos 6 0PY1SoIlEvoS T<{) aOEA
2380

MORTON S. ENSLIN

modification of Mark, not the preservation of the diction of an earlier source, parallel to or utilized by Mark. In a word, the view increasingly common today, that the minor agreements of Matthew and Luke in the tripIe tradition are to be explained on the basis that these two authors have preserved the wording of the text from which Mark had deviated, could only be supported by a number of cases - too many to be explained as coincidental - where the variation in the later evangelists is manifestly more primitive than in Mark. Such occurrences would be at best surprising. To the best of my knowledge none have been discovered. Luke's repetition of the Markan story of the cured leper, now apparentlya Samaritan leper 74 , as an incident in his fragile parallel to the Galilean ministry evidences the freedom and handicraft of the evangelist. There is no attempt to articulate this incident to its context; rather, the opening words simply serve the purpose of indicating once again that Jesus and his disciples are en route to Jerusalem. This verse (Kcxl eyevETo ev T~ lTOpEVEO"eCXI Eis 'I EPOVO"CXAll11, Kcxt CXUTOS OIi)PXETO 010: IlEO"OV LCXllcxPlcxs Kcxl rcxAIAcxlCXS) has caused difficulty from the earliest days. That 010: IlEO"OV is the original reading is highly probable, but its meaning is far less certain than hard-put commentators would suggest. It is customary to understand it in the sense of "between", not that the phrase itself suggests that, but because of the interpreter's belief that Jesus went south through the Perea, as Mark implies. Hence it would be shocking to think that Luke could have been in error or contradiction on this point. As areward for this pious tour de force one has a convenient geographical indication that "explains how Jews and Samaritans happened to be together"76. The point, however, is not that Jesus and Samaritans happened to be together, but that Jesus hirns elf (cf. cxuT6s) chanced to come in contact with the necessary Samaritan. It appears to me what Luke is saying is: as J esus was en route to J erusalem via Samaria and Jericho he came into a village and found ten lepers 76 . Since this incident is so palpably an artificial one, not a memory of an actual event, but deliberately framed by Luke from other stories, it is pointless to raise the question as to whether this village (EIs TIVCX KWlll1 v) was Samaritan or Jewish or what a Samaritan and Jews, even though they were 74 75

Luke 17.11-19. B. S. EASTON, The Gospel according to St. Luke. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, New York, 1926, p. 259; cL]. M. CREED, The Gospel according to St. Luke, London, 1930,

p.217. 76

Although 0lepXE0'6cxI and 016: with the genitive occurs in Luke (cf. 4.30; 11.24), he more commonly uses 0lEPXE0'6cxI in the transitive sense of 'traverse' with the object accusative or absolutely, with no specific mention of the region traversed. It appears to me possible that it is here used in this latter sense and that the verse is adequately rendered: "And it came to pass that on his journey to J erusalem his route was via Samaria and Galilee". The perplexing and seemingly ungrammatical 016: J..lEO'OV may weIl be simply one more example of adverbs or adverbial phrases coming to have eventually the force of a preposition, and, as such, regularly standing before a genitive. That its basic meaning is "through", not "between", is probable. An even more surprising touch is the order, "Samaria and Galilee".

LUKE AND MAITHEW: COMPILERS OR AUTHORS?

2381

lepers, were doing together. One or two additional inconsistencies or loose ends in a story which bristles with them is of little consequence. Jesus is said to have told the lepers to go, show themselves to the priests. Obediently they start, and on the way are cleansed - at least that is the natural sense of the words EV 'T~ UTIaYElv a\J'TOVS EKa6apicr6T)crav. Where are they to go? to J erusalem? 1s the SamaritaJil to go there too? How about the time element? Not only would the journey take some time, but tbe ritual was a complicated one. Did Jesus wait in the environs for several weeks? Did the Samaritan go to the priests? Were the other nine engaged in obeying Jesus' command? Could not tlglory to God" be given in one place as weH as anotber? Why was J esus so anxious in this particular case for tbe expression of thanks whicb he regularly is represented as sbunning? Wben did the cure take place? Can towv Ö'Tl la6T) mean that it is after the priests verdict? How did his faith save (cure?) hirn? Did his return before completing tbe requirement indicate faith? Were not the other nine saved (cured) ? Surely the words oUX. oi oeKa EKa6aplcr&r)crav imply this as does the preceding phrase Kai EyeVE'TO EV 'T~ UTIaYElv au'TOVS EKa6aplcr6T)crav. 1s it implied that the failure of the nine to return brought back their leprosy? These are not flippant or captious questions. They are inescapable if tbe incident be considered an actual event in J esus' life or even an independent story. But if it be recognized as an idealized account, heavily dependent upon an earlier story and related for the express purpose of stressing certain notes important to the author, the difficulties vanish. That Luke 17.11-19 is a variant (doublet) of Luke 5.12-16 (= Mark 1.40-45) is generally recognized. But instead of the frank admission that it is Luke's own deliberate rewriting of the story which he has already used, with such alterations as suit his present purpose, the effort is made to explain it as occurring, with the desired alterations already made, in some special, now completely vanished, non-Markan source, such as L, from which Luke is supposed to have drawn so heavily. The assumption may free Luke from the responsibility of deliberately altering history, although it simply throws that responsibility back upon other shoulders and leaves Luke accepting their product 77 , but it appears to me to put an undue strain on critical credulity. The Markan story is repreated: aleper, tbe appeal for belp, the cure and injunction to go to the priest for bis inspection. At times tbe same Lukan alteration of Mark is repeated. Thus we have the very similar opening sentences : Kai EyeVE'TO EV 'T~ TIOPEVEcr6at . . . Kai ElcrEPxo~evov au'Tov E1S 'Tl va KW~T) v UTIi] V'TT)crav alj'T~ oeKa AETIpoi O:VOPES (17.11 f.), and Kai EyeVE'TO

77

This circumstance is particularly evident in the story of the Passion. Luke's account differs so sharply from Mark's that critics were scandalized that one evangelist could so drastically alter the account of another. A convenient escape was seen in a "different source", from which he drew. The 'ecclesiastical' difficulty still remains. Both accounts could not be historically accurate, and so at least one of the evangelists was in error.

2382

MORTON S. ENSLIN

EV T~ ETveXl aUTOV EV lJl~ TOOV TIOAEVJV Kai ioov Cxvi)p TIAiJPT)S AETIpas (5.12). In both cases the leper "falls upon his face"78. In both verses the distinctly Lukan CxviJp appears: Cxvi)p TIAiJPT)S AETIpas and oEKa AETIpoi Ö:VOpES. In the sentence Kai eYEvETo EV T~ VTIO:YEIV aVTovs eKa6ap{o-6T)o-av (17.14b) probably two distinct touches of the Markan story are preserved in Luke's second version, which are paraphrased in the first: EKa6aplo-6T)o-av and EV T~ VTIO:YEIV, the latter word used very sparingly by Luke and apparently to be seen here as reflecting Mark's ÜTIaYE. It is unnecessary to list the several other distinctly Lukan mannerisms or phrases in 17.11-19 which are recognized as Lukan by all crHics. Thus one is safe in saying that after these several elements have been removed from what has been styled (an L section', there is surprisingly little left. Still more important is a point often overlooked: Luke very definitely avoids doublets, as his excision bf the Markan story of the Feeding of the 4000 evidences 79 . Rad this leper story come to him in a different source, it is highly unlikely that he would have desired its repetition. The fact that he teIls this story - the same line of reasoning applies to the story of the sending out of the Seventy80 suggests markedly that Luke is not simply preserving these variants but rather is hirnself deliberately composing them for a distinct purpose. N or is it hard to discover why he has chosen this particular Markan section for repetition. The clue is found in the key story of the whole account - the Rejection at Nazareth (4.16-30). In this section the note had already been sounded: Elisha had cleansed but one leper, viz., Naaman a Syrian. Not only does this account adequately for the later repetition: it is highly probable that the reason Luke inserts these words into Jesus' first speech is to lead up to the similar story which he is planning later to tell in the section he intends to parallel the (Markan) Galilean mission and which is to serve as a veiled and discreetly inconspicuous memory in the mind of the reader when he comes to the latter part of the story, that is, the book of Acts, that God's purpose had not changed, but that from the first he had intended that salvation should be offered to all. Not only does it appear to me unde'niable that there is a direct relationship between Luke 17.11-19 and 4.16-30, especially 4.27f., but also that very real contacts exist between the Lukan story of the Samaritan leper and the story of N aaman which are not to be dismissed as coincidental. 78

79

80

TIEO'WV STIl TIpoO'umov (5.12); ElTEO'EV STIl TIpoO'umov (17.16). The later story, of course, requires that this be done by the one grateful man; hence it is after, not before, the eure. Luke omits Mark 6.45-8.26, not beeause his eopy of Mark did not have this seetion, but beeause by its omission he eould save spaee with little lass. He knew the seetion as is evideneed by his insertion of B1)60'o'i86: in 9.10 from Mark's opening ward (6.45). By the omission of this seetion, cluttered up with the unneeessary doublet of the feeding of the 4000, he avoided the distasteful story of the Syrophoenieian woman and the story of J esus' labored healing of the blind man at Bethsaida. The omission, whieh starts and ends at Bethsaida (Mark 6.45 and 8.22), eauses no distortion in his Markan outline, in to whieh saved spaee he intends to insert his own material (9.51-18.14). Luke 10.1-16.

LUKE AND MATTHEW: COMPILERS OR AUTHORS?

2383

Surely TIopEueEls Aoucral ... EKa6ap{cr&r) (IV Kingd. 5.10,14) and TIOPEU6SVTES ETI18E{~aTE ... EKa6ap{crel1crav (Luke 17.14) are worth attention. To be sure, Naaman did not have to show hirnself to the priest, while the Samaritan did. This, of course, is simply due to the fact that in the Markan story whieh Luke is repeating that element is involved. But the point to be noted is that the return of the Samaritan "to give glory to God" does reflect the return of Naaman in gratitude to Elisha and his subsequent aetion 81 . The blending of these two elements - show thyself to the priest; return to glorify God - by Luke, simply beeause eaeh of them was a feature in the stories he was utilizing, involves the distinet infelieities already referred to. The return of the Samaritan, though awkward - how eould he have aeeomplished his mission? - is neeessary as a climax to the story. It raises onee more the question: To' what extent is Luke's knowledge of things Palestinian (or even Jewish) exaet? Did he know what tbe ritual involved or did 'he assurne that it was simply neeessary to get a eursory endorsement from the priest nearest to hand? Furthermore, the general form of the Lukan story - many lepers of whom a Samaritan is alone singled out: "Thy faith hath saved thee", implying that the others had not received what the Samaritan had - suggests the motif, already employed in Luke's earlier eomment on the N aaman story: "There were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian82 ." The muddy way in whieh the later story is told: were the other nine eured or not? - eertainly they did not reeeive the real teure' - simply heightens the impression of artifieiality whieh always resuIts when various originally unrelated themes, eaeh important in its own setting, are eombined in a later melange. The impression that Luke did not find this signifieant story readymade in some eonvenient souree (as L) but bimself contrived it from bits taken by hirn from other stories is heightened when one considers the word of the lepers to J esus ('ll1crou ETIlcrTO:Ta, EAsl1crov Tj!JCXS) and J esus' final word to the grateful Samaritan (Tj TIlcrT1S crou crScrWKSV crE). There would seem to me little question that both are to be seen as coming from the Markan story of the healing of the blind Bartimaus, which Luke utilized a little later in his narrative 83 . In both eases the petition EASllcrov !JE [or Tj!JCXS] is preeeded by the voeative: in the latter setting, naturally following Mark's word, 'll1crou, uie llauEi8; in the earlier passage, 'll1crou ETIlcrTO:Ta 84 • Furthermore, the fact that the phrase in the same form, TIO:TEP , AßpaO:!J, EAsl1crov !JE (16.24) oeeurs in the story of the rich man and Lazarus suggests that it had eaught Luke's fancy and that he feIt free to use it in other

81

82 83

84

Cf. VTIEcrTpe\l1ev ... 8o~6:~wv TOV eeov (Luke 17.15) with ETIEcrTpe\l1ev ... Kol etTIev '18ou [81)] eyvwKo ÖTI OUK EcrTlv eeos EV TIo:crlJ T-D Y-D ÖTI al\l\' f] EV TC:;; 'lcrP011l\ (IV Kingd. 5.15). Luke 4.27. Luke 18.35-43; Mark 10.46-52; Matt. 20.29-34. The vocative E1ncrTO:TO is employed by Luke six times as a term of address for J esus, It does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament. It may be confidently styled 'Lukan'.

2384

MORTON S. ENSLIN

contexts of his own devising 85 • Much the same may be said of the other phrase, Ti lT{crns O"ov O"EO"WKEV O"E. This phrase occurs twice in Mark (5.34; 10.52). Luke not only reproduces it in his two corresponding sections (8.48; 18.42) and utilizes it here (17.19) as the obvious climax (f the story, but even uses it in the story of the sinful woman in Simon's house (7.50), where it is scarcely apposite. It was not her fai th but her love which had "saved her". One might say that the phrase appears to have become for Luke a sort of stock-in-trade gnomic word of dismissal for Jesus. Thus it appears to me utterly unnecessary to look beyond Luke's own ingenuity for the story. The fact that he has chosen precisely this already used Markan story, has recast it from material to hand so as to make this particular note clear, and has placed it in precisely this section which seemingly anticipates the gentile mission, is but one more indication of the all-important place which God's foreordained purpose to effect the salvation of all mankind occupied in the thinking of the unknown and versatile author of the Logoi to Theophilus.

8. Matt. 22.34-40; Luke 10.25-28 That Luke 10.25-28, which serves as a not too felicitous 86 introduction to the parable of the Good Samaritan, is related to Mark 12.28-34, the third in the series of captious questions propounded to J esus by his opponents Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribe - has long been noted, though there is far from unanimity of opinion as to the explanation. The non-Markan contacts - and they are many and interesting - between the Lukan version (which appears in this different context) and the Matthean have led scholars who scout the possibility of the easier solution to assurne a highly complicated situation, with the verses in question standing in both Mark and Q. The assumption that the words stood in Q as well as in Mark appears to me quite unwarranted. All the facts can be satisfactorily explained on the basis of the far simpler hypothesis that Luke hirnself utilized the Markan section as an introduction to the subsequent parable and that in 85

86

Essentially the same situation is found in Matthew. In addition to Matt. 20.30f. (= Mark 10.47f.) it occurs three times (9.27; 15.22; 17.15), in all three of which it certainly is to be pronounced editorial. The dialogue between J esus and the lawyer is framed to introduce the parable, but there is areal, if inconspicuous, break between the introduction and the parable. The introductory dialogue results in the query, "Who is the man whom I am to love as mys elf (vs. 29) ?" This the parable does not answer. Instead, as the query, "Who showed hirnself neighbor?" reveals (vs. 36), in the parable the word 'neighbor' is used in the sense of one who hirnself showed benevolence, that is, the sub je c t. not the 0 b je c t of the action. It is of interest to see precisely the same non-sequitur in Luke's recasting of Mark's story of the anointing at Bethany (Mark 14.3-9) to serve as introduction to the parable of the two debtors (Luke 7.36-50). The woman anointed Jesus because she loved hirn, and hencl'. because of this love is forgiven. But in the parable this is inverted. The debtors love th(' master because he has forgiven them.

LUKE AND MATfHEW: COMPILERS OR AUTHORS?

2385

his later parallel (20.20-40) to Mark 12.13-34, of which this was the last query, Luke omitted the part he had already used, made Mark's word of the scribe's reply the pleased rejoinder of the scribes 87 as they see how neatly Jesus had tripped the Sadducees, and drew forward Mark's final word to this series of three encounters, Kai ovoEls OVKETl ETOAlJa aVTOV ElTEpw,-f)O"al (Mark 12.34) to dose his own shortened series; OVKETl yap ETOAlJu)V ElTEPWTO:V aVTov OVOEV (Luke 20.40). The Matt!lean-Lukan variations from Mark are of interest. The most significant is that the scribe's purpose was to tempt Jesus. Certainly the form of the three statements: EIs TWV ypalJlJaTEwV ... ElTllPWTllO"EV (Mark); Kai ElTllPWTllO"EV EIs E~ aVTwv VOlJlKOS lTElpCxSWV aVTOV (Matt.); Kai ioov VOlJlKOS TlS cXVEO"Tll EKlTElpCxSWV aVTov AEYWV (Luke) suggests that this is the order of their development. Nor is it to be overlooked that from the tone of the several gospels towards the scribes it is more likely that it is Matthew rather than Luke who had first suggested the invidious nature of the scribe's approach. Nor can I agree with the contention that an original element, preserved unaltered in Luke, has been changed in Mark-Matthew to make Jesus the one to utter the admirable answer. Rather it would appear to me that it is Luke who has made the alteration for the purpose of making the lawyer convict hirnself. Thus rendered, his reply leads to J esus' word, cpewS cXlTEKp{6llS' TOÜTO lTOfEl, Kai silO"t;l (Luke 10.28), areport strikingly similar to cpews EKplvas (Luke 7.43), which stands in a passage showing similar traces of Lukan adaptation of a Markan narrative to form an introductory setting. Other Matthean-Lukan contacts, admittedly minor but surprisingly numerous, may be simply listed: 1. VOlJlKOS; 2. oloCxO"Kai\E, as apreface to the question (easily deduced by one -less probably by both independently - from Mark 12.32); 3.6 OE E
9. Matt. 25.14-30; Luke 19.12-27 As a final example of material of a nature to warrant a fresh consideration of sources, I would suggest the parable of the entrusted funds: talents (TCxAavTa) in Matthew; pounds (IJvai) in Luke. That the two variant forms of the parable as we have it are editorial, not the consequence of two independent parables is recognized by most critics: a man about to go on a journey distributes to his servants for their use; on his return he holds a reckoning with his servants who have varied greatly in their care of the entrusted funds. 87

That is, Mark 12.32 = Luke 20.39.

2386

MORTON S. ENSLIN

It has been commonly argued that the differences in the story as we have them are due to their repetition in gospel preaching and that when they reached Matthew and Luke through different channels of transmission the changes had already been made. That this is possible is undeniable 88 • A different explanation, however, seems to me more likely. I would suggest that this is a Matthean parable, not improbably from Matthew's own pen 89 , and that the Lukan variations are the latter's deliberate rewriting. At the conclusion of Mark 13 stand the verses 33-36. All these verses, as is also substantially true of the whole Markan chapter, are repeated by both Matthew and Luke, save for one verse, 34:

"It is as when a man, sojourning in another country, having left. his horne, and given authority to his servants, to each one his work, commanded a porter to watch."

N either Matthew nor Luke repeats this verse. As a glance at a harmony of the synoptic gospels will show, a reference to the parable is commonly indicated by modern editors as the sole parallel. The usual assumption is apparently that since both Matthew and Luke planned to use the parable they feIt this brief Markan word superfluous. I would offer a different explanation, namely, that the Markan word suggested to Matthew the parable which he hirns elf devised, simply expanding Mark's succinct word. The reason Luke is also content to omit the Markan word is because he has already utilized the Matthean parable. 88

89

A third form of the parable, evidencing later reflection and referring the seemingly disproportionate punishment of the servant who had made no gain to a third servant who had squandered the funds and had nothing to return, is found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, as quoted by Eusebius (Theophany 4,2): 'ElTEI SE TO Eis ij~o:S ilKov 'EßPCX'jKOiS xcxpcxKTfjpenv EucxyyeAlov T-rlV cmEIA-rlV ou KCXTO: TOV cmoKpu\vcxVTOS ElTfjYEV, &.AAO: KCXTO: TOV &'cn:':)TWS E~TlKOTOS' TpEiS YO:P SOUAOVS lTEplEiXE, TOV ~Ev KCXTCX
LUKE AND MAITHEW: COMPILERS OR AUTHORS?

2387

All the Lukan alterations are palpably ehanges from the Matthean form. The immense amount of money (talents), improbable in life and eonspieuously in eontrast to the later referenee to having been faithful /lover a few things" (hrl 6!dycx l1S 1T1O"TOS), is toned down to the more likely pounds. The fact that diserimination had been shown, one getting five, one two, a third but one, is eorreeted. Eaeh reeeives the same amount. This also avoids another infelieity in Matthew's aeeount, that aetually rhe seeond servant had done as well as the first: eaeh had doubled his money. In the Lukan form this is avoided. Eaeh reeeived one pound; one made ten, a seeond five, the third none. The other Lukan variants are even more eonspieuously seeondary. The man has beeome a nobleman, off to reeeive a kingdom, but followed by a disgruntled group who do not want hirn as their king. That this reflects the story of Archelaus' trip to Rome at the death of his father, Herod, has been often and plausibly suggested, but why Luke has woven this alien detail in, whieh actually makes his parable very awkward, has not been too satisfactorily explained. I would suggest that it is in part due to turning the parable into a transparent allegory, as is unmistakable in vs. 27: the eh ur eh during the years of waiting for the Lord's return. Verses 12, 14, 15 a, and 27 may all be removed from the parable with no slightest loss, save of c1utter. These alterations, patently secondary, quite spoil its naturalness. The nobleman, apparently suceessful in his quest for a kingdom, is able to reward the servant with cities, but is irritated about the loss of interest on the one pound of the eautions servant. Though the first servant now has ten cities, he is also given the twenty dollars which the third servant had failed to inerease. In Matthew's version the gift of another talent to the one who now had ten has point, as the Lukan eopy does not. Thus once again we find the same phenomenon, the Lukan alterations are definitely secondary and, more than that, secondary to touehes whieh may be plausibly be seen as of Matthew's own devising.

111. Conclusion

These representative passages have been presented in the hope that they may suggest the wisdom of examining afresh the three synopties, with minds free from the blinding certainty that neither Matthew nor Luke could have known the other because of his failure to use it as we would today. That Luke knew and used Matthew is admittedly a hypothesis, not a proven fact to whieh a quod erat demonstrandum is to be affixed as a eolophon. In the same breath it is to be insisted that precisely the same is true of Q and the several other alphabetie sources to which imagination has given form and which deprive the original gospel writers of the freedom and responsibility of being ereative writers to whom the term
2388

MORTON S. ENSLIN

Bibliography B. W. BACON, Studies in Matthew, New York, 1930. R. BULTMANN, Die Erforschung der Synoptischen Evangelien (Aus der Welt der Religion, 1), Berlin, 51966. ID., Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 29 = N.F. 12), Göttingen, 71967. H. J. CADBURY, The Making of 'Luke-Acts, New York, 21958. J. CHAPMAN, Matthew, Mark and Luke, London, 1937. J. M. CREED, The Gospel According to St. Luke, London, 1930. M. DIBELIUS, A Fresh Approach to the New Testament and Early Christian Literature, New York, 1936. ID., From Tradition to Gospel, New York, 1965. B. S. EASTON, The Gospel According to St. Luke. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, New York, 1926. W. R. FARMER, The Synoptic Problem. A Critical Analysis, New York, 1964. E. FASCHER, Die formgeschichtliche Methode. Eine Darstellung und Kritik, zugleich ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des synoptischen Problems (Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, Beih. 2), Gießen, 1924. A. GABOURY, La structure des evangiles synoptiques. La structure-type a l'origine des synoptiques (Novum Testamentum, Suppl. 22). Leiden, 1970. S. M. GILMOUR, The Gospel According to St. Luke (Interpreter's Bible, 8), Nashville, 1952. W. L. KNox, The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels, Cambridge, I St. Mark, 1953, lISt. Luke and St. Matthew, 1957. C. G. MONTEFIORE, The Synoptic Gospels, London, 1927. P. PARKER, The Gospel Before Mark, Chicago, 1953. C. S. PATTON, Sources of the Synoptic Gospels (University of Michigan Studies, Humani::>tic Series 5). New York, 1915.

J. H. ROPEs, The Synoptic Gospels, Cambridge (Mass.), 1934. E. P. SANDERS, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (Society for NEW Testament Studies, Monograph Series 9). Cambridge, 1969. K. STENDHAL, The School of St. Matthew and its Use of the Old Testament, Diss. Uppsala, 1954. B. H. STREETER, The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins, London, 1924. V. TAYLOR, The Gospel According to St. Mark, New York, 21966. L. VAGANAY, Le probleme synoptique, une hypothese de travail (Bibliotheque de Theologie, 3, 1), Paris, 1954.

In addition see studies in footnote 16 (p. 2365) and chapters in the several standard New Testament Introductions, no-tably, M. S. ENSLIN, Christian Beginnings, New York, 1938; W. MICHAELIS, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Bern, 21954; J. MOFFATT, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, Edinburgh, 1911.

The Fourth Gospel. AReport on Recent Research by ROBERT KYSAR, Reading, Pa. Contents 1. Literary Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. Structural Analysis and Literary Methods B. Source and Tradition Analysis . . . . . . 1. Methods Used in Theories of Composition . 2. Source Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Developmental Theories . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Form and Traditional Criticism - the Relationship of FG and the Synoptics.

II. Historical Criticism .. A. History of Religions Analysis 1. Gnosticism 2. The Old Testament and Rabbinical Judaism 3. HeUenism and HeUenistic Judaism . . . . 4. Heterodox Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Sitz im Leben Analysis (The Purpose of the FG) 1. A Dialogue with the Synagogue . 2. An Anti-docetic Polemic . . . . 3. A Samaritan Mission. . . . . . . 4. A Universal Appeal to Christians . C. History of the Johannine Community . D. Date and Authorship . 1. Date . . . . 2. Authorship. . . III. Theological Criticism . . . . . . . . A. History of Theological Analysis. B. Theological Theme Analysis. 1. Christology 2. Eschatology 3. Dualism 154

ANRW II 25.3

. . . .

2391 2391 2395 2395 2398 2402 2407 2411 2411 2413 2416 2421 2422 2425 2426 2429 2429 2430 2432 2435 2436 2436 2439 2440 2443 2443 2449 2451

2390

ROBERT KYSAR 4. 5. 6. 7.

Witness, Signs, and Faith . The Spirit-Paraclete The Church .. The Sacraments

Bibliography. . . . . . . .

2453 2456 2458 2460 2464

The piece of literature known as
Explanation of the Footnote System: The notes are intended to be used in connection with the bibliography found below, pp. 2464-2480. In cases in which an author mentioned in the text has only one entry in the bibliography and the reader is referred to that work in general rather than to specific pages, no footnote will be used. In cases in which an author has only one entry in the bibliography, but the reader is referred to specific pages in that work, the footnote will cite the author's name and those page numbers. In cases in which an author has more than one entry in the bibliography, the footnote will mention the name along with the first substantive word or words of the tide of the work, plus page numbers where appropriate. 1

W. F. HOWARD; D. M. SMITH, Johannine; R. SCHNACKENBURG, Johanneischen, and IDEM, Entwicklung; J. DUBOIS, Chronique; H. THYEN, Literatur; J. M. ROBINSON, Recent; W. NICOL, History; R. KYSAR, Fourth, and IDEM, Community. Cf. R. BROWN, Gospel, Vol. I, xxii -xxiii.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL: RECENT RESEARCH

2391

I. Literary Criticism

At the center of those efforts to do studies of the literary character of the FG stands a complex of problems. They may be summarized briefly in terms of the question of the literary unity of the document. Many have seen evidence that the gospel as it stands does not constitute a unified piece of work. There are numerous aporias in the narrative which raise the question of whether or not we are dealing here with a document which is whole or which reflects its original order. A few examples will suffice to illustrate the point: The order of chapters 5 and 6 seems disrupted. In 5 we are told that Jesus is in Jerusalem, but as we begin 6 we are suddenly told without any transition that he is back in Galilee. In 14:31 Jesus concludes his final discourse with his disciples only to continue for three more chapters! In 7:3-5 it sounds as if Jesus has not worked his signs in Jerusalern in apparent contradiction to narratives in chapters 2 and 5. The prologue (1:1-14) employs terms not used elsewhere in the gospel (e.g., A6yoC;); and chapter 21 presents a narrative which seems strange after the conclusion of the gospel in 20:30-31. The list could go on, but these examples suggest one of the problems with which the literary critic of the document is concerned. Can the gospel be understood as an integral whole and interpreted as such? Do the difficulties in the narrative result from the history of the composition of the gospel? Has the order of the gospel been disrupted in other ways? In summary, it may be said that there are two major directions taken in contemporary research to deal with the difficulties posed by the FG as a purely literary document. 1a Some have investigated the structure of the gospel and concluded that it has suffered serious disarrangement and others insist that it makes sense in its present order. Still others have taken the aporias, along with additional evidence, as a basis from which to construct histories of the composition of the document and have proposed that its literary difficulties result from the process of its composition.

A. Structural Analysis and Literary Methods The basic question is simply whether or not the FG as it stands comprises a logical whole or whether it does not. Among the most influential of those who argue that it cannot be interpreted as it is stands is R. BULTMANN , whose famous theory of rearrangement has been widely debated. BULTMANN, for instance, resolves the conflict between chapters 5 and 6 by linking chapter 6 with 4, showing how the former follows naturally after the narrative of the latter. Chapter 5 would more naturally lead then into the nanative at the beginning of 1a

154':·

This overlooks the efforts to analyse the FG in terms of Gattungen. For a research reports on the attempts to deal with the literary forms of the FG, see the article in this volume by BEUTLER, pp. 2506-2568.

2392

ROBERT KYSAR

7. 2 BULTMANN'S rearrangement is much more complicated, as a perusal of the table of contents of his commentary will show. BULTMANN is neither the first nor the only modern scholar to propose some kind of rearrangement of the FG. The theories are numerous, ranging from the simplest reversal of chapters to elaborate reconstructions of the original text. But, for the most part, theories of this kind were more prominent in the years of scholarship prior to the period with which we are here concerned. Since BULTMANN, only two significant proposals have been advanced: T. COTTAM and H. EDWARDS. However, M. LAcONI has more recently revived the notion of disarrangement by suggesting that the fourth evangelist (hereafter, FE) was not able to complete his gospel and a disciple later discovered additional writings of the evangelist and inserted them freely into the incomplete gospel. 3 On the whole, theories of displacement and rearrangement have not been embraced by a majority of contemporary scholars. Representative of the response to such theories is the critique of R. BROWN who quite rightly poses three objections to these efforts. First, he points out that endeavors to rearrange the contents of the FG invariably express more of the mind of the commentator than the mind of the FE. Modern concepts of logic and narrative flow are imposed upon the mind of the first century writer. Second, explanations for how the displacement occurred seem less than adequate. He points out how suspiciously convenient it is that in BULTMANN'S theory we are always dealing with misplaced complete sentences. Is it realistic to suppose that a damaged scroll (BULTMANN'S proposed explanation for the supposed dis order of the FG) would be broken only at the point of the pauses between sentences ? FinaIly, it is a matter of judgment whether or not the gospel as it now stands makes sense to the reader. Many commentators have shown to the satisfaction of others how the structure of the present gospel presents a logical narrative and discourse flow. 4 It is a fair judgment to say that theories of displacement and reordering of the gospel have little support in contemporary research. Much more vigorous is that school of research which has worked on the structural unity of the gospel. Included in this group are those who approach the gospel in different ways. Some commentators simply defend the thesis that there is a logical development in the structure of the document as it stands. Exemplary of such scholars is J. SCHNEIDER who rejects all theories of displacement, claiming that they try to impose a modern logic upon the meditative thought of the FG. He also rejects all source and
2 3

4 5

R. BULTMANN, Gospel, 209. M. LACONI'S work is known to me only through the survey of displacement theories in H. TEEPLE, Literary, 106 -111. R. BROWN, Gospel, Vol. I, xxvi-xxviii. J. SCHNEIDER, Evangelium, 24-25. Cf. GIRARD.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL: RECENT RESEARCH

2393

Our attention, however, will foeus here upon another direetion in showing the unity of the FG, namely, upon the efforts of some to do struetural analysis of the text. Within the wider range of biblieal eritieism various forms of struetural, phenomenologieal, and text-linguistie approaehes are flourishing, and it is obvious that such methods are to be reckoned with as one of the waves of future criticism. It is not surprising, therefore, that such efforts have been expended upon the study of the FG. Perhaps most important is the work of B. OLSOON whose method is that of text-linguistic interpretation. It is his task to find within the text itself the key for determining its meaning. This method is markedly wholistic which sets it apart from both the rearrangement theories we have mentioned and the more prominent theories of tradition, source, redaction, and composition we shall examine below. The semantic structure of the passage is the decisive feature. His methodological proeedure involves establishing the Textkonstitution by analyzing elements of the information units of the passage and then establishing "the connection between 'die Textkonstitution' and 'die Textrezeption' with an 'ideal receiver' in mind." Finally, the method describes the linguistic and literary character (or text-type) of the passage. This method, OLSOON observes, stands under the influence of French structuralism, Textlinguistik, and American discourse analysis. With his method OLSOON studies two passages from the FG - a narrative (2:1-11) and a dialogue text (4:1-42). The message of these two texts is essentially the same - how Jesus' works create a new people of God. They are 'typological texts' which use 'screens' Gesus' works in 2:1-11 and scripture in 4:1-42) through which to filter meaning. 6 The conclusion to which OLSOON comes which is relevant to our discussion at this point is merely that the texts of the FG may be justifiably interpreted as they stand without recourse to their prehistory or displacement. In the author's words, "a textual analysis of the type I have here performed is necessary, and is perhaps the best way to find answers to many problems concerning the Fourth Gospel which are not yet solved."7 In some quarters the new forms of structuralism are presented in opposition to more established types of historical critical studies, but in the efforts of H. LONA the methods have been used in a complementary fashion. In a study of Abraham in chapter 8 LONA has explored the passage with a number of different methods and shows how they can be integrated. Our interest at this point is with his application of literary semiotics to chapter 8. Literary semiotics views the text as a whole and presumes that there is no difference in sorts of literature, that is, between the so-called world literature and minor literature. The task is to isolate the 'universals of narrative' by which the formulation of a particular narrative of any kind is recognizable; therefore, all literature is a eoncretizing of general narrative structures. The semiotics approach shows that the historicalcritical methods are often one-sided and that they must be supplemented with more wholistic studies. On the topic of the funetion of Abraham in chapter 8 the 6 7

B. OLSOON, 1-17, 275-282, quotation, 17. Ibid., 289-290. OLSOON'S approach has received confirmation and appreciative use in some of the recent work of M. DE JONGE, Signs, 122-124.

2394

ROBERT KYSAR

semiotics approach is not interested in the pre-literary history of the themes and traditions in the passage, e. g., views of Abraham in Judaism. Its concerns are with the form of the text and the synchronized role of signification. The 'metanarrative elements' in the passage reveal how the author intended to present Abraham as part of the witness to Christ. The FG attempts to articulate the essential nature of faith as a new kind of presence of the divine; hence, the role of Abraham is reversed in the progress of the narrative (compare v. 56 with the previous discussion of Abraham).8 LONA'S efforts are to demonstrate the productiveness of the use of a wholistic (in this case semiotic) method alongside of the more traditional methods of criticism. Another kind of wholistic method which is intended to supplement and correct more traditional methods is advocated by J. BREUSS. BREUSS' study of 2: 1-12 is designed to exemplify a method which he contends is more rewarding both in terms of deciphering the text and in terms of unearthing the contemporary relevance of the gospel. His method is 'phenomenological structuralism'. It attempts to supplement the work of the historical critical methods, especially form and redaction criticism, with a more descriptive characterization of the text. It approaches the FG as a linguistic form and seeks the 'intentionality' of the text. He stresses that all of the New Testament documents are intended to awaken faith - they are kerygma - arid as such they have a peculiar character as literary works. Furthermore, BREUSS' study attempts to find some happy, middle ground between the allegorical-typological interpretations of the church fathers and the modern historical-critical studies. The text as it stands produces a 'horizon' of meaning by which it must be interpreted. BREUSS argues that the Cana sign is narrated in order to evoke faith. The resurrection of Christ is intentionally brought into view by the reference to the third day (v. 1), and Jesus is centralized in the narrative as the bridegroom. As a linguistic form, the Cana study uses space and time in a unique and theological way, all in order to announce J esus as Son of God. It has aseries of interrelated implications which the phenomenological method describes. Phänomenologischer Strukturalismus views the text as one not simply out of the past but intended for proclarnation. 9 There is a certain reactionary element detectable in these efforts to find meaning in the wholistic approach to the FG. The tradition al critical inquiries which have segmented and stratified the gospel, think some of these newer critics, have thereby veiled the meaning present in a consciously constructed literary unit. To be sure some corrective direction away from the efforts of other types of literary criticism may be needed. One cannot but be impressed, for example, with LONA'S analysis of the narrative progress through chapter 8 as compared with BULTMANN'S fragmentation of the same passage. Furthermore, one may with some confidence claim that the present gospel and its sections as they stand surely

B

9

H. LONA, 446-449, 451-456. Cf. Foi et vie, 73 in wh ich one issue is devoted to structuralism, especially, A. JAUBERT, Comparution; J. ESCANDE; and P. GEOLTRAIN. Another kind of structural analysis is reflected in L. DUPONT, C. LASH, and G. LEVESQUE. Cf. A.-J. FESTUGIERE; F. VOUGA, and A. VANHOYE, Interrogation.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL: RECENT RESEARCH

2395

must have made sense to someone in the history of its origin, whether it be the original author of a redactor. Hence, attention to the structural unity of the FG seems justifiable. On the other hand, such wholistic approaches to the gospel are not without their difficulties. When they ignore the historical questions involved in the composition of the gospel, they err in a parochial direction to the same degree as a tradition al historical-critical method errs when it refuses to consider the possibility of unity in a passage. LONA'S method has the virtue of seeing such structural analysis as a supplement rather than areplacement of concern for the history of the text and its composition. Moreover, some of the elaborate structural analyses seem to find nuances and literary techniques which are perhaps more at horne in the mind of the modern critic than in the mind of the ancient writer (e. g., J. ESCANDE). Finally, one cannot escape the feeling that such analyses tend at times to belabor the obvious (and OLSOON'S work is occasionally of this type). So, in my judgment the attention to the literary structure of the FG is a productive and promising venture although it is seriously limited, especially when used in isolation from the other more tradition al methods. While it does not of itself offer the solution of all of the literary problems of the gospel, it is useful at some points.

B. Source and Tradition Analysis Our discussion turns now to those efforts to resolve the literary difficulties of the FG by proposing some form of the his tory of its composition. Under this rubric a wide variety of proposals must be examined, but they have one thing in common. In every case, they present a thesis for the process by which the FG was composed and brought to its present form. The result of these proposals is to offer among other things a solution to the literary difficulties which the FG poses. However, we must hasten to point out that the criteria used for developing these theories is not alone literary. Content criticism as weIl as literary concerns have converged to make the proposals we are about to survey tenable at least to their authors. Out of the maze of differing hypotheses we may construct three major types which, with variations, may be used to summarize research on the his tory of the composition of the gospel: 1) Form and tradition, 2) source - both single and multiple - and 3) developmental theories. In advance of our survey of these three types, however, we must mention in passing the question of the methods involved in the reconstruction of the history of the composition of the FG.

1. Methods Used in Theories of Composition

The efforts to reconstruct the history of the composition of FG have not only produced a significant variety of results but have employed a veritable array of methods. It is necessary to review the major types of methods employed in discerning stages in the his tory of the composition before proceeding to look at the reconstructions themselves.

2396

ROBERT KYSAR

Prominent among the criteria used in order to isolate stages in the history of composition are stylistic differences. Where investigators find what appear to be stylistic variations within the gospel, they may posit the existence of different levels or sources. R. BULTMANN employed stylistic differences as one of the bases for his source theory of the FG, and this seems to have been the major criterion by which he was able to separate the presence of any one of his three proposed sources, the work of the FE, and the additions of the later redactor. 10 H. TEEPLE'S elaborate source proposal also employs stylistic differences. He denies that any one of the criteria used in his analysis is of more importance than the others, but his initial separation of sources relies heavily upon the variations in style he finds within the FG.ll Using stylistic differences in a less significant way is common to the source theories of S. TEMPLE, 12 R. FORTNA,13 and W. NICOL. 14 In these proposals the stylistic criterion is used to support a source separation which is premised primarily upon other methodological criteria. FORTNA, for instance, argues that stylistic differences of themselves are inconclusive and are not an adequate means of detecting sources within the gospel. Nonetheless, on ce a source has been separated by a more reliable method (in FORTNA'S case the presence of aporias), the isolated source may be confirmed by demonstrating that it reflects a style difference from that material supposed to come from the hand of the FE,l5 Stylistic differences are also employed by R. BROWN in his effort to distinguish the stages in the composition of the FG in his developmental theory. 16 BULTMANN also argued that aporias in the gospel - incongruities between passages following upon one another - were indications of the FE's employment of sources or the additions of a redactor. 17 FORTNA has made such difficulties in the flow of the text the foundation of his isolation of a <Signs Gospel' .18 NICOL's proposal appeals to the aporias not as the major means of demarcating between source and redaction but as a supportive bit of evidence once the content of the source has been isolated by other means. 19 R. BROWN and B. LINDARS have each made extensive use of this criterion in designating the different stages in the composition of the FG.20 G. REIM proposes that the FE employed a
10 11

12 13

14

15 16

17 18

19 20

21

BULTMANN, Gospel, passim. H. TEEPLE, Literary, 118-119, 145-146. S. TEMPLE, 50-62. R. FORTNA, Gospel, 212. W. NICOL, Semeia, 7, 25, 30-40. FORTNA, Gospel, 212. BROWN, Gospel, Vol. I, xxiv-xxv. BULTMANN, Gospel, passim. FORTNA, Gospel, 19-20. NICOL, Semeia, 14-16. BROWN, Gospel, Vol. I, xxiv-xxv. B. LINDARS, Behind, 14-18. G. REIM, Studien, 238-239

THE FOURTH GOSPEL: RECENT RESEARCH

2397

The discernment of peculiar forms of material as contrasted with the rest of the gospel is still a third method of detecting source material. NICOL'S basic criterion for his source theory utilizes just such a form analysis. He argues that one finds a number of wonder stories among the more ordinary long, dramatic narratives of the FG. The form of these wonder stories is more typically synoptic than johannine. 22 TEMPLE, too, professes a methodology which is form-critical in nature. 23 R. SCHNACKENBURG, less confident of form distinction as a means of source separation, nonetheless employs it in a supportive role. 24 But the most significant use of form criticism as a basis for understanding the history of the composition of the FG is found among those who hold that the FE utilized some oral tradition which was related to the synoptic gospels. C. H. DODD'S work is the most thorough application of this method. 25 Tensions within the content of the passage are another means used by some to argue for evidence of source and redaction or distinctions among stages in composition. Again R. BULTMANN stressed this factor. "Content criticism" led hirn to find the distinctive theological ideas of the contributors to the composition of the FG.26 Such ideological differences between passages seem also to be what SCHNACKENBURG means by the "tensions" between tradition and redaction which he finds in the gospel. 27 J. BECKER, following the work of BULTMANN, also employs this method. 28 Rather than using such ideological tensions as the primary detection device in the search for the history of composition, FORTNA and NICOL exercise this method in a secondary and confirming manner. 29 LINDARS is also wedded to this criterion, along with form analysis, in order to support his theory of stages in the development of the FG.30 RICHTER'S proposal depends exclusively upon theological tensions within the thought of the gospel. 31 Finally, we might mention what could be called literary structure. Variations in the structure of the narratives and discourses have been used by TEEPLE as part of his arsenal of methodological devices to build his source theory. For hirn this criterion is a broad one which encompasses the aporias we mentioned above, the use of catchwords, and other such structural variations. 32 W. WILKENS' development theory depends almost exclusively upon the disturbances 'of the structural unity in the FG. His thesis of a Grundevangelium behind the FG is founded upon the isolation of what he calls a Passover framework in the gospel. This

22 23

24 25 26

27 28 29

30 31

32

NICOL, Semeia, 14-16. TEMPLE, 68-251. R. SCHNACKENBURG, Gospel, Vol. I, 64-67. C. H. DODD, Historical. BULTMANN, Gospel, passim. For a summary and critique of BULTMANN'S source theory, see D. M. SMITH, Composition. SCHNACKENBURG, Gospel, Vol. I, 59, 64-67. J. BECKER, Wunder, 132-134. FORTNA, Gospel, 17, 19, 212; NICOL, Semeia, 7, 25, 30-40. LINDARS, Behind, 14-18. G. RICHTER, Präsentische. TEEPLE, Literary, 118.

2398

ROBERT KYSAR

framework, which is a latter addition, signals the shadow of the earlier gospel lurking within the structure of the present document. 33 In summary, these five criteria for detecting moments in the his tory of the composition of the FG are employed in varying degrees by the scholars and with widely differing results. Most notable, perhaps, is the fact that no single method by which one proceeds to look behind the FG at its history is unanimously accepted. The methods vary as widely as do the results of the methods. With so little consensus on method there can be little consensus as to the results of this sort of inquiry. Perhaps a case in point is the issue of stylistic differences. BULTMANN'S theory dependecl heavily upon the use of stylistic criteria. Then the works of E. SCHWEIZER and E. RUCKSTUHL 34 endeavored to show that the FG is distinguished by its unity of style. On the other hand, FORTNA has made a vigorous defense of his source theory by showing that, even with the use of the style characteristics offered by RUCKSTUHL, his proposed source has "stylistic integrity."35 The jury can hardly proceed with a verdict until the court has ruled on what kind of evidence is admissible. Neither can the history of the composition of the FG be written until there emerges some greater degree of consensus on the kind of method which may be validly used. Still, the area of the history of the composition of the FG is rich with hope for the resolution of some johannine puzzles, even though its methodological base remains structurally weakened by scholarly disagreements. With this brief overview of the methods completed, we may turn now to the survey of the three basic kinds of hypotheses for the history of the composition. In each case the investigator has with these theories attempted a response to the perplexing question of the literary unity of the FG. Each suggests through his theory that the unity of the composition is marred (perhaps ever so slightly) by the fact that earlier materials have been incorporated and/or later materials inserted into the document. In both cases the presence of the source or redaction is detected by the tell-tale marks of their inclusion.

2. Source Theories Among many scholars of the FG today it is taken for gran ted that the FE employed a source or sources for the composition of his work. In this case, it is proposed that the source(s) was a written document with some degree of literary identity all its own before its incorporation in the FG. The following discussion will examine those theories in terms of the proposed content and character of the source, moving from the simplest of the proposals to the most complicated. Surely the simplest of the source theories endorsed today is the 'signs source' - a single source which contained a number of wonder stories about Jesus. The ennumeration of the 'signs' of Jesus in the gospel (2: 11 and 4 :54) plus the allusion

34

W. WILKENS, Entstehungsgeschichte, 92 -93. E. SCHWEIZER, Ego; E. RUCKSTUHL, Literarische, and IDEM, Johannine.

35

FORTNA, Gospel, 302-318.

33

THE FOURTH GOSPEL: RECENT RESEARCH

2399

to various other signs (12:37 and 20:30) have been taken as hints of the order and language of the proposed 'signs source' . In its barest and most conservative form, this theory holds that the FE drew two or more ac counts of these wonders from his source, alluded to others with his references to 'other signs', and perhaps utilized the conclusion of the source as the conclusion of his gospel 20:30-31. 36 üf greater interest are those who have attempted to outline the shape of a signs source by detecting wh at the evangelist might have drawn from that source. Four scholars in particular have proposed that the source was comprised of seven or eight wonder stories which have been incorporated into the FG. SCHNACKENBURG, NICOL, BULTMANN, and BECKER all agree on the following narratives as having been drawn into the FG from the source: The wedding at Cana (2:1-11), the healing of the nobleman's son (4:46-54), the feeding of the crowd (6:1-15), the healing at Bethesda (5:2-9), the walking on the water (6:16-21), the healing of the man born blind (9: 1 ff. ), and the raising of Lazarus (11 : 1-44). (I t should be noted that there is not full agreement on exactly which verses and portions thereof in every case came from the source and which constitute redactional additions.) In addition, all four regard 20:30-31 as most probably containing a conclusion incorporated from the source. NICOL further suggests that the source may have contained not only a narrative concerning the first disciples but also the discussion of Jesus with the Samaritan woman. BECKER thinks it is likely the source, in addition to the wonder stories, also contained an account of the Baptist (1:19ff.) and the calling of the disciples (1 :35ff.). 37 BULTMANN'S often debated semeia source supposes a considerably enlarged collection beyond the wonder stories themselves. In addition to the call of the disciples (1 :35-49) and the discussion with the Samaritan wo man (4:4-7 and scattered verses through 40), he claimed that 7:2-10, 19, 21-23, the discussion of the Law in 7:19, 21-23, and the discussion of signs at 10:40-42 and 12:37-38 were constructed out of the source. 38 TEEPLE and FORTNA, while differing radically in most other ways, share the conviction that this source comprised more than narratives of wonder stories and related accounts. Both argue that the source entailed, beyond these narratives, an account of the passion. Hence, FORTNA hypothesizes the existence of a 'Signs Gospel' employed by the FE; it was a kind of 'rudimentary gospel' essentially devoid of discourse material. TEEPLE'S proposed source also has the features of such a simple gospel but lacks any resurrection material. 39 These two picture a source which was more than a collection of wo nd er stories; it was a conscious gospel genre.

36 37

38

39

E. g., S. SCHULZ, Evangelium. SCHNACKENBURG, Gospel, Vol. I, 64-67; NICOL, Semeia, 30-40; BECKER, Wunder, 35. Cf. KYSAR, Fourth, 26-27. BULTMANN, Gospel, 97-108, 113-121, 175-202, 204-209, 210-218, 237-247, 287295, 329-339, 393-409, 452-453, 698. Cf. SMITH'S reconstruction, Composition, 3844. BULTMANN'S signs source depends heavily upon A. FAURE, Alttestamentlichen, 107ff. TEEPLE, Literary, 166-248; FORTNA, Gospel, 235-245.

2400

ROBERT KYSAR

The views of the character of this proposed source also vary considerably. BULTMANN conjectured that the semeia source was written in Greek but with strong semitic influences. It was based upon a rather naive concept of the wonders as the means of eliciting faith and picturedJesus as a divine man. BULTMANN seems to have found extensive hellenistic influence in the features of the source. 40 BECKER follows BULTMANN in many respects. The distinctive thing we can say about this source is its christology. Jesus was portrayed as one of the hellenistic wonder workers - a SELO; avi}e. The wonders are epiphanies of the identity of J esus and intended to evoke faith. Such a christologie was quite different from that of the FE, and the two views result in christological confusion in the FG as a whole. 41 NICOL understands that the source was a christocentric collection, but insists that it reflects more influence from the J ewish thought world than the hellenistic. The purpose of the signs was to demonstrate that Jesus was the expected Jewish messiah in order to win converts from among Jewish readers. Its origin is, then, more than likely from among a Jewish Christian congregation. The wonders attributed to Jesus are intended to portray hirn as the mosaic prophet of J ewish expectation. The J ewish characteristics of the isolated source materials confirm, for NICOL, the Jewish Christian origin and the Jewish audience of the document. 42 SCHNACKENBURG ventures much less in the way of conjecture concerning the character of the source. The wonder stories are simple and direct with little or no theological expansion; they are manifestations of the glory of the incarnate one. He seems to lean in the direction of stressing the Jewish rather than hellenistic features of the document. 43 TEEPLE, too, finds indications of an acquaintance with Jewish Christianity in the source (which he labels, S). It is written in semitized Greek. But he doubts that it came from the pen of a Jewish Christian and argues that the source was effected by the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. He believes that it reflects a late date (after 75) and the Christian tendency to Cdeify' Jesus. It presented Jesus as a worker of wonders to which there are responses of both faith and hostility. 44 It is obvious that TEEPLE' s larger source reconstruction results in a quite different characterization of the document. Finally, FORTNA proposes that his CSigns Gospel' originated in a Jewish Christian milieu at an unknown date as part of a missionary enterprise among Jews. It was intended to show that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. It grew out of a tradition which had dose contacts with the synoptic tradition. Above all, the whole of the representation of J esus, including his passion and resurrection, focuses upon his messianic character. 45

40 41

42

43 4-1

45

BULTMANN, Gospel, 211, 113 -121. BECKER, Wunder, 136-143; BULTMANN, Gospel, 180. NICOL, Semeia, 44. A number of scholars believe the presentation of Jesus in the FG betrays a parallel with the hellenistic concept of the 'divine man,' e. g., R. FULLER, Interpreting; H. KÖSTER, One; L. SCHOTTROFF, Glaubende, 257ff. SCHNACKENBURG, Gospel, Vol. I, 67, 526-527. TEEPLE, Literary, 143-147. FORTNA, Gospel, 221-234.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL: RECENT RESEARCH

2401

It is necessary at this point to look at those theories which propose more than one source. Some of those who detect a signs source behind the FG believe either that it was the only source utilized by the FE or that it is the only source which can be isolated. These single source theories are to be distinguished from the multiple source proposals, some of which include a signs source and some of which do not. Leading the way among the multiple source theories of the recent period is, of course, the proposal of BULTMANN . In addition to the semeia source, described above, BULTMANN argues that the FE used two other detectable sources - the Offenbarungsreden and a passion narrative source. (He also alludes to other sources and traditions which were likely employed by the FE, particularly a source which paralleled the synoptic tradition.) The Offenbarungsreden was a collection of speech materials with a distinctly gnostic flavor. These speeches are always found on the lips of Jesus with the sole exception of the prologue of the gospel. They are characteristically poetic and liturgical in their style. The passion narrative utilized by the FE was not one or all of the synoptic gospels but another document. In some cases the source paralleled the synoptic accounts, but in other cases it gave the evangelist his unique passion materials. These three sources semeia, speech, and passion - were incorporated by the FE along with his own additions and revisions. But BULTMANN sees still another hand in the formation of the gospel - the later ecclesiastical redactor. The redactor added significantly to the FG in an attempt to shape it into a more
46 BULTMANN,

47

2402

ROBERT KYSAR

material as he wove it into his gospel. While the style of the enlargements is quite distinct from the narrative-discourse materials, there is no discernible difference in style between the narratives and the discourses themselves - a view which sets TEMPLE apart from so many investigators who have argued that the narratives and discourses of the FG are different in style. 48 Other sources were also employed by the FE, according to TEMPLE: A liturgical hymn used in the prologue, a "two signs source" (2:1-11 and 4:46-54), and a "euchartistic homily" (6:52-59), to mention only three of the additional ten sources TEMPLE finds in the FG.49 These source proposals, from the simplest signs source to the complex multiple source theories, are fascinating and in some cases promising. What they offer which is most rewarding is a basic hypothesis upon which the student of the FG can study the redactional work of the evangelist and construct ahistory of the johannine tradition (see below p. 2432f.). By far the current source proposal which seems to attract the most attention and, at the same time, criticism is that of FORTNA. 50 It is fair to say that his theory is one around which much future discussion will center. This is not to say, however, that source criticism is weH established in the circles of FG criticism. 51 Unlike the two (or four) source hypothesis for the synoptic gospels, none of these theories approaches the status of wide-spread acceptance. And perhaps this is for good reason. First, as we have seen, there are still serious methodological problems eroding the competence of FG source criticism. Second, nothing like a consensus has emerged from among the source critics themselves. While a signs source of some kind seems to have considerable acceptance, there are still major differences. For example, did the signs source have the form of a collection of wonder stories as BECKER, NICOL, and SCHNACKENBURG maintain, or did it fall roughly into the gospel genre with passion material as apart of its contents as FORTNA, TEEPLE, and TEMPLE would have us believe? Finally, we may simply ask if, given the formidable problems of source criticism of the FG, it is even possible to isolate with any precision the source materials? Still further debate among the source critics themselves and confirmation from others is needed before sufficient consensus is within reach.

3. Developmental Theories A second major option in understanding the history of the composition of the FG is a view which envisions the evolution of the gospel through different KYSAR, Souree. TEMPLE, 37f, 50-62, 68-251, 285-296. so Confirmations and eritieisms of FORTNA are found in the following: J. L. MARTYN, Souree; E. FREED and R. HUNT, Fortna's; J. O'ROURKE, Historie; D. SMITH, Setting; SCHNACKENBURG, Johannesevangelium, Bd. III, 463ff; B. LINDARS, Behind, 32-33; KYSAR, Fourth, 33-37. SI E. g., G. VAN BELLE. Among those who rejeet souree eritieism are M. DE JONGE, Variety, and J. SCHNEIDER, 24-25. An exeellent survey of souree eritieism of the FG is TEEPLE, Literary, 1-116. NICOL'S proposaI reeeives eritieaI appraisaI by G. RICHTER, Sogenannten Semeia-Quelle. 48

49

THE FOURTH GOSPEL: RECENT RESEARCH

2403

stages. Instead of proposing that the FE availed hirnself of one or more written documents in the construction of his work, these proposals understand that in some form a fundamental piece of literature has been expanded by successive editions or that a tradition has been translated into literary form at a number of stages. For the most part, too, these theories und erstand the history of the composition of the FG within a single school or tradition. That is, while the source theories sometimes propose that the source(s) came from a milieu and community discernibly distinct from that of the FE, the developmental proponents often understand that the gospel grew up through stages within one community which, although it changed through the passage of time, was nonetheless continuous with the community which originated the first stage of the gospel. Hence, the source theorists speak of a 'pre-johannine' tradition in the source(s), while the developmentalists frequentIy prefer to speak of the earliest level of the gospel materials as johannine. Generally , we may separate two sub-classes of hypotheses within what we are calling the developmental theories: The first are patterns of oralwritten-redacted; the second are patterns of basic gospe1-redaction. Both subtypes stress a kind of maturational scheme in the his tory of the composition of the FG. The modern day precursor of the deve10pmental theories of our first subtype is M.-E. BOISMARD who resolves the tensions between futuristic and realized eschatology in the FG by supposing the gospel went through two major additions. The first edition of the gospel included the futuristic eschatology. The second stratum of the gospel, including the realized or present eschatology, is the result of a second edition. Both of these editions were dependent upon the work of lohn, son of Zebedee. Finally, the evangelist Luke was responsible for redactional additions to the second edition of the FG as it is evident by the lukan characteristics of chapter 21 and the prologue. 52 BOISMARD' s proposal is relatively simple when compared to the more elaborate theory of the influential American scholar, R. BROWN. BROWN finds five different stages of development in the history of the composition of the FG: 1) The original source of the FG was a body of oral tradition which may have had its roots in the memories of lohn, the son of Zebedee. 2) At the next stage the materials were developed into "johannine patterns" - dramatic narratives, long discourses, sign narratives linked with sayings materials, and the development of peculiarly johannine features, such as misunderstanding, irony, etc. All of this transpired within a single community, a johannine "school." The principal figure was at first, perhaps, lohn, son of Zebedee, but during the second stage one of his prominent disciples emerged. 3) This disciple of lohn was responsible for the organization of the oral materials into a coherent gospel. This initial structuring of the gospel gave the materials a fundamental pattern which exists right down to the present document. Not all of the oral materials known within the community were incorporated into the written gospel at this stage, however. 4) This same disciple produced a second edition of the gospel, possibly as a result of a new situation faced by his community, more specifically perhaps by the exclusion 52

M.-E.

BOISMARD,

Evolution, and

IDEM,

Saint Luc. Cf.

P. PARKER,

Two.

2404

ROBERT KYSAR

from the synagogue suggested by 9:22-23. 5) Finally, another figure still further edited the FG. BROWN proposes that this figure was a pupil of the evangelist (a "friendly redactor"), and his work was an effort to preserve other traditional materials which were not included in the gospel in either of its previous editings. At this final stage, for instance, much of the farewell discourse materials were added and eucharistic words were transposed from their last supper setting to their new horne in chapter 6. Thus BROWN is able with this elaborate reconstruction to account for the literary puzzles of the FG, as weIl as suggesting that it solves the problem of the relationship of the FG to the synoptics: At stage one many of the materials had common ground with the synoptic tradition, but there was no literary dependence on the synoptics. 53 Another English-Ianguage author, B. LINDARS, offers a similar reconstruction of the compositional process behind the FG. For convenience we have reduced his theory to a number of stages to make comparison with others easier. 1) At the first stage, LINDARS speculates, there were a number of unrelated traditions and perhaps short collections of materials. Among these might have been a collection which contained the two numbered signs (2:22 and 4:54) and possibly more. However, any reconstruction of these small collections is impossible. 2) Homilies were produced out of this traditional material. These written, separate homilies were addressed by the FE to a community immersed in dialogue with the synagogue. 3) The first form of the FG was little more than an effort to publish a collection of these sermons, but the evangelist did so in the gospel genre under the influence of the form but not necessarily the content of the gospel of Mark. This first form comprised a section on the ministry of J esus introduced by the witness of the Baptist (1 :6-7a) and concluded with the same (10:40-42) along with a narration of the passion and resurrection. 4) The threat of persecution from the Jewish sector evoked a second edition. Here a number of sections were added (e. g., chapter 11) and some of the portions of the gospel rearranged, e. g., the transposition of the temple cleansing story from the passion narrative to chapter 2. 5) A number of "post-johannine additions" (e. g., chapter 21) were made to the revised gospel. 54 These three schemes for the emergence of the FG through a compositional process represent the first sub-type of developmental theories; BROWN and LINDARS both propose a process beginning with johannine oral tradition and involving a number of editions and a redaction before the gospel reached its present form. Our second sub-type is different, for it involves the positing of a
54

BROWN, Gospel, Vol. I, xxxiv-xxxix. BROWN defends and utilizes his hypothesis throughout the two volumes of his commentary. Cf. M. LACONI. LINDARS, Behind, 38-41, 43-60, 62-78; Gospel, 47-48, 51-54.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL: RECENT RESEARCH

2405

the BD added discourse materials rather extensively, leaving uneffected the framework of the original gospel. But these additions were done with care so that the discourse materials cohered weIl with the narratives (e. g., the bread discourse in chapter 6).3) The second editing of the gospel was again the work of the BD, but in this case he effected a rather drastic rearrangement of the original pattern of the gospel. He reworked the entire document into a Passover gospel, inserting allusions to the Passover (2:13; 6:4; and 11:55). The additional materials worked into the gospel at this stage had strong paschal themes (e. g., the Nicodemus conversation). This re arrangement brought the relocating of the temple cleansing in its present position. Hence, the composition of the FG was a process over two or three decades and represented the changes in the thinking of the one author, the BD.sS Recently the work of G. RICHTER has produced a proposal which we would like to discuss at this point, and again we have summarized his hypothesis in terms of stages. 1) A Grundschrift was produced by a johannine J ewish Christian community soon after its expulsion from the synagogue. This foundational writing took a form similar to the gospel genre. It probably incorporated a signs source along with passion and resurrection narratives different from those of the synoptics. Its eschatology was futuristic and apocalyptic, and its christology was Jewish-messianic. 2) Later in the johannine community a new son of God christology emerged and caused a schism between those who embraced this view and the older Jewish Christian group. The one we call the FE edited and expanded the foundational writing to give expression to this newer christology. He represents the conflict between the two schools of johannine Christianity in the conflict between the historical J esus and the ] ews'. Among the additions made in this reworking of the Grundschrift were the prologue, along with other christological passages, and sections giving expression to the new, realized eschatology. 3) An anti-docetic redactor made considerable additions to the gospel. Between stages 2 and 3 RICHTER posits the emergence of a johannine docetism which still further fragmented the community, but which produced no docetic redaction of the gospel. The redactor responding to the conflict with the docetic johannine Christi ans attempted to reshape the gospel slightly in order to address this issue. He added passages which stressed the humanity and physical reality of Jesus, e.g., 1:14-18 and 20:24-29. It is probably from this same author or his circle that the johannine epistles came. RICHTER obviously understands that the process of composition is most clearly detectable in the theological themes of the FG, most especially in its christology and eschatology; and he sees the development of the gospel resulting from intra-community conflicts and schisms. S6 BOISMARD (along with LAMOUILLE) has more recently revised and expanded his original proposal in what is part of a massive study of the interrelationship of the four gospels. BOISMARD and LAMOUILLE propose that the FG developed in four distinct stages, beginning with a kind of
155

G.

RICHTER,

ANRW II 25.3

Entstehungsgeschichte, 92-122, 127-164, 171-174. Präsentische. Cf. A. J. MATTILL.

2406

ROBERT KYSAR

through the resurrection stories. It was a simple gospel which professed an early Prophet-New Moses christology and a futuristic eschatology. It was structured simply around Jesus' ministry in Samaria, Galilee, Jerusalem, and Bethany, followed by the passion-resurrection narratives. This first form of the gospel was written in Aramaic by one whom the two interpreters call, "John 1." It is suggested but not argued that John I may have been the disciple, John, Son of Zebedee. His work was influential in the writing of two of the primary sources behind the gospels of Mark and Luke. BOISMARD and LAMOUILLE call this first gospel of John, "Document C," and date it about 50. 2) The second stage in the writing of the FG is the amplification of
BorSMARD

and

LAMOUILLE,

11, 16-70.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL: RECENT RESEARCH

2407

their four stages); hence, in a way they are less ambitious than source critical theories. Yet I still hold some reservations ab out these developmental proposals, since it appears that the methods of discerning the different stages or levels in the FG is no more free from difficulties than the source theories. And, like the source theories, we are left with a nagging problem: If the redactor in each case left such contradictions and aporias as to make the distinction of stages (or sources for that matter) evident to the investigator, how are we to account for his less than polished work? Does his willingness to expand the document at hand with additional and sometimes contradictory materials suggest that he was less than sophisticated as a writer and theologian (not to mention as an editor), and that he was exceedingly tolerant of a variety of views? Or, was it the case that he was so respectful of his community's earlier traditions that he could not abort them? In the opinion of this writer, however, the signs source theories and the developmental proposals of BROWN, LINDARS, and RICHTER, BOISMARD and LAMOUILLE, provide the arena within which the johannine literary puzzle may eventually work out.

4. Form and Traditional Criticism - the Relationship of FG and the Synoptics There is still another avenue open to those who would pursue the resolution of the literary questions of the FG, and its tap-root is the dassical question of the relationship of the FG and the synoptics. Through form and tradition criticism it is possible, say some, to discover the literary dependence of the FG on one or more of the synoptics and to find then dose at hand the fact that in the process of incorporating synoptic materials the FE produced a document which has the appearance of some disunity or, at least, disruption. Others would say as a result of similar form and tradition analysis that no literary dependence upon the synoptics is evident, but that there is evidence of the FE's use of oral tradition which had contacts with synoptic traditions. The incorporation of the pre-literary materials into his gospelieft the document marred by its well-known problems. Those who would argue for the literary dependence of the FG upon one or more of the synoptics are fewer in number in recent decades than prior to the publication of the seminal work of P. GARDNER-SMITH. 57 That study in the minds of many demolished the grounds for explaining the similarities between the FG and the synoptics on the basis of literary dependence and pointed in the direction of a pre-literary contact between the two traditions. The latter point was taken up in the investigation of B. NOACK, and the consequence of this twopronged attack was to point contemporary scholarship away from the idea that the FE knew and used one or more of the synoptics. Still biblical scholarship is never homogeneous, and the debate continues. Among those who have forcefully retained a position advocating literary dependence of John upon a synoptic is, first of all, J. A. BAILEY. His method is to isolate passages in either Luke or the FG where there appears to be an intrusion in the narrative or discourse movement. If there is a parallel to the material in which 57

P. GARDNER-SMITH, Saint, and IDEM, St. John's. Cf. D. M. SMITH, John.

2408

ROBERT KYSAR

the intrusion occurs in the other gospel, he maintains that some borrowing has taken place. His conclusion is that in passages in which the gospels of John and Luke disagree with Mark and Matthew literary dependence between the first two is indicated. He finds eleven such passages and concludes that they constitute evidence that J ohn did know and use the third gospel (e. g., the anointing of J esus in Jn 12: 1-8 and Lk 7:36-50). Other passages indicate a less direct literary contact, however, and so he concludes that in addition to some degree of literary dependence of the FG upon Luke the two must have occasionally used common traditions (e.g., the words of the risen Christ ta Peter, Jn 21:1ff. and Lk 24:34). BAILEY'S thesis is then that there existed essentially two kinds of relationships between the FG and the third: At some points a direct literary dependence of the former upon the latter and at other points their mutual use, each in its own way, of a common, related tradition. 58 C. K. BARRETT built his illustrious commentary on the FG on his conclusion that the FE knew and employed Mark and to a lesser degree Luke. In 1955 he expressed the opinion, for instance, that "the johannine passion story is an edited version of the Marcan, inta which J ohn has introduced some fresh material." More recently he has defended his position. He surveys the views of those who deny literary dependence and counters with the evidence that John either knew the gospel of Mark or some document very similar. He contends that the simpler solution is that the FE presupposed the existence of Mark and perhaps at points Luke. 59 F. NEIRYNCK also champions the thesis that chapter 20 is the FE's construction on the basis of his direct knowledge of the synoptic gospels. But M.-E. BOISMARD'S hypothesis is that it is not the synoptic gospels themselves which the FE knew and used but the sources which were subsequently employed by the synoptic evangelists. So, for instance, proto-Luke was the main source used by the FE in the passion narrative, just as other hypothetical synoptic sources were influential in shaping the FG. 60 J. BLINZLER has suggested along different lines that the FE had knowledge of Mark and perhaps also of Luke but employed them only from his memory of their content. In other words, there was no direct
62

J. A. BAILEY, 115. Cf. G. RICHTER, Gefangennahme. C. K. BARRETT, Gospel, 14-18, quote, 18, and IDEM, John. BOISMARD and LAMOUILLE. J. BLINZLER, 59. G. REIM, Studien, 214-216, 233-246. Cf. IDEM, John, and IDEM, Probleme.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL: RECENT RESEARCH

2409

constructed out of the sources employed by Mark and Luke and that document became the basis for the construction of the passion and resurrection stories in the FG.63 It is noteworthy that there is more evidence in contemporary scholarship for theories of a <mediated knowledge' of one or more of the synoptics than for direct literary dependence. 64 With the exception of BARRETT and apart of the thesis posed for us by BAILEY, those who are seeking indications of the FG's use of the synoptics resort to intermediate phenomena - human memory, a fourth synoptic gospel, sources used by the synoptics, or a source constructed out of synoptic sources. Another proposed mediating link between the synoptics and the FG is oral tradition. C. H. DODD'S carefully constructed position was that the contact of the FG with the synoptics was through an oral tradition which was independent of the synoptic gospels but was comprised of some materials similar to those which found their way into the first three gospels. DODD came to this conclusion by studying those passages in the FG where some synoptic contact seems apparent and then moving through those where synoptic features are less and less clear. His method throughout is form critical, and he finds that the johannine material can be analyzed in terms of forms in much the same way form criticism has analyzed the synoptic materials. His conclusion that the synoptic and johannine gospels emerged out of a common oral tradition is buttressed not only by his study of the relations hip between johannine and synoptic passages but also by his success in showing that the forms characteristic of the johannine material are like those believed to exist in the synoptic tradition. A further part of the agenda of DODD'S enterprise is to argue, on the basis of the existence of a preliterary tradition employed in the FG, the likelihood that there is historically reliable information about Jesus in the FG. 6S A. DAUER'S study of the johannine passion narrative confirms DODD'S general thesis. DAUER finds that the passion account in the FG depends upon an independent oral tradition. The written synoptic gospels influenced the oral johannine tradition, and the influence might possibly have gone the other direction as well. DAUER does hedge a bit, however, when he recognizes the possibility that by the time the FE availed himself of the tradition it had taken on a written form. 66 His inconclusiveness on the question of whether this independent and distinctively johannine tradition was still oral or had been written by the time of its incorporation in the FG is exemplary of others who take a similar view. They in effect conclude that we cannot be sure whether this tradition was oral or written in its last stages before the FG. E. HAENCHEN compares a number of passages with their synoptic parallels, eliminates the possibility of literary dependence, and concludes that the contact between the two is explainable by positing a common tradition. He does not, however, declare himself on whether

63 64

65 66

H. KLEIN, Lukanisch-johanneische. A persuasive and careful case for this is made by R. FORTNA, Jesus. C. H. DODD, Historieal, 349, 366-387, 423. Cf. A. J. B. HIGGINS. A. DAUER, 335-336. Cf. M. SABBE, and M.-E. BOISMARD, Procede.

2410

ROBERT KYSAR

the FG used this tradition in its oral or written forms. 67 E. SIEGMAN and R. SCHNACKENBURG both studied 4:46-54 with much the same result. 68 F. HAHN finds form-tradition analysis the best way to understand 1:35-51. Finally, we mention in passing the enticing and careful work of F. L. CRIBBS who not only argues for a common oral tradition upon which the FE drew but also that Luke was influenced by portions of the early johannine tradition and attempted through his gospel to reconcile certain features of the markan-matthean traditions with the johannine tradition. 69 It seems clear that it is much easier to explain the similarities and differences between the synoptics and the FG by reference to pre-literary contacts than by postulating some type of literary dependence. It is hard to understand the variety of resemblances between the FG and the synoptics and yet the vast differences as the FE's use of a literary form of the synoptics. At least one may conclude that those who would argue for a literary dependence have yet to produce evidence which will sway the majority of scholars. On the other hand, appeal to oral tradition may be too easy. The category of
E. HAENCHEN, Johanneische. R. SCHNACKENBURG, Traditionsgeschichte. F. L. CRIBBS, Study, 92.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL: RECENT RESEARCH

2411

gospel makes some sense as a literary whole without recourse to either rearrangement or investigation of its history. In some cases, the results of their work have shown some validity to their presupposition. On the other hand, there are those who maintain that we will not understand the appearances of disunity and brokenness in the FG until we understand its history of composition. They have offered us convincing evidence that the FG stands upon the shoulders of a rather developed tradition which reached the FE in either written or oral form and which was incorporated by hirn into his gospel either in one or aseries of stages. 70 These two general alternatives (structural analysis and history of composition) are, of course, not exclusive of one another, as I have said. The tradition was embedded in the gospel in an imperfect way with the consequence that the FG as we have it is marred with breaks, contradictions, and repetition. But to the redactor-evangelist (or even aseries of redactors) his completed work constituted by his logic a literary whole which is entitled to analysis as such. While structural analysis and his tory of composition are strikingly different methodologies, their cooperation is called for, since neither one without the other seems capable of telling us all that the most curious of us would like to know about the FG.

11. Historical Criticism

The literary puzzles of the FG are only one fraction of the dilemma posed by that document for interpreters. EquallY perplexing are aseries of questions which we may roughly call historical in nature. It is already clear from our discussion above that the problems and their proposed solutions do not neatly sub-divide themselves into such categories as literary, historical, and ideological; but the differences these three categories pose for us are sufficiently sound to allow one to grasp some handles on the interpretive problems of the FG. In the main, the questions and proposals which we are about to survey in this section root in inquiries which are fundamentally historical. For each of the sub-divisions of this section we will find basic problems in the FG, the solutions of which seem to lie in a proper understanding of the his tory surrounding the document.

A. History of Religions Analysis First in importance among these historical problems is the question of the historical context of thought out of which the FG comes. This is the question of the lines of philosophical and religious thought in the Roman world which might have influenced the thought of the FE and hence constitute the framework within 70

D. M. SMITH'S summation is concise: "The distinctive character of the Johannine narrative material within the Gospel strongly suggests a principal source (or sourees) and one independent of the Synoptics." Johannine, 229. Compare, B. LINDARS, Traditions.

2412

ROBERT KYSAR

which his ideas are properly understood. A classical illustration of this difficulty is the dualistic language and symbolism of the FG, e. g., light and darkness, the world above and the world below, etc. If interpreters are to understand properly this dualistic thought, it is necessary that they have some grasp of the intellectual milieu which influenced the FE and in the light of which one may justifiably interpret his thought. Was hellenistic philosophy highly influential on the FE's thought, for instance? If so, then one would be wise to view the dualism of the FG in terms of philosophical, perhaps neo-platonic, categories. One could then properly assume that the FE intended to speak of a cosmic, ontological dualism with his symbols. On the other hand, if the Judaism of the time influenced the FE more crucially, then one's reading of the dualistic symbols must be considerably different. For example, if that form of Jewish thought prevalent at Qumran and expressed in the so-called Dead Sea ScroIls was instrumental in forming the FE's thought, his dualism must be understood in an eschatological and even apocalyptic framework rather than a cosmological one. The historical inquiry concerning the intellectual milieu of the FG is not a question of pure curiosity, then, for it has determinative effects upon the interpretation of the thought of the FE. But the search for the intellectual milieu is fraught with difficulties. History of religions research is far from simple, for we know that the rudimentary task of seeking and analyzing parallels between the FG and other extant literature of the Roman world of the first century does not constitute the isolation of the thought world of the gospel. The method has become much more complex than that, seeking not just parallels but probing behind those paralleis to find the intent of their language. Two authors may use very similar language and symbols and mean entirely different things by them; therefore, one may not say that parallel language and literary form mean that one of the authors was influenced by the other. The whole method of his tory of religions research is plagued by another fact, and it is that the FE has surely
R.

KYSAR,

Background.

2413

THE FOURTH GOSPEL: RECENT RESEARCH

the same time ignoring what a rich and syncretistic cultural phenomenon the Roman world of the first century of the Christian era was. It must finally be recognized that the FG has persistently presented history of religions research with one of its most formidable tasks. Nearly every conceivable religious and/or philosophical movement in the Roman world has been proposed as the intellectual setting of the FG. There has never been (in re cent years) any thing like a consensus of scholars on the history of religions background of the gospel, and the major trends have shifted rather dramatically. What follows is only suggestive of the vast research on this question.

1. Gnosticism We must begin with gnosticism as the first alternative for the thought world of the FE because of its mighty proponent, R. BULTMANN. His thesis, boldly and consistently worked out, created a tidal wave throughout the scholarly world which still has not entirely subsided. Many were swept along with the force of that wave, persuaded by BULTMANN'S evidence and its results; others have persistently swum in different directions. BULTMANN'S thesis in brief is this: The intellectual horne of the FE was in the context of an oriental gnosticism which is best expressed in gnostic literature of an admittedly post-Christian date but which existed in pre-literary form before the advent of Christianity. The FG thus became the storm center for the debate over a pre-Christian gnosticism. BULTMANN claimed that this pre-Christian gnosis had already influenced Judaism before the beginnings of the Christian movement, (e. g., Qumran) and that it was in the gnostic modes of thought that Christianity took its definitive form. 72 Among more recent scholars the gnostic thesis is still very much alive, but we can perhaps vaguely distinguish two degrees in which gnosticism is und erstood to have been influential upon the thought of the FE: Some propose a strong degree of gnosticism embraced by the FE; others, a lesser degree perhaps not embraced as much as used by the author. Among the leading proponents of the former position is S. SCHULZ whose commentary on the FG persistently argues for the gnostic setting. SCHULZ maintains that the logos concept of the prologue, for instance, may have been structured in part out of hellenistic J ewish speculation concerning wisdom (e. g., Wisdom 9:9-12; Sir ach 24:5-31), but the decisive concept of the personification of the logos sterns without doubt from a hellenistic gnosticism. Similarly the son of man title in the FG has been thoroughly
BULTMANN,

Gospel, passim. Cf.

IDEM,

Theology, Vol. II, pt. 3, and

IDEM,

Primitive.

2414

ROBERT KYSAR

connected in SCHULZ'S analysis with the son of man motif. The dualism of the thought of the FG reflects how the Old Testament and Jewish dualism of an ethical and eschatological kind have been transformed into a cosmic and even physical enmity. The christology of the FG is then one of pure exaltation in which the historical man Jesus is real (not just an appearance) but in no sense co mpromised in his divinity by this world and in no sense humiliated by it. The humanity of this heavenly being is but a "disguise" or "veil" through which his glory is perceptible. 73 SCHULZ's view is perhaps the clearest perpetuation and defense of the BULTMANNian thesis in the literature of the last several decades. L. SCHOTTROFF also reflects the influence of BULTMANN but perhaps has radicalized his view. SCHOTTROFF'S position builds upon what she takes to be a proper understanding of the dualism of the FG. The thought of the gospel begins with and is everywhere defined by an anti thesis - the presence of salvation and its absence. These two poles define the individual. Everything in fact is defined by the distance from one or the other of these two poles.
73

74

75

S. SCHULZ, Evangelium, 27-29, 63-64, 70, 211, 189. Cf. SCHULZ, Stunde, 323, 331, and IDEM, Untersuchungen. Contrast E. FASCHER. On the personification of the logos, contrast P. H. LANGKAMER. L. SCHOTTROFF, Glaubende, 228-234, 237-238, 268-279, 289-290, 293-294. Cf. IDEM, Johannes, and IDEM, Heil. E. KÄSEMANN, Testament, 7-13, 21-26, 32-35. Cf. IDEM, Aufbau.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL: RECENT RESEARCH

2415

gnostic dualism. While the earlier phases have roots in early Christianity and Qumran, the FE hirns elf was primarily active in developing the gnostic dimensions of the dualism. 76 K. FISCHER has found gnostic influences elsewhere, claiming that 10: 1-18 roots in a gnostic myth. The speech of Jesus in that passage is most certainly drawn directly from the gnostic view of the redeemer. Still, the FE has broken with the pattern of gnostic speeches at a number of points to give his passage a distinctive feature, e. g., the fact that a sharp distinction is made between the identities of the redeemer and the redeemed. These studies propose an extensive contact with a gnosticism on the part of the FE. Others more cautiously propose that the evangelist was less significantly influenced by this religious phenomenon. An eminent johannine scholar, R. SCHNACKENBURG, is a good example. While he does not wish to deny the influence of gnosticism on the FE, he does not believe that that influence was isolated from the other religious conceptualities of the period. He believes, for instance, that the one clearly gnostic feature of johannine christology is the persistent concern for the origin and destiny of the redeemer; but this feature expresses more of a negative influence from gnosticism than a positive one. This is to say that the FE intended by his emphasis to respond to the gnostic insistence upon origin and destiny. Likewise, the FE "took into consideration the gnostic manner of speaking of the Son (of God) and thereby bound it with his view of the Son Christology." So, while there are clear contacts between the gnostic redeemer mythology and johannine christology, the FE is not borrowing so much as he is pre-empting the gnostic view in order to answer the concerns of those who share that persuasion. Gnostic concepts are also influential in the dualism of the FG, particularly in the notion of elife'. A certain form of Syrian gnosticism influenced the FE but that influence was significantly conditioned by other influences upon his thought. 77 G. STEMBERGER argues along similar lines that the purpose of the FG in part was to respond to gnostic concerns. He argues that the johannine community lived in a world deeply influenced by a Jewish gnosticism, and that the FE usurped the core of gnostic thought. This is particularly evident in the fact that the gospel has no interest in a history of Jesus' childhood. Moreover, the eschatology of the FG is a response to the gnostic pre-occupation with the relations hip of the individual with space and time. 78 F. G. UNTERGASSMAIR's mono graph includes a study of the history of religions setting for the concept of name in the gospel. He concludes that a contact with a gnostic milieu similar to the one expressed in the
76 77

78

J. BEcKER, Beobachtungen. R. SCHNACKENBURG, Johannesevangelium, Bd. H, 162-166, 273-279, 440-443, quote 166. Cf. IDEM, Menschensohn, 135-137. G. STEMBERGER, Er kam.

2416

ROBERT KYSAR

evangelist's own creation. 79 G. MAcRAE go es one step further in suggesting that the FE deliberately drew from a syncretistic milieu which includes gnostic elements in order to articulate a view of Jesus with universal appea1. 80 In general it must be said that the arguments for a gnostic influence upon the FE are significantly diminished as compared with the years just prior to and after the publication of BULTMANN'S commentary. It will become evident that I believe the majority of scholars are now looking in different directions for the intellectual foundations of johannine thought. More important, there are increasing indications that the so-called gnostic elements in the thought of the FE are traceable to features of heterodox Judaism in the first century. Hence, rather than speaking of a pre-Christian gnosticism with some sort of discernible identity of its own, scholars are pointing to gnosis within the structures of other religious movements of the time. 81 The suggestion is that we cannot legitimately speak of gnosticism as a separable religious entity before the advent of Christianity and must instead seek the gnostic influence upon the FG in the other intellectual settings. There was, we believe, a syncretistic tendency in Judaism, for instance, which included, perhaps, pre-gnostic ideas and concepts. Yet the evidence is not all in as yet on this debated issue. The publication of the documents from Nag Hammadi makes available a rich depository of direct, gnostic thought; and its importance for the study of the FG must be established before a further verdict on the gnostic question can be reached. 82

2. The Old Testament and Rabbinical Judaism The prominence of BULTMANN'S theory of the gnostic setting for the FG should not blind us to the continued efforts to show that the gospel is rooted most firmly in Old Testament (hereafter OT) and rabbinic thought. If anything, the shift of scholarship in recent decades has been toward the elucidation of OT and rabbinic thought in the gospel. It is instructive that when W. F. HOWARD wrote his survey of then recent criticism of the FG in 1931 the chapter devoted to the background of the thought of the gospel was devoid of any discussion of OT and rabbinic thought. Today our attention must in contrast give extensive attention to this alternative. The question of the OT citations in the FG is often debated,83 but on the fact that a good deal of the thought of the gospel roots in OT thought itself there is 79 HO

HI H2

83

F. G. UNTERGASSMAIR, esp. 363-364. G. MAcRAE, Ego-Proclamation, and IDEM, Jewish. E. YAMAUCHI. Facsimile Edition, and J. M. ROBINSON, Nag Hammadi. Cf. Y. JANSSENS. E. g., E. FREED argues that the FE cites the OT from memory: Old Testament, and IDEM, Some. R. SCHNACKENBURG maintains that the FE's use of the OT was free: Gospel, Vol. I, 123. F.-M. BRAUN contends that the evangelist used a Palestinian canon and the later redactor of the FG a Greek translation of the OT: Jean le theologien. Les grandes traditions, 17. REIM argues that the OT citations in the FG are exclusively from the tradition used by the FE: Studien, 93-96,188-189,231-232. G. RICHTER proposes

THE FOURTH GOSPEL: RECENT RESEARCH

2417

greater consensus. 84 The logos concept in the prologue is often thought to have been constructed out of OT and rabbinie materials. 85 R. BROWN presents a strong case for the parallels between the logos in the prologue and statements concerning wisdom in the OT and intertestamental materials, e. g., wisdom was active in creation and came into the world only to experience rejection (Wisdom 9:9-10 and Sirach 15:7).86 H. MOELLER, F.-M. BRAUN, and A. FEUILLET suggest that the combination of the OT concept of word and the Jewish speculation regarding wisdom produced a rabbinie myth which the FE used as a model for describing Christ as the logos.87 But others have found different rabbinie patterns behind that johannine concept. Rabbinie mythology centered around the Sinai event was instrumental in shaping the logos idea, thinks J. ACKERMANN .88 P. BORGEN points to a midrashic interpretation of Genesis 1: 1 ff. similar to the kind found in the Jerusalem T argum on Genesis 3: 21. 89 M. McNAMARA also finds the targumic materials crucial for the setting of the logos, particularly the Palestinian Targum (Neofiti) on Exodus 15:18 in which the word of God is identified with light. 90 The christology of the FG as a whole, too, may be significantly indebted to the OT and rabbinie thought. BROWN summarizes his position, "the fourth evangelist saw in Jesus the culmination of a tradition that runs through the Wisdom literature of the Old Testament."91 But BRAUN argues at length for the prophetie as weIl as the wisdom motifs as formative precursors of the johannine Christ. 92 One aspect of that christology which has received lengthy and numerous investigations is the envoy motif (the sending of the son). BORGEN finds johannine agency similar to the rabbinie principles of the official agent, although he believes that the FE has combined those rabbinie principles with a

84

85

86 87

88 89

90

91

92

that the citations at 6:31 band 45 are not OT at all but from a contemporary Jewish haggadah: Alttestamentlichen. Cf. J.-N. ALETTI; J. O'ROURKE, John's. The rabbinic background of the citation of Psalm 82 in Jn 10:34 is argued frequendy: A. HANSON, John's Citation of Psalm LXXXII, and IDEM, John's Citation of Psalm LXXXII Reconsidered; J. S. ACKERMAN; M.-E. BOISMARD, Jesus; J. A. EMERToN. Cf. D. SCHIRMER, esp. 207; A. LAURENTIN; B. McNEIL; M. WILCOX. Space will not permit us to discuss the general criticism of the prologue of the FG. The reader is referred to the following works which are representative of the research being done on 1:1-18: R. BULTMANN, Gospel, 13-83; R. BROWN, Gospel, Vol. I, 3-37; R. SCHNACKENBURG, Gospel, Vol. I, 221-281; M. RISSI, Logoslieder; D. G. DEEKS; P. TRUDINGER, Prologue; M. HOOKER; D. ATAL, esp. 79f. and 52-54; J. S. KING; H. ZIMMERMANN; G. RICHTER, Ist, and L. RAMAROSON. For a survey of scholarship on this passage cf. H. THYEN, Literatur, 222-252. BROWN, Gospel, Vol. I, 520-523. F.-M. BRAUN, Jean le theologien. Les grandes traditions, 137; A. FEUILLET, Prologue, 224-225, 239-242, Cf. B. DE PINTO. P. BORGEN, Some, finds Sinai allusions in 3: 13-14. P. BORGEN, Observations and IDEM, Logos. Cf. W. F. HAMBY. M. McNAMARA, Logos; IDEM, Targum, 101-106, and IDEM, New Testament, 255f., 145-149. BROWN, Gospel, Vol. I, cxxii. BRAUN, Jean le theologien. Les grandes traditions, 49-152. Cf. REIM, Studien, 247260, and G. RICHTER, Bist.

2418

ROBERT KYSAR

concept of the heavenly agent found in hellenistic Judaism (specially, Philo).93 J. P. MIRANDA'S studies of the envoy motif conclude that the prophetie literature was most determinative for the FE's thought, although he finds certain gnostic elements combined with it. But in his latest work on the question, he holds that the J ewish concepts of the messenger and the legal envoy in the prophetie form were more influential. 94 J.-A. BÜHNER argues that there are two levels in this johannine motif - the first reflecting J ewish apocalyptic thought and the second rabbinie understandings of the representative figure. 95 The descending-ascending theme in johannine christology is most often the focus of efforts to find gnostic influence on the mind of the FE, but here too there have been attempts to discover OT-rabbinic thought patterns. B. VAWTER makes a case for the use of the Ezekiel passages concerning primeval man by the FE. MOELLER is content to see sapiential ideas once again at work,96 while McNAMARA believes the Targum on Psalm 68: 18 shaped the johannine idea of the death of Christ as ascension. 97 J. COPPENS' study of the son of man sayings in the FG concludes with the suggestion that the sayings are a kind of pesher or midrash of the Daniel son of man, with the FE borrowing from the 1saiah Ebed Yahweh passages his ideas of glorification and exaltation. So, from the OT and intertestamental thought the sayings ~ave drawn the ideas of exaltation and humiliation, the glorification of God, and the descent-ascent motifs. 98 It is not surprising that the famous "I Am" sayings in the FG have evoked a great deal of history of religions study, in particular the so-called absolute form of those sayings (those without predicates, e. g. 8 :24, 28, 58; 13: 19). The hypothesis that the Greek translation of passages in
93

94 95 96 97

98 99

100

P. BORGEN, God's. Cf. J. M. FORD. J. P. MIRANDA, Vater, 130-307, and IDEM, Sendung, 90. J .-A. BÜHNER, 262-267 and 422-433. Cf. O. MICHEL. Mo ELLER, 94-95. Cf. G. MACRAE, Jewish. M. McNAMARA, Ascension; IDEM, Targum, 143, and IDEM, New Testament, 145-149. J. COPPENS, Fils. BRoWN, Gospel, Vol. I, 535-537. P. HARNER, 15-36, 56-57. Cf. A. FEUILLET, Ego Eimi; REIM, Studien, 261. I. DE LA POTTERlE, Je suis.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL: RECENT RESEARCH

2419

is feasible. 101 FEUILLET sees in chapter 6 a delicate interweaving of a number of OT themes: the manna of the Sinai desert and J esus as the Mosaic-type messiah, the messianic banquet, and sapiential overtones. 102 T. PREISS insists that the exodus motif is strongly influential in the chapter, evident both in its passover setting and in the portrayal of Jesus as the Moses-like messiah. He stresses that manna is linked with Torah in rabbinie thought; hence the discourse of the chapter asserts thatJesus is superior to both the Sinai manna and the Torah. P. BORGEN'S provocative and lengthy study of chapter 6 proposes that the FE has employed there a midrashic interpretation of manna, weaving a homily out of the material. (BoRGEN also finds influences of Philonic-like midrashim and a Jewish "judicial mysticism" reflected in the passage. )103 J. A. SIMONIS vigorously defends the tenet that chapter 10 is rooted in the biblical images of the shepherd rather than in Mandaean gnostic thought. R. BORIG has argued much the same with regard to chapter 15 and insists that what we see there is the radicalization of the OT images (e. g., the true vine).104 But FEUILLET finds more contacts with the sapiential literature (especially Sirach 24: 17-20) than does SIMONIS. 10S R. BRowN dem urs before the attempt to attribute too much of the shepherd and vine speeches to the OT, and prefers to credit more to the FE's own creativity.106 The tantalizing paraclete passages of the FG (14:15-17, 26; 15:26-27; 16:7-11,12-14) have evoked a number of investigations which propose an OTrabbinie background for the evangelist's thought. The influence of the book of Ezekiel stimulated the FE's creation of the notion of the paraclete, thinks VAWTER. 107 And R. BROWN agrees that the prophetie themes of the OT 100m large in the paraclete passages. But in addition to these, the
104 lOS

106 107 108

109

BROWN, Gospel, Vol. I, 178-179, 272-274. A. FEUlLLET, Johannine, 58-87. P. BORGEN, Bread, 148. Cf. BORGEN, Observations; R. SCHNACKENBURG, Rede; J. BLANK, Johanneische Brotrede, and IDEM, Ich bin. Contrast G. RICHTER, Formgeschichte, and G. BORNKAMM, Vorjohanneische. A. J. SIMONIS, 320-322; R. BORIG, 106-107, 135-187, 192. Cf. J. D. DERRETT. A. FEUlLLET, Johannine, 87. R. BROWN, Gospel, Vol. II, 672. B. VAWTER, 455-458. R. BROWN, Gospel, Vol. II, 1137-1139. Cf. H. RIESENFELD, Proba le, and G. BORNKAMM, Paraklet. U. MÜLLER, Parakletenvorstellung.

2420

ROBERT KYSAR

kind and roots not in gnosticism but in OT and Jewish thought, although he sees significant signs of hellenistic influence as weIl as rabbinic. The light-darkness imagery is, however, founded on Isaiah, as weIl as Jewish wisdom and apocalyptic literature.1 1o O. BÖCHER sees less hellenistic influence in the dualism. It arises out of OT thought as it was interpreted in the centuries just prior to the advent of Christianity. Hence, it is a dualism of an ethical and eschatological kind. Still, BÖCHER believes that the OT motifs in johannine dualism have been shaped before the FE by sectarian, not rabbinic, Judaism. 111 Passover motifs in the FG are further grounds for arguing that its inteIlectual setting is in OT and rabbinic thought. J. K. HOWARD understands that the passover themes in the gospel are intended to present Jesus as the perfect passover lamb and the "antitype of the old order." L. MORRIS agrees that the passover imagery is present in the temple cleansing and in chapter 6, as weIl as in the farewell discourses and the passion narrative. 112 A. JAUBERT'S argument that the calendar followed by J ews in Palestine at the time of J esus was the one in use at Qumran has important implications for the passover motif in the FG. With this calendar it is clear that the FG's representation of the last meal is a passover meal. l13 Likewise mosaic motifs in the FG are grounds for the case that the FG is rooted in OT-rabbinic thought. F. GLASSON contends that the FE shaped his christology around the mosaic figure. W. MEEKS agrees, but finds the background of johannine mosaic imagery far more complex than simple OT -rabbinic thought. 114 A different kind of study is that of A. LACOMARA who attempts to unearth a deuteronomic typology in the FG. M. GIRARD departs from the mosaic theme but, like LACOMARA, finds a pattern in the structure of the FG derived from an OT book, in this case the seven day structure of Genesis 1: 1- 2: 4 a. 115 Finally, we must note two recent studies which have demonstrated indirectly the basis of johannine thought in the OT and rabbinic concepts. A. E. HARVEY tries to show that the entire gospel is a legal trial of Jesus argued in typical rabbinic fashion, and shows how such an understanding elucidates the meaning of the FG. HARVEY'S work is associated in a way with the thorough and persuasive work of S. PANCARO. The latter explores the concept of law in the gospel and demonstrates how thoroughly central the concern for the relationship of Jesus to the Torah is for the FE. PANCARO convinces many of us that the FE was concerned to show that belief in the revelation of God in Christ was understood by the FE as obedience to the Law in contrast to the resistance to belief offered by the opponents of Jesus in the gospel in their attempts to be faithful to the Law. In the process of his investigations (which we will mention again in another context 110 111 112 113

11-1 115

G. STEMBERGER, Symbolique, 44-144. O. BÖCHER, 11-16. Cf. E. R. ACHTEMEIER. L. MORRIS, New Testament, 64-72. A. ]AUBERT, Calendar. Cf. ]AUBERT, Datei E. RUCKSTUHL, Chronology, and K. A. STRAND. Other studies relevant to the passover motif of the FG include: R. H. SMITHi BROWN, Gospel, Vol. I, ix and 529, and P. RIGA. W. A. MEEKS, Prophet-King. Cf. MEEKS, Moses. Cf. T. BARROSEE, and P. TRUDINGER, Seven.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL: RECENT RESEARCH

2421

below) the author shows how consciously interested the FE was to be faithful to OT law. 116

3. HeIlenism and HeIlenistic J udaism C. H. DODD'S influential work published in 1953,
116

117

I1B 119 120

121 122

156

S. PANCARO, Law. Cf. the imaginative but unconvincing J. BOWMAN, Fourth Gospel and the Jews. Other studies related to OT-rabbinic background of the FG are: D. MEALAND; C. T. RUDDIcK; M.-E. BOISMARD, Bapteme, and A. HANSON, John I. C. H. DODD, Interpretation, e. g., 133. J. P. MIRANDA, Vater, 130-307. C. H. TALBERT, Myth. Cf. TALBERT, Wh at. E. SCHWEIZER, Religionsgeschichtlichen. J. BEUTLER, esp. 363-364. R. SCHNACKENBURG, Johannesevangelium, Bd. II, 64-67. ANRW

II 25.3

2422

ROBERT KYSAR

sponding to the criticisms of BULTMANN'S proposal, LINNEMANN argues that the pericope is a piece of dialogue material between the Christian community and the Dionysian mystery; it is a counter proposal to the Dionysian cult. G. STEMBERGER is not content to root the whole of the dualism of the FG in OT-rabbinic thought, for he finds that aspects of that dualism (e. g., servitude and freedom) are evidentally expressions of a stoic contact. Such hellenistic influences enter the complex of the dualistic symbols both in their pre-johannine form and through the mind of the FE hirns elf. 123

4. Heterodox J udaism Less seems to have been done in the way of investigations of hellenistic influences on the thought of the FG because of a new sensitivity to the syncretistic nature of first century Palestinian Judaism itself. One need not look beyond the confines of the homeland of J udaism to find a religious movement which appears to have absorbed into itself a number of seemingly contradictory features. It is, of course, the Qumran discoveries which have alerted scholars to this possibility with the result that we no longer think of hellenistic Judaism as the onIy syncretistic form of the Mosaic faith during the first century, C. E. As a matter of fact it has become less and Iess clear just what should properly be called rabbinic and what heterodox Judaism. Putting that issue aside, there are a number of studies which suggest that the FG was most at horne in a Judaism quite Palestinian in nature yet quite different from what we know as rabbinic Judaism. Johannine christology, some suggest, has been influenced by the kind of view which the Qumran community held of its 'teacher of righteous', especially in the 'Psalms of Thanksgiving'. J. PRICE has drawn out an impressive list of the parallels between the two, including the fact that both Jesus and the teacher of the 'Thanksgiving Psalms' claim to have a special knowledge from God and to be commissioned to teach it to a special group of persons. The Qumran notion of the messianic 'man' may be expressed in 1:29, thinks W. BROWNLEE. He claims that the view of Christ in the FG is clearly linked with the language of the Qumran community. O. BETZ has done the definitive comparison of the johannine paraclete concept and the Qumran materials. He focuses upon the forensic quality of the paraclete figure and finds impressive contacts with the various intercessory agents in Qumran thought, most especially the angel, Michael. He believes that the figure of Michael served as a model for the FE's portrayal of the paraclete. It was in Qumran that the angel Michael was identified with the spirit of truth, and the FE has given the attributes of both to his paraclete.1 24 While G. JOHNSTON

123 124

G. STEMBERGER, Symbolique, 44-144. Cf. J. WHITTAKER. O. BETZ, 56-72, 113-166,206-212,293-336. Cf. PRICE, 24. Contrast A. R. C. LEANEY, Johannine, 43-53, 57, and IDEM, Historieal, 146-159.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL: RECENT RESEARCH

2423

dissents from BETz' study at a number of points, he too agrees that the Qumran literature provides the most helpful paralleIs to the paraclete. 125 The most obvious contact between the FG and the Essene community of Qumran, however, is at the point of dualism. A number of scholars have investigated the similarities between the two dualisms with the result that they posit an indirect rather than a direct relationship between the two. They maintain that one cannot suppose a literary dependence of the FE upon Qumran literature. R. BROWN reaches this conclusion by insisting that the only parallels which are admissible as evidence of a direct relationship are those which cannot be explained on the basis of a common background in the OT.t 26 L. MORRIS stresses the important differences between the two conceptualities, but admits that the similarities are too numerous and important to be dismissed as accidental or as arising from a common background. It is MORRIS' suggestion that Qumranian thought was transmitted to the johannine community through followers of J ohn the Baptist who at one time had been adherents of the essene sect. 127 J. PRICE concludes that the dualism we find in both the FG and Qumran documents was a common notion in J ewish circles of the first century, C. E .128 J. CHARLESWORTH'S examination of the materials is perhaps the most exhaustive. It is his conclusion that the comparisons demand a link between the two; but he thinks it is unwarranted to posit a literary dependence. The FE did not borrow his dualism from Qumran, but employed the language of that sect group to articulate his own images which arose out of Christian views. CHARLESWORTH and R. CULPEPPER go on to examine the paralleIs between the FG and the ·Odes of Solomon' . Their examination definitively establishes that the Odes are not the source of the gnostic-like thought of the FG. Instead, they show that the Odes and the gospel have a common background and both were affected by the kind of thought we see exemplified in the Qumran materials. 129 A. HANsON has analyzed the relationship between Jn 17 and Hodayoth column XV and finds that the Qumran psalm is the nearest thing in pre-Christian literature to the form of chapter 17. He asserts that there was undoubtedly a link between the thought of the FE and Qumran, most especially on the matter of predestination. 130 The Qumran studies, however, do not constitute the only investigations of the FG's roots in a non-rabbinical, heterodox Judaism. A number of studies have posited the existence and the influence of a kind of Judaism not necessarily to be equated with the Qumranian community. W. A. MEEKS' definitive study of Moses in the FG proposes that the Judaism which shaped the image of Moses in 125

126

127 128 129

130

156'"

G. JOHNSTON, Spirit-Paraclete, SNTSM, 83, 99,106,116-117,120-121, and IDEM, SpiritParaclete, Perspective. BROWN, Gospel, Vol. I, lxii-lxiii. L. MORRIS, Studies, 329-333, 353-354. J. PRICE, 19-25. J. CHARLESWORTH, Critical, and IDEM, Qumran. Cf. CHARLESWORTH, and R. A. CULPEPPER; R. BERGMEIER; and for a survey of views of the dualism of the FG and Qumran, H. BRAUN, Bd. II, 119-132. A. HANSON, Hodayoth. Cf. J. C. COETZEE, and F. C. FENSHAM.

2424

ROBERT KYSAR

the gospel was a fascinating mixture of phenomena. The traditions which were instrumental in the FG show evidence of some interaction between Jews and Samaritans .131 P. BORGEN likewise posits the existence of a syncretistic Judaism. The kind of interpretation which is evident in chapter 6 was at horne in the milieu in which Jewish exegesis was infected by a kind of non-rabbinic mysticism. 132 BÖCHER'S proposal apropos the dualism of the FG is that the OT imagery has been radically effected by Jewish sectarian thought of the kind known at Qumran before being transmitted to the FE. Johannine theology is at horne, he concludes, not in pharisaic-rabbinic thought but in an apocalyptic-sectarian Judaism. 133 That the FG was the product of a community which originated in the conversions of persons from a heterodox, marginal Judaism has recently been advanced by O. CULLMANN. The background of thought and form of the johannine community was a syncretistic, borderline Judaism, converts from which are identified as ehellenists' in Acts 6 and represented by Stephen (Acts 8). These socalled ehellenists' shaped early johannine thought; and Qumran Judaism, the Baptist sect, and Samaritanism all colored the development of the tradition embedded in the FG. CULLMANN further proposes that this link with syncretistic forms of Judaism can be traced beyond the johannine community to Jesus himself. 134 This terse overview of the search for the intellectual background of the FG has both a negative and a positive implication. First, the implication of the variety of the results of the his tory of religions analyses of the FG is the fact that there is nothing like a clear consensus of scholarship on the question. The differing results show that researchers do not yet have anything approaching a confident proposal upon which work may continue. But, second, the positive implication of our survey is that there are trends indicative of the mood of contemporary scholarship. We propose that those trends are two: 1) More efforts are now being expended with more promising results in the area of the J ewish background of the FG than in the areas of hellenism and/or gnosticism. 2) Noticable degrees of success have been achieved in the effort to show that the particular form of Judaism behind the FG is syncretistic in nature. The first trend, we think, is clear simply in terms of the vast amount of work and the number of scholars who find FG roots in OT and rabbinic thoughts forms, while the efforts to effect the reconstruction of a hellenistic or gnostic backdrop for the gospel are failing to win wide adherence. But the second trend is less obvious from what we have discussed thus far. In addition to those works which clearly allude to a sectarian form of Judaism as the roots of the FG, it is important to take note of the fact that many who would find the OT -rabbinic background plausible also find indications of the influence of apocalyptic Judaism or hellenistically colored Judaism in their investigations. This points, it seems to me, to the fact that it is a Jewish milieu which best accounts for the thought of the FG, but that we cannot understand 131 132 133 134

W. A. MEEKS, Prophet-King, 317. P. BORGEN, Bread, 147. O. BÖCHER, 16. O. CULLMANN, Johannine. Cf. CULLMANN, Jesus, and F.-M. BRAUN, Cercle.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL: RECENT RESEARCH

2425

that Judaism in terms of simple OT-rabbinic motifs. Much more likely is that the Judaism we are seeking to unearth behind the gospel was rooted in the OT and related to the rabbinic movement, but also swayed by <sectarian' features which might have included apocalyptic, mystical, and Qumranian characteristics. But no history of religions proposal is adequate that does not in the last analysis take account of the creativity of the FE hirns elf. In this way, the study of G. FISCHER is perhaps exemplary of the trend which we see in contemporary scholarship. FISCHER undertakes to understand 14:2f. and he concludes that we must admit to the convergence of a number of motifs from differing backgrounds which have then been significantly transformed by the creative thought of the evangelist. There are indications of resemblances to concepts in J ewish heIlenism and in Jewish apocalypticism, both rooted in a fundamental OT idea (the hope of God's dwelling with the people of Israel and the Temple). But the combination of the metaphors of
B. Sitz im Leben Analysis (The Purpose of the FG) But what was the specific purpose of the gospel? Whatever its intellectual background may have been, the reader wants to know what it was this document was intended to do. Furthermore, what was the special situation in the Christian community which motivated the publication of a document of this kind? Around these questions, which the interpreter asks of any piece of literature, there are peculiar features of the FG which exasperate the urgency to have those questions answered. There are, for instance, the curiously negative uses of the expression,
135

G.

FISCHER,

esp. 290-298. Cf. C. K.

BARRETT,

The Gospel of John and Judaism, esp. 58.

2426

ROBERT KYSAR

The hopes of portraying the concrete, real-life setting of the FG have motivated a great deal of scholarly research in recent years. It must be acknowledged that the success of much of the redactional criticism of the synoptic gospels has perhaps encouraged johannine scholars to
1. A Dialogue with the Synagogue An important option for understanding the concrete setting in life of the FG has been given clear and forceful articulation in the work of J. L. MARTYN. It is MARTYN'S major thesis that the FG is in effect a drama taking place on two his torically different levels at the same time. On the one level is the conflict of J esus with his opponents; on the other level is the conflict of the Christians of the johannine community with members of a local synagogue. The drama represents both Jesus and the Christians of the FE's own day as weIl as the Jewish leaders of Jesus' day and the Jewish leaders of the evangelist's day - in both cases the latter members of the pairs only thinly disguised. Christians of the johannine church were suffering conflict with members of the local synagogue. Jews were leaving the synagogue to embrace the Christian faith; while others were holding the new faith but trying to maintain their allegiance to the Jewish community. The use of the expression ccexcluded from the synagogue" (9 :22; 12 :42; and 16 :2) refers to the fact that in the FE's own time Christians are being forced out of their Jewish community by virtue of the enforcement of the
T. C. SMITH, Jesus; W. C. VAN UNNIK; J. A. T. ROBINSON, Destination. Cf. A. WIND. J. L. MARTYN, History; IDEM, Source, and IDEM, Glimpses. MARTYN was not the first to propose that exclusion from the synagogue was connected with the writing of the FG, cf., e. g., K. L. CARROLL. Cf. R. SCHNACKENBURG, Herkunft; J. BEUTLER, 345.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL: RECENT RESEARCH

2427

ish their contributions in other ways. The work of W. MEEKS has solidified MARTYN'S thesis in a number of ways. MEEKS' history of religions investigation of the Moses motif in the FG concludes with the suggestion that "johannine traditions were shaped, at least in part, by interaction between a Christian community and a hostile Jewish community." More recently his comparison of the agent theme in FG and Philo points creatively in the same direction. The polemic qualities of the FG are, he believes, due to the failure of the johannine community to win Jews to their membership. Finally his 'sociological analysis' of the functional role of the descending-ascending symbol in the FG offers the proposal that the johannine community was a sectarian group for whom the ingroup-outgroup distinction loomed very large. That sectarian character of the community was the result of its exclusion from the synagogue and its search for a new "sociallocation. "138 Among other studies which support the thesis in general are the following: H. LEROY'S form critical study of the misunderstanding theme in the FG, 139 R. FORTNA'S redactional critical work on the basis of his proposed 'Signs Gospel', 140 J. BEUTLER'S his tory of tradition analysis of the witness argumentation of the FG,141 H. MULDER'S probe of the relationships of Gentiles and Jews in the book,142 F. MANN'S exegetical study of the theme of freedom in 8:31-59,143 and E. GRÄSSER'S examination of the polemic quality of the FE's treatment of the Jews. 144 GRÄSSER'S work finds ample reason for the negative treatment of those labelled, 'the Jews', in this gospel. R. LEISTNER, too, attempts to understand the apparent anti-Jewish character of the FG, and although he does not posit the same kind of church-synagogue conflict as does GRÄSSER, his study demonstrates the dominant concern of the FE for Christian-Jewish relationships.145 R. FULLER'S redactional study of 'the J ews' in the gospel more explicitly establishes the way this expression arose from the church-synagogue conflict. 146 The anti-Jewish polemic or apologetic has been affirmed by a number of others as well. SCHNACKENBURG and BROWN both understand that the 'J ews' referred to in a derogatory way in the FG are contemporaries of the evangelist who have rejected the Christian faith. Like MEEKS, BROWN proposes that by the time of the writing of the gospel the period of missionary work among the J ews has ended and Christians and J ews are 'locked in struggle'. SCHNACKENBURG adduces equally impressive evidence that the anti-Jewish tone reflects the evangelist's own day and believes that the synagogue ban of Christians had effected the

138 139 140 141 142 143

144 145 146

W. MEEKs, Prophet-King, 318; IDEM, Divine; IDEM, Am I; IDEM, Man. H. LEROY, 191-193. R. FORTNA, Source, 159. J. BEUTLER, 339-364. H. MULDER'S article is known to me only through A. WIND, 40-47. F. MANNS, 102-105. Cf. two introductory studies of the theology of the FG which employ this setting: J. PAINTER, and R. KYSAR, John. Cf. C. J. A. HICKLING. R. LEISTNER, 142-150. R. FULLER, Jews. Cf. R. BRATcHER, and M. H. SHEPHERD.

2428

ROBERT KYSAR

Christians of the FE's community. Thus, it is certain that this polemic tone was occasioned by the Sitz im Leben of the writing. BROWN maintains that the FE holds out hope for winning over those
147

148 149 ISO

BROWN, Gospel, Vol. I, lxx-lxxv; SCHNACKENBURG, Gospel, Vol. I, 165-167. Others who propose that an anti-Jewish polemie is one of the purposes of the FG include the following: H. RIESENFELD, Johanneisehen; F. NEUGEBAUER, 14; G. RICHTER, Gefangennahme. However, RICHTER has more reeently declared that he believes the ChristianJewish eonfliet visible in the FG is aetually a eonfliet between Jewish-Christians and Johannine Christians: Gemeindebildenden. J. P. MIRANDA sees the eonfliet as one between Christians and rabbinie Judaism: Sendung, 71-80. Reeently T. C. SMITH has reaffirmed his view that the purpose of the gospel is missional rather than polemie in regard to the Jews: Christology. W. MEEKS, Am I. M. DE JONGE, Jewish, 262-263; IDEM, Jesus; IDEM, Use, 71-73, and IDEM, Nieodemus. S. PANCARO, Law, 489-546. Cf. IDEM, Relationship.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL: RECENT RESEARCH

2429

2. An Anti-docetic Polemic Another kind of polemic which has more traditionally been ascribed to the FG is an attack upon docetic christology. Irenaeus (Against Heresies, III, 11,7) claimed that the FG was directed against the gnostic distortion of the faith; and E. HOSKYNS wrote his neo-orthodox interpretation of the FG with a strong emphasis upon the anti-docetic flavor of its thought. BULTMANN'S contention that the gospel was sympathetic toward gnosticism is perhaps responsible for the fact that the anti-docetic theme has not been pursued vigorously by contemporary scholars, but it is still not devoid of its supporters. J. DUNN combines anti-docetic and anti-sacramental themes to fashion a hypo thesis for one of the major thrusts of the FG. Chapter 6 is the FE's carefully constructed response to both a docetic christology and a counter movement among Christians to stress the literal character of the eucharist - the bread and wine as actual body and blood. DUNN'S approach is to claim that chapter 6 is not eucharistic at all but a declaration thatJesus was indeed flesh and blood humanity. The FE thus strikes out with both hands - one against the docetic understanding of Christ and the other against the literalistic sacramentalism. Others would find the anti-docetic polemic in a less prominent place in the FG - a sub-theme or purpose. SCHNACKENBURG finds evidence of this kind of an attack only in 1: 14 and 19:34f. 151 BROWN agrees but includes 8:38-39 and 6:51-58 as further indications of an anti -docetic concern. 152 J. N. SANDERS and B. A. MASTIN support a comparable view. 153 LINDARS is more cautious and, along with BROWN, relegates the anti-docetic stratum of the gospel to a later stage in the history of composition. 154 G. RICHTER more radicaIly stresses the proposal that the FG underwent an anti-docetic redaction. For instance, 1:14 and 5:15b-58 as weIl as 19:34b-35, 39-40; 20:2-10 and 24-29 are redactional, anti-docetic additions. The so-caIled anti-docetic redactor, who plays an important role in RICHTER'S scheme for the history of the composition of the gospel, was concerned to correct the christology and sacramentalism of the FE in order to respond to a docetic movement which had developed in the johannine community. 155

3. A Samaritan Mission Recent johannine researchers have been intrigued with the possibility that the FE and his community had a special relations hip with the Samaritan region 151 152 153 154 ISS

R. SCHNACKENBURG, Gospel, Vol. I, 169-172. R. BROWN, Gospel, Vol. I, lxxvi-lxxvii. Cf. P. BORGEN, Bread, 148. J. N. SANDERS and B. A. MASTIN, 52. B. LINDARS, Gospel, 61-63. Cf. W. WILKENS, Zeichen, 167-168. G. RICHTER, Fleischwerdung. Cf. IDEM, Strukturbildendes, and IDEM, Präsentische. RICHTER also finds evidence of an anti-baptist polemic: Bist, 13-15, and IDEM, Frage, 309-310. Cf. SCHNACKENBURG, Gospel, Vol. 1,167-169; BROWN, Gospel, Vol. I, lxviiilxx. SCHNACKENBURG earlier assigned a more significant role to the anti-baptist theme: Evangelium. An anti-petrine thesis is offered by G. F. SNYDER.

2430

ROBERT KYSAR

and its people. That intrigue has brought the announcement of a number of theories which claim that the FG had some missional intention regarding the Samaritans. H. ODEBERG had offered such a thesis as early as 1929 as an explanation of chapter 4. J. BOWMAN followed in the late1950s, and more recently the task has been advanced on several fronts. 156 W. MEEKS concluded that the johannine community had drawn a segment of its members from among the Samaritans who shared a common tradition regarding Moses with others in that community. But more recently he has qualified his earlier proposition with the caution that the Samaritans were hardly a dominant factor in the johannine community and that the FE demonstrates little sensitivity to the motifs and concerns of the Samaritan thought. 157 G. W. BUCHANAN is more radical in his appraisal of the evidence. His view is that the FE came from a Samaritan church in which there was a strong anti-Jewish prejudice. He understands the anti-Jewish themes in the book as indications of Samaritan leanings. This is bolstered by other evidence of Samaritan influence, e. g., the prominence of the northern prophets of Israel's his tory , Elijah and Elisha,158 E. FREED builds his case for a similar view on a culmination of evidence and shows how this hypothesis enlightens the eschatology of the FG. The FE was trying to appeal to Samaritans. 159 M.-E. BOISMARD'S study of 3:23 leads hirn to find more prominence for the mission to the Samaritans than chapter 4 alone would suggest. But he does not propose a Samaritan mission as a goal for the gospel as a whole,160 J. PURVIS has scrutinized these theses for a Samaritan mission in the FG and from his examination of the evidence concludes that, rather than a Samaritana mission, the FE was concerned with an anti-Samaritan polemic against a northern, sectarian prophet, a kind of Samaritan magus figure. 161

4. A Universal Appeal to Christians Finally we must note in passing those who affirm the popular point of view that the FG was intended primarily to appeal to Christians out of a multitude of different backgrounds. This view has received the endorsements of the noted scholar, C. K. BARRETT, who understands the many contradictory views of the FE as an attempt to speak meaningfully to all Christians . BARRETT describes the theological method of the FE as dialectical; truth is not singular but paradoxical. To eliminate any one aspect of the evangelist's tenets, contradictory though it

156 157 158 159 160 161

J.

BOWMAN, The Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans. Cf. C. H. H. SCOBIE.

W. MEEKS, Prophet-King, 216-257, 313-319j IOEM, Galileej IOEM, Am 1. Cf. B. P. ROBINSON, and REIM, Studien, 207-209. E. D. FREEO, Samaritan, and IOEM, Did John. M.-E. BOISMARO, Aenon. J. PURVIS, Fourth. For further studies of the Samaritan religion, cf. J. MACDoNALOj J. BOWMAN, Samaritanischej A. BEN-HAYYJMj H. G. KIPPENBERGj J. PURVIS, Samaritanj M. COLLINS, and A. SPIRO.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL: RECENT RESEARCH

2431

may seem, is to miss the whole truth of his view. 162 G. MACRAE has articulated a similar view: The FE wanted to say that Christ transcended all of the things which could be said of hirn. U nder the influence of a hellenistic syncretism the evangelist used a multitude of forms and express ions out of various milieus. The FE did for Christianity what Philo attempted for Judaism. 163 J. SCHNEIDER'S commentary is premised on the assumption that the author of the document wanted to appeal not onIy to persons out of a Jewish but also a hellenistic background. The synthesis which the FE effected was for the purpose of wide appeal. 164 This kind of a view is supported by P. LAMARCHE'S understanding of the prologue of the gospel; the purpose of this introduction, thinks LAMARCHE, is to demonstrate the relevance of Christ for all persons - vs 1-9 are intended for the Gentile nations, while 14-18 for the Jewish nation. R. LONGENECKER likewise believes that the evangelist employed the logos concept deliberately to provide a 'terminological bridge' between persons of hellenistic and Jewish origins.1 65 BROWN refutes the proposals that the FE was interested in conversions only among Jews of the dispersion by citing passages such as 1:9,29 and 12:35. The FE is interested not just in Jews, but in Christian believers of all heritages. 166 Of these options for the Sitz im Leben of the FG it is clear that the proposal of a synagogue dialogue attracts to itself the greatest support. Not only has MARTYN'S hypothesis received persuasive confirmation from many different corners of FG criticism, but it also has been the focus of some of the most enlightening scholarship at least in the most re cent decade. This proposal that the johannine community was locked in a struggle with the local synagogue(s) with both factions fighting for their own identity seems to me the most convincing. It lights up many aspects of the gospel, e. g., the apparent anti-Jewish character of the document. The impressive thing about this proposal is that it explains for us both sides of the puzzling J ewish question in the book. While the FG is openly anti-Jewish at any number of points, it is obvious that its roots are clearly Jewish. MARTYN'S thesis elucidates both sides of this coin in a way none of the other proposals do. The implications and refinements of this proposed setting for the gospel must be further worked out, but it will be at the center of johannine Sitz im Leben research for some time. On the other hand, the anti-docetic features of the gospel cannot be denied and cannot easily be explained at present on the basis of MARTYN'S proposal. Yet if the preponderance of FG research is correct in contending that the document went through a process of composition before re ac hing its present form, it may weIl be that those anti-docetic features are best attributed to a later stage of composition. BROWN and others are correct in assessing the minor role played by this anti-docetic corrective. Therefore, we can at least tentatively hold that those

163

C. K. BARRETT, Gospel of John and Judaism, 70-76. Cf. G. MACRAE, Fourth.

16~

J.

162

SCHNEIDERS,

36-37.

147. Gospel, Vol. I, lxxvii-lxxviii.

165 R. LONGENECKER, 166 R. BROWN,

IDEM,

Dialectical.

2432

ROBERT KYSAR

features came into our gospel by a means of redactional process later in its life, perhaps at a stage which brings us dose to the Sitz im Leben of the johannine epistles. Regarding the universal appeal and the Samaritan mission proposals, we suggest that the evidence which elicits these hypotheses is better explained as part of the syncretistic intellectual setting of the gospel. That is to say, the reason it appears to have concern for a Samaritan mission and for an appeal to persons of various backgrounds is that the thought of the gospel rests in a Judaism which was not homogeneous and exclusively rabbinic in nature. There were doubtless features of this syncretistic Judaism which were from a northern, Samaritan influence. Similarly, johannine Judaism was not pure of hellenistic influences; hence, the FG seems to reflect an interest in the Greeks because of the hellenistic colorings of the Judaism that effected it. Such a view of the intellectual and the real-life settings of the FG lock together to form a comprehensive and elucidating whole, the results of which give us some significant handles on the historical problems surrounding this puzzling gospel. But they open up still another question upon which we must touch briefly, namely, the history of the johannine community.

C. History of the Johannine Community The efforts to resolve the history of the composition along with the analysis of the Sitz im Leben of the FG pose the question of the his tory of that community responsible for the document. A reconstruction of that his tory is intended to shed light upon a number of other issues. For instance, how is it that the FG articulates such an unusual christology - the son of God from above? Or, how is it that it teaches side by side the dogma of the presence of the eschatological blessings in the life of the believer and the hope of the realization of those blessings yet in the future? An outline of the history of this community may, it is hoped by some, resolve a few of the questions of the peculiarities of the FG. Such outlines are posited in each case upon other proposals concerning both the his tory of the composition of the gospel and its setting - both intellectual and concrete; hence, each outline is a structure founded in the not yet quite dry concrete of other hypotheses. Before we examine those proposed histories of the community, however, it is important to notice a study which attempts to define the nature of that community. A. CULPEPPER proposes that it was essentially a <schoo!'. He examines the characteristics of the ancient schools in the Greco-Roman world, and then demonstrates that many of those characteristics are discernible in the community behind the FG. The ancient schools, for instance, held in reverence a figure of the past who was responsible for founding the school. In the FG there is indication that the BD was regarded in just such a way. On the basis of aseries of characteristics such as this, CULPEPPER believes we are justified in saying that the community behind the FG was a school in this ancient sense. Hence, with such an understanding we are able to discern the peculiar role of this allusive figure, the BD, and to comprehend how it might have been possible for the

THE FOURTH GOSPEL: RECENT RESEARCH

2433

community to preserve tradition through the years before the production of the FG. The efforts to reconstruct a his tory of the johannine community include three major proposals, all within the most recent years. Two of these may be summarized by means of describing the pivotal stages through which the community went: The first of these is the effort of J. L. MARTYN to flesh out his proposal for the Sitz im Leben of the FG with the meat of history. MARTYN finds three distinct stages in the history of the community: a. The Early Period (c. 40-85). The beginnings of the johannine community were among Christian Jews living in the synagogue, harmonious with their Jewish traditions. Jesus was understood simply in terms of Jewish messianic expectations. The johannine materials were shaped into homilies during this period and eventually into a kind of rudimentary gospel, perhaps similar to the <Signs Gospel' proposed by R. FORTNA. That the BD was a historical figure in this period is mentioned as a possibility. b. The Middle Period. Tensions developed between this group of Christian Jews and the synagogue as a whole. Two traumas occurred: First, the benediction against the Minim was introduced with the result that some of these persons retreated from their overt confessions of the Christian faith in order to preserve their place in the synagogue, while others who were persistent in their profession were alienated from the synagogue, becoming what MARTYN calls, J ewish Christians. Second, some of the johannine Christians were tried and executed. The consequence of this tragedy was the emergence of the radical christology of the FG - Christ as one from above, the Stranger in this world - and the sharp divison of the community from the <world' and the ] ews'. c. The Late Period. This was the period of the refinement of the identity of the community in relation to other Christian communities. In effect, MARTYN thinks there was concern for