tesrnm OCX 'onal~' PfO''eO 10 be _ 'nl}' kor lhe b\O\IlidIs(s pr=ntat1ot> of his 11wme: bIn thI$. cb~IcalI!.. Is often la ..ch • " 'ay th.t the Y-'oi... " 'ha ore distinguished &om the .,1:.10< [Cf'h """pie. 01 7..&ai.. dors nol mate 10 the ~plric:ot ..ate or the )ewUh bll' fO 11> .-eTY oalu~. ,.

'H

Into the Gos~J. I1 has done so only Oe.:tlngly;'· 1115 cenainly not ,uffictenlly PCf'l'a:;i,'C 10 account for the contlnuw enmity and distrust of the ennaelisl lo"'~rds those he call$ ... 70'&"01, But if theM' 1"',0 solution. are rej«ted. and we rondllde that tbe h , 6-.;o< cannot be straightforwardly IdcnU.6ed eiu...r with the lew~ authorities Of wllh the people of Judaea. what is Ihe a1lemkli,'C? Thougl\ for the moment the WlSw...- to thi5 question muS! be drf"rlud. It III possible to Slate one COndition !ha! any a nswer must satisfy: It must take acrounl of the spfdlkaU}' religiollS Dal~ of the antagonism between jC$\ls and the J~'11n the Fourth Gospel. (Ha,inS ....jected the .... ndenng ')lldacaus', we may now MUm 10

the more generally 8Cttp1ed 'Iev.')'.) Jestl$ IIImsclf. of coune. 1'0''''' a le... and In gMllg him the lide 'King of the Jews' 100 Gospel is appealing 10 one of the best·aneslcd SlorIe; in the ,,-hole rraditiOll. Bill when. as hU1'P"l1 lime and time agaln, he explicitly or implicitly diwxia~ himself from the lews whom he Is addressing.' J be spoeak. as I.he reprrsr:nlatlve. It I, falr 10 ,..y. of the community wb.ich acknowledge$ b.im as Its founder Ind head. And the opposition of tb.i. commun ity to the )e\\'1 . that senn of total alienation whkh permeates the pages of the Gospel. has quile c!<.arlj· a religious Inspiration. Whate1.'eT the Influence of loclll rivalries (and o!.>,;oush' the mistrust and hOStility of the Samaritans III lea st h"" a long history) the essentially relliio us ch •• ructer of rhe Gospel's anti-Jewish bias is lot$Capable.

(c)

Ral.

This mcans that Ihe question of the rol. of the Jews. th eir !unclion wilhin Ihe book. clln ~ IInJ\\..,red wllh relalh'e ell .... No on e h as ansYo'ered this question more brilliantly or telllnllli' than Rudolf Buhmann:

no.

Icrm .. ' ""'"-1... eban.ctortilk III the E\-'ai\IC'lIoI. 11""" an "'~u pottt aral oflll<> ,'1c,,,.. 0 Gftd: ",,,,,,,,,,- but .... aDd lDdcaI ""I~'

' ' ' .5.

s.. .....

a.

, . )i00i oil.."...,. la "'" 1~1lo it t • 1 In l' ~J -J~, 0.. " AI In "'" pbruo 'la)'i1III' low'. 8: 1To .0: ].11'.1. lh< Iow'~ 1ur kMof!be Jno~' (1' ']: '9' ]1: ' 0: 19= d. ,: nl.

n"-,,

pto,....

To its n~ tu re, yes. or rather essence (W.sm). since Ihe ~tial role or !he lews in lhe fourth GospeJ Is to re-p=1 and symbolize human obduracy and Inromprehtnsloo whcn confronled with lhe re,..,lalion ofJC5\Is. ThaI the mle of the J~w' Is as Bullmann de!iClibes I1 is ~Iy ~yood KOOW dispute, (d)

T/", q .....
Yet over thls elegunt exegesis hovers a historical question of some Im porta nce, whlrh Bultmann does nOl even begin 10 lado:k. Why doe. the cva ngelist pick on the Jews to play Ih(s pan' " Who can these Jew. ~ thal he loathes them so Intensely ? For It 15 nO! just the Jewish a ut horities who ~ltruct his Ire. !f h e bud wished to d" so he I;' cou ld ha,'e followoo Sy noptic u$age In putt ing most of the blame upon the Scri bes and Phari!iCeS or the chief priests. or altemati"ely have made mO~ use of the colourless word 0,1:.\0< ('crowd' ) -wbich he does in fact ~mplo)' Q score of times. It Is a surprisin g fact tbat Ihe only o"erlap between the Johannlne and the Synoptic usc of The word 'Jews' ;5 10 ~ found In the mle 'Klng of the Jews' in the passion narrnlh'e , Only once, IIlOfeOI·er. In Matt. l.M: I5. does the "-01-.1 correspond to the Iypicallohannine usage. IIomhiiusu. speaking of what he calls 'the Innennost circle of the Joha nni"" Jews'. :;ays that Ii .. rompow;d of !he leading Jews In Jcrusakm.: 'they ;rn, rite men '. PI' 86 [

" so. ~ who .,..... wtth .....

~

P. .. 6.

01 "'" _ IN. "'" It-.. _

""",,"Of

_*,

BlII ......... •• Ift\011II . - "'"' !be jowl .... tM In Iu to God. _ 'b 10. ~- .... rquallF ~ .. 1>0 ".. ,,!he:"'-'. ~ Chun:h·.

",

R, Jigwus

Gt ......sis

whom the S)'nopt1sts call "'-~

YI"'I,!'u.i,: LI !kit why then does not John sImply taU 0\'''- tlili; terminoloaY and speak hlrru;o,lf of ScrIbes and l'barlsees? Bornhii~ does no( answer Ihls quesrim.. 0.e.en ask IL Who. then. ""' the J~ of the founh Co(.sptV ,\ Iust ..~ identify

("I 'Equal \lith God· IIut J~s aRnl"
resonan~.

Certainly then: is no rilld distinction between the denotation of the Iwo terms. In John It.: l those who threaten 10 npd the disciples from the SYllagogue can be no otmr than the Jewish a UlhorltiC$. Rut the characteristic object of JeWish Venum in the Gospel Is nol the Cl>IIlIIlUnil)' as such but Jesus himself, always In C(lnnectlon with his spec ial revelation. In on!~r 10 delcnnlnc more precisely the Issues In dispute between Jesus and the Jews , and Ihe~b)' posslbly to find funher dues 10 their ldelllily, we need 10 look In some de"'il at the passages In which the spccilically relilP""s ilr1umem hct"..,.;:n the IWO parties is 11\05\ fully deployed. 1'hcrc 8l'e Ihm:: passaltes in the fiN half of the Gospel In whicb the anlagonism of the J~ reacbes munkrous proportlons:" and our ..en task Is 10 aamine these In the hope of sha~1t nur

" .. ~..

Anyone famUlar wltb the Fourth Gospel knows that the discourse folloWing the healilll "f the cripple In chapter 5 Is one of il5 high polnlJ, But Its vcry familiarity is liable \0 obscure the fact that nothlnKln the first four chapters (except perhaps the Prologue) has p~pared Ihe reader either for Ihe staggering boldnen ofJesu" claim or the murderous h""tility wlth whi~h ill s g=!ed: ·Tblll why

"'a>

the Jews !IOught uJJ rM mDre (poiUo.) 10 kmhlm· - yet thl.1s li!tjirsr IImt In the Gospel that tbey """ report..! 10 sctk hili dellth. '0 Wh)' then the I'a,u.,..' And why, indeed, Is Jesus ~hOUKhl to !Jo, clalminll equaUly ,,·ilh God simply becal15e he calls him fa~r? It is true thal the e-,·""gdist bas already OOntmenled. In two closely related PassalCS, upon the rok oflheonly Son of God· {.I [...0 •....,... ...;<1 ""k, j : t 6 - 1 1. 1 I -{,); but thesr are the oommenl$ of a \'Ilia:: offstall'. aud are IlO m"", integrated into the stoly of Jesus' dealings

1otfI. "" UO B-

tin .. "'" of _ I b < .BnV 11 tolb< Jrw( dtllIb<..-. ~ to ...... hinl l""'I_ .. JO. oo

« : t : "'Il~ 10: l"I"

" H~ ' " ~7"

h oflb In qu_ ...... Sfc E. I13mmel.. '-Jolm did no ml, .... ···• p. I ~7. Th. diIkr= bn ...un ,Il00 ',",'0 Ill"'" 01" cIeba,. ..1U b< m<>
_,os.

&I'''''

'37

undemanding or what c.ausnl. the Bnal breakdown In commuoicalion between the 1OI10\\"crs 0( Jesus and those the)' call the le .."$. These passa,e oa:ur in chapten 5. 8, and 10. and. dlsint=rcd b)'Slander ..itnesslnK any....., of these debaltS mlght weD feel thal be had dropped In on one of those fierce famU~' TO" "S (famll)', as It happens. Is a eelllral issue In the s«ond of these confrontations) which so astonish tbe outsider by their \'chem~nce and blttcmess.. Only the ren",,\lon that the real reasons for thIs bewildcrlng l1rulenee must lie bun..! in a ['ast known onl}' 10 Im jl3rtldpanl. allow! him a glimmer of understanding.

K II'

them \\ilb the Jewish nation as a wholt. in judaca and thedlaspora? In "ie", of tile essentially religious nature of the dispute thIs would S«It1 10 be tOO drastlc a ..mution; besides. it overlooks the peculiarly Jewish character of the e"aogelist's own Ideas. It \s doubtful whether H fully smisfuctory answer If) this pw;zlc can be fuuud Within the pases of the Gospel ilsdI. What is requlrr:d, It .seems. Is e,.ldcnCf' of the UK' of the word 'Iews' to refer 10 a particular religiOUS groupnot \0 be lden@ed /.OUI rourt wilh lhe Pharlsees- .... hlch might plausibly be regarded as the chier target of the c"aDgellst"s resentment. [\ should be obsen-ed that wben he comes 10 treat spmJlcaUy of the en...,.~ of the rornmunily, as ~ does In Ihe f~weU discounes, chapten 14-1 7 , he avoids the won!'Jt\\"I' ~1t~I~r. su"'muUnK the word ..... _ (world), which has ob\1ously a \'ny dift'~t

,

DUst",

I

"1th the Jews than the ProIOltuc is. Mort'Ov~r, In Ihe pre«ding ChaPI~r (ch, 4) ·Father' is simply an alternative name fur God. ThaI God WIIS Indeed the father
,nil Jirr.","", ton.;...,

'''''lludo> 10 1,,~.I1m'.

CM. ' - 4 . 0<1

wnot

I0Il0 .... , ...

t . J.

A. H ld li"i.

~60

Rdigiolll illwm

'3'

Jewish tradltlon; 'SOIlS of God' is a regular way of s~akin& or /.snel!l 8Jld a link further on the Je\\'S themselves \\111 assen mm God aud God alone Is their £atl= (s: 41 ). \Vb>', tMn. sbouId this _mlngl)' Innocent remad:. ':\ly fmMf is working still. and I urn ,,-O!klng', pr«lpil81e :RIch Implacable rage; To IIIl5wer thl. '1urstion \\-~ rnU5l fim. elllmw IIow this link p.i$$8ge jS: I? is ...,lalrd 10 what comes before and after It Closd.y connected liS It Is ",lIh the miracle story. wfeaR easily $a! that I1 has been grafu~d on to this .ubsnjuendy by the cI'angellst. 1' The 6rnt qunrrd of the Jew. Is with the cripple hlmself. who brew the law by carr)'inl his p~Uel on the sabbath (I'. 10). HII! complaint is then Iral1~rcm:d to Jesus. who 1< rracko:! down II for hal1ng JlI'1"formed an act of healing on the sabbath (I', 161. In hls ...,ply. ho,,'C,',-cr. Jesus shows no Interest In Ibis cbarge: he simP!l' declares. 'My father is working stilI. and I am working' h', '7): and It ;$ this declaration "'hkh Ihe Je",s sec as .. claim ID rqualiry "1th God and consequently 3$ a reasoD tor ba,int him kilkd. Tb~ lit=l!y ..·eld!ntls particularly cle~er, beeau$O! these transitional ,·enes also sen·e as OU\ anticipalOlV summar)" of th~ ""Bument lhal Is about 10 follo"·-I profound dt1ni1td juSlllicalioo of I.";,,,,· claim. His Sttmln&ly simple "·ords art IIlu5 loaded ",ith meaning. and bis MMm rnpond 10 lill Ibey Imply. One mlthl allTKlSt say Ih31 on Jesus· lips the name ·Father' contains in nllCt the ",hole of Ibe e,'angrlist's christology.'~ Thus the proper

f.,

and

t""".

" •. 1.. ·Stlol'od .... tb" tb~ .... ""tIod _ , '" C".Wr"Ic ond dozcru '" Ill"'" Inll"","" In hI> ortlcl<. ·lJie &..1 "'" con\M1 ( lhl _ tb< ""'" .. ~ !hi< is ~ ""' .. hI)" rnodibtloa ddpoood '" pen- tile for 'htal)" 11 '" be Iouad III 7' '~->oI- ..hid!.. as .. 0Dd0. cw-..,. m. ""'an oIremMI....•..111 cl"'lI .,....1<. '-'n ,he impI"""bIt lII!'P«Illlotl Ill., "'" entI ..... _d",f'Il ~.bw1 "", .. _b 101' 1o"!lOll. OH S. p_..", Lr.<.

____

s:

,.,!

It

."T

pp.,..,t6:$ ~ -6.

-

r_

, ' ..........1.. IRoSY) " «<WnI). d>< ....""'I ""......... of "'".... le , .. ,6. A. ~ Uan"<)' ........ Ih .. 111< ph.....",! .. GIo.Oo >hoW. bo rmdmd .. tIIt)...... [<111 'Q brloa o oh.~ ....10" ~I", · Ut"" "" f rio/. pp. ~o IL ODd nn. " f.). Thl> ....r ... rI&h' bu, n<,J ~" ,,"'" IIlrn dowo· is
·'i>rl ...

'"

context of this fI~ rqx>rt of the leW!" determ(nallon 10 ..., Jesus dead. the only one Ibat gh·e! il any rea( Imelli&lbllity. Is th~ whole of the debate. 0 ....· shmed in .-amt$1, bet\\'een the two "·arring sections within Ille Jewish eommunily: the dbdples of Jesu~ and !lis enemies. Espo:cl~Uy out~·onh)' is Ih~ sIdlful use made by the rvanKdist of ,lie lhem~ healing on tbe ~abbalh. In a weU·known S)"Iloplic Jaylng (Mark ): 4 par.) I"'us a5"s. 'Is 11 la",ful to Ileal on the sabbath?'. bUI reed"", no ~ly. Another stury. associa ted with ,Ills. concludes wilh his ~sserti(m. ·The sabbath WlIS m!,d" for man. not mHn for tile sabbath' (Mark 2: 2 7 par.~. Bm lolln, IInUke his source. is no !otlil-er lm.re,ted in Ibis kind of legal debate. QUe!tlon. of 115" halll.kah Ihat still occupy the Synoplhlll. ".Qfl)' Puut. "nd absom Ibe rabbls, art' totally I"1!mote [mm !lis concern. fur him the sabbath healing l:s Just It Slepping·smne m the affillllallon of lesus" dj'1n;ly. In maklnl the trallldtion from one theme to the other he calls 8nentloo. Odeberi poims out, to Ihe acnptt\l trulh Ibat. ,,·bert'll"i God hlms.elf 00' · 1\.e! the sabbath In .espeC! of the physiclll creation, he Dt\·er relaxes Ut all from bis ..-urk of Judgement u .... ccordingly. the concluslon of 1'. 17 suggests 'lbat lesus )tWHis in the sa.me relatlon m the Sabbath as God and Is contlnuaUy aClh'e In the same ...ork .,' u( Judgement'.26 Thi •. uf course. Is one of the two kinds of ... ork re:sen·ed for the rreatur alon~ (the olher being the besto ... al uf IIfel that are singled out in the discourse th~l (uUuws . ImpUcitly. Ihen. Jesus Is a_ning that he has perfonned a healing miracle on Ihe s~bbath because God. a. h i. Falher, Is usoclallng him ,,·,th a ...ork th at Is properly dil'ine. Consequently his ... ords coru;tilut~ a claim to equality with God. and the enra8ed ~actJon oflh( Jcws is full)' cumPll'beru;ible. l'he question that nol\' arises Is how Jesus' claim l:s tu be explain..!. a8alnSl the background (If IirSl<emury Je ... lsh rellgIou, beOefs. 1:10"' could a man. and a lew al that, pMSibly dalm dl\'lne statu...' 11 will " M,,., cid>< ...... _ ..,.,.,u "'" bftn ooocmbkd bjr Stnod._M b, IIib In ,he wft! 1Uib _ _ BuIImom! Ip. l~ 6 n. J' _ . raruobi< .. kn..,.. to Er- "till . .. 0. tn ID)" opiDIooI "'" 1_ CO<Mi«!loton
or

,b., _

w.,.,..

up"" I>M
r bI ..ph.""",>ly d.ilb<"d dh1o ....,,'" Iti=!. ~ebII,hodn<mr. PIIa"""' .• "~ r()O>h I. Ch"", .• 4' 17). IiKh pall! th< pmallJ' for hi< " p.

'"1.

1-

elf"""",. toy bril,. O<>domh<-d~

'" not do

appeal 10 I'au!. e,'en though h~ m~kC5 Ilmlla. claims (or Christ. fOT ther.. \5 no trace of hiS lnfIuence hen', As for the S)."Jloplic tradition. it 100 makes $I1'Ong claims for Jesus ($OUlI! of thr strongest I<>

put in tlw: mouths of de'1ls: Mark t: 24: J: t I: 5: 7). but not in ways !hal ha,'., discernibly lIII'ected John. And certainly ther.. is no help \0 be iound In the plctUrI: of purt and unsullied monothrism painlft! !Or us in aD the ·orthodo~· je
akin \0 a ramll), row. In which any ~of~dliallon

has already ''anl$hed and the situation is one 01"101& deadlock. Jesus" subsequent aparuloo of his mnark$ comain, no hint tbat M might be preparaI \0 modify hII claims, 10 couch them In less 011'''051\'''

or e\'eJ110 explain his

a~nl

bi;uphroiy In the face of the JrlOOS' umlerstand.:lbLe outrage.:'!'or their pan. instead orreq~ng an ap!anatlon. the Jews hne .I«,ad), deiermlned that Jesus must die. Trn, dispute Is conducted ~ 10 the borders ofa shared faith In whlch both partlts had laid elaim 10 the nclus[,.., I"""""'ion of the tnllh-a classic Instance of odium [/!(o/qlk'um. thou'" not """ that the c.angelJSt'f absolule partlallty allow5 Mm 10 aci;.nowledge. Bu[ by this tim e J<":SUs and his foUo" 'ers had alt'ead)' crossed the frontier of the faith they once s.harcd with the Jews, and they \\'ould ne;-er return. The Irrel'ocahle step had been taken, Ihe "Itimale blasphem}' ull..-ed}" On Ihe story 1e\·cI. the Jews' detennlnatlon to &ee Jesus dead has the elred of drawtng up the battle lines, not merely for all thal follows (d. Murk J: 6). bUI a lSll relrospectlvely (by Ihe ~llo.) for all [hal prcctdes. SymboUcally, Ihe separaUon of rhe /ohannine community (und. mONl generally. of Chrisllanlt)' from Judaisml is already assured, The exp lan atio n. Ihen. for the abruptness of the death I~at is that it reflects the a nger of lhe Jewish establishment at the el'l'rolllery of the /ohillWlne gl'aup within lIS ranks. John', earlir:st !'I!adtrs will ha;-e readily det«1ed the reference to a halred whose dI'= they had recently endured them.seh·n: but the natu...: of the gospel iarm is such tha[ this experience can only be alll.lded 10 obliquely by the t=n$,

evangelist, wIlb lol. <10 """" ........ /le Ajo,,1hfi ", s; ,;- jO K .............. e\1dtQ, dill. In Il1o 0;11 .... d Il1o ","pI'. _, .. oi.:q, '" jnIisb ri<ws. on,...,...., .... Gal hII Faw. mMts '*-If (IIIU'lI '" God' I"'" _ d "

RtligJous Dust'"

C~II~$IS

I'
r"'...... _

God'. P. , ~aL " ''111Il10 .... oInpd OUI \If ,...... ~ in Ill. I ,. -..... 'We bo", • !or. IUId br
w. ~-. ""'",1110 .......... P. 59-

(b)

·G ....arn-

[h~11

'4'

Abralwnr'

frsus oakI to them. inlly.IrIIi)'. I MY to )W, ~ Abnohom was, Tam_' So th~ t""Ir: up st"" .. [0 throw a, hlln. (S, Sll-<j) In some respectS chapter 8 is a raj-b.a,. EI'en after excluding I"" inaulhemlc Slory of the woman ,aken In adulttTy, Bullman n splits!t imo kn fragments. a couple of them no longer than nne verse apiece. and SClIlters them UbenJly around lSO paaes o[ his COmmentary. '!be shan sal'in.lIth~t ((lnl('I'$ us here concludes a long section (8: J 1- 591 lumped togdher by 1Iroo<'Il under the unprommng title ':\lIsl:eIIaneow cllicourses·-tbou", lain he changrs Ills mind and speaks of 'a ratber bomDltentOUS disoou.r$e'.19 Homogeneous il is not. a llhough much il is loosely !:led toget""r by a single SDing- the name of "braham (whIch does nOl 6glll'l! ebrwbert in the Gospel/. This exceptionally bitter debate ends in ,'Ioleo~. Alter el:changing angry words fO£ SlIme time the fews turn from Insults 10 inju!),. a nd slan ID pick up stones 10 huri at Jesw. To his final decLaration this Is the onl}' reply they hal'e left: ill COllU1ll:ntators agr"", it is thcir response to blllSjlhemy, On~ ~gain It Is right [0 underline the peculiarly JewIsh c haracter of Jesus' cl aim: 'Before "bra ham W85. I am.' In e;'cry case. .tranges! and clcarest of Jesus' K lf-m'dalory u llernn=. those which Immedlatel)' elici t the standard response to blasphemy. hal'e an unrnlSlakably Jewish ring: they are Illade from within the Je,,~.b tradltlon ~nd faunO! lit upl~ll!fd In arl!! o[ her "'Ill!. SLlltmann [ilils to give this sayin& af Jesus due weighl: he treats it as ~ simple Dssentoll of pre.el1nence. JO or COlInt! it Is that, but it is

or

t""

.. p. J6, for DoOd!\ Is .he....".th onO loll 0(,,," ....... of dlol<:>8 .... whloI ",1< d ,,," 10•. art ""tilled to 1 _ "'" ~. !J:r Il1o In.... _ cC "" IBIqnl "'~ (Cf. H. £. Woo, Ah"","" Jr,) Manyn. Gar!>'! eII<\..,;1' IS, JIl .... -----1I>1'nae. SI ......... p. ' ''' """ DOUL) I'
/or,.......

dIa""....

11""'" ___

__ _ .... ..,.. .:,.. In .: 'i'. For If Il1o I."., .......... "',.~ ... perapbn.orof"'" a:

1..I . ~'·.beclollllo. "o(.~_t' '''

on

.... ~ For on.....-' 551-, dlhe _ _ '1:rn• ...,b._ P_ 11.. H....,.. n..1 AlII'" lilt f _ c..,.I.

."

'"

much more~. Jews Is aJi&!ling himsrLf ,,'illI • .od IU IbIS point. laying a claim 10 di\'lnily 1II(1n9$/ok mat of the rather. llut If so, how is tilt daim bring prt$Sedr "The general amst1lSUS', acconlln8 10

srrongly. In " ,hal rollo",s. Abraham 1s]l
Odcbrrg. favours 8n Intentional ;tlluslon to the divine J!!J!£1e. '[ am , ...- ..

he' (}(1;"1 '11'1: ). On tile lace 01 I1 Ihls Is " Slrulghtforward equlvabu of ') urn Yahwch', Odd",r& objects to Ihls sotution,rhot ' K1;,\ '11'1: as a solemn d..,lamtion by Jcsus would equal "I am God" or "I Wll the Father", ~ declaratlon (hal ls dearly oUl on~ng ..1111 Ihe general mrillll of 1=' ..,If-predlcath~ utterat>tt:'l· ... RIUher than in the le\,' 'ne . wggrsts ~. the Ilnk Is 10 ~ found 'un the side of '':'1< ;'";'1( P am am'l.l.e. in rhe speculations C''OI"ftI from f.xod. \:, 1,4.". Jl Bulnnann coun!".,; this by saying that J~' statement would then mean '[ am the "'-am'··. the iyW being both suhject ~nd prrdkate. Bm Ihls Is not necessary', prOVided Iha! the l')'w oil" be (a1:CD simply as an «ha of the dj .1nl' !'e'.'c!ation. Odeberg ciles us ~ parallel the enigmatic 6gure of Mctatron. of whom I! Is said. 'Hc (Cod) called me the little (lesser) Yahweh' (j En«h 11: Si. This !eX! is closely paralleled by a passage from anOll= important pseudepigraphica] ""ritinll. Tht ApDts/!lf'Ko/ AbrahIrm. roughly contemporary 'rith the Fourth Gospel. 11115 documenl merits cardul con$lderation." The pru;.$3g< that concerns LIS [cm. 9 - 10) lQIkm.·s an imrnductory sectkln where wc arc told how Abm!!am first sees a number of idols destrc}'ed in Ihe hou:;e of his father Temh. and then watches as the house is struck by IiMhtnlng aDd burnt to the ground. Abrahiilll hlm$elf is san,d from destrucllon b}' the di=1 Imen'cnUDn of God. Knowing that Abraham 15 lIcnuind}' soekinll for the truc God. ·the God of l\ods.. tM Cll'ator". hc calll; down from the hea'"ens in a ~trcam offirt. and says'l am hc' 18: j). Then lit ICUs h im 10 Ica,'c the hQuso, .., as 10 a"old beI"ll kllled. AIle.-lllis God sptaU 10 t\brahillD again: ·Behold. It Is I. f ellr not. £or 1 am Before..the-World and Mighty. the God who crcaled prevlousl}'. before the light of the ~~c. I am the prot«lor for you. aDd )"Our helper' 19' ':-31. In all the .. introductory dedurallons the characteristic .. If·proclamallons of God ('1 am .. .'J COnIC Ihrough

.,...,K

,,'00

And U cam. to pa" thal "'hen I heard the ....lce pn)Qounclng such ",arm 10 me that I looked ,his w8y and that. ADd behold there WM. nu br~.th Df <no". An d my 'pirit w •• ~ma..,d . • nd m} ""ul tled from m•. ,\nd 1 became Ilk. u .. ""~, and f.1I foco do ... n ~PO<\ Ihe .arth. for the ... wn no Iong.r iI... nglh (n m. 10 stand up on Ihe .nlh. And whll<: I l.-al still rlcc do... n on th. around. I heard tilt I'Oice spealdni. ·Go. }'..".J ~I (Ill m ..... th"""fh llIt....o.lim Dj "'!I botffido!< ......... mn ..:"". this man band >lruo.sth." him .pi.... Iris ITCmblin,: The an..,! h • .or'" 10 me ill rltt hl:r_ Dj. ""'" Iq: Dom. i' 'Jjcame. and h. ,oot me br my ri&ht hand andllood meon my 6ett, And he said In ..... 'Stand up. Abraham foinld 01 Cnd "'hn hulovtd )'0\1. lot human ~mblin, not MFoid you! For 1o! ! "'" sent to }"OU ID .u.n~th.n you and '" bl~ you In the n.1me Df God. =at .... of h..a,..,n ly ~nd earthl), ,hlng •. who ha! lo"O!'d you, & bold and h~I"n to him. I om }'Q""/, and I ...... raIled so by him who CiWlt'S Ih"'" "1tb me on Ih. ",,·.nth t~pa",e. nn the f.rm"",,,m. le >hak •• « p""~r lh""'lll, th, oo",:II"m of hi, l...g,,& ... iIImit in ....., J .m th. onc who ha. been dlarged ",~Ini'o his

_it=

" p_ J'O_

" p. lO!!. lb:: It:! . . ..-.I..u or If>< p/Iral:< .,;.- ~-; " ,.. ....... I.,.;. .... ..-wl4 110<... to<..,.. ":lIlt a.":1I '"l~" (p. J<>!I~ "n... UT """"........... I. ~s • • ;oS: .. ~ ,o-an<Wkon ..... In~ ~ ~ ~~ cr. Go ow.
-

.. et n..-Ga!pdofrn.:.r.. J8:"1hr ,*""or..,. r.uh<1- II .... s.n·' 1 _ I... IL ' -" So

./(tliglous DUunt

'"

~Iected as blasph~mow; in John 8: 59, Segal hlnmlf concludes thal in Sj:Jlle of the compar.tth'ely lat~ dale Q( this talmudlc passage (third

rornmand ..... nL to restrain Ih< thuats 01 the th1n1l cre&lu"" of the chfrublm "alM one anolber. nd [ Lt""h lbofe ...ho Wt1 the iO£lf, throu&b the mtdium of """,·s nl&hl of the ....-emil hour. I am 11''I,oIl11ed to hold the t.t.1a1h1lIlS. beca_ dtrou&h me Is .ubjuplfd the attack and mm.a cl ""'CfY I'C'I'III•. I am ~ (0 1oo12n Had", and 10 dc.uoy tbosc ",oo..-ondrrM It the dead [ am th<: <>De who (A 6e.eJ your f.lh..... house to be bllmtd "1111 him. for be honoured ,h. dud . I .'" 1t.1 ID """ now to bkss )'0<1 and the land "'hiell he whorn you h..'. caHed the Elemlll On. h", prepared for you. f'e, !lOur ..... I hil,y [mira,ft! tilt ~"Y of rh, l.rtJ 1<1. [zed. ~J' ~QI.J. St.no up, Ahraham, i
century) 'the tradiUoo must be based on oidft' rndltions in apocalyptic or proto-.\Ierkabah DJ' proto-gnost!c tellS "'h«e: the jlrindpal angel bas • theopbDlic name' (such", the one from the Apocalyps.e of Abl'llholn wc have jUllI been considering), The scriptural pa5Silge taken i>}' R, Idl to indicate Mctatron (, My name is In him.' -uod, 1..1: 1. 11 may also lie behlnd John 17: I If,: 'Keep them (.... I kepi them) in the name which you ga\'C me; that n .. me which belong. of right 10 God alone and Is In Itsclfthe e:
of his Il'\'e(atlon. It is

If,...

Ko", e\'en could ~ sure Ihal this text "'as (ompc -d brilre Ihe fourth Gospel (aDd this '" not cntainl. There Is no qUr$tlon of MIllIng to a dinct (!cht, But IM parallels iIn' none the Irss hi&bly

suggeslh-e. Two funhn pI= of e\'idma tnld tQ support the .'Ie'" thal the IoImh evangdlst was InHumttd by the Idu ofa =ealcr-6gure ""Ill by God and endowed with the authooly of hI! name, The fir$( I~ In a passage from the llabylonlan Talmud qu.xcd by AlM Segal: R, I'ahman said, 'He who I< as ",HI..! in r..tllUn& Ihe Minim., I. R, ldi, le{ him d~ so: J>u! nOt OIherwi«': [)nce . Mi" SKid to R, Id!: 'It I. wriU~n, .1l1li ""le ,\/osn Hr J«id: (""" "I' ,s". LmllEl:, ~4: ,). lIut su~ly It mould ha". stated, c.m.. "p 10 ....f ~ 'h "'OS ~1 .. alro'" he ",plied. "'hOS<' name Is .;milar to Iha! d his ~I~st..-, for il I. written, For ,\ fy _ Is In IIIm (£I, "3: Zl~ 'But If.." we stwuld "'~ hlmr"

'0

Exodus 14: 1 Is a notorious crur. wby should God say to ,\10=, 'Come up 10 Yahweh' ratbrr than 'Come up to me', It I, one a Christian or GlI06Iic might ,,-d] seizeon.ln bls rtply R, Idl..w. ,'ery dose to the "ind by alluding to Metatroo. wbose pCl:t5 ion or the divine name SNmS to the b=tk, not surprlslngly, 0 sufficient reason for ,,'orshipping him, R, ldi aoes on to refule this rondUllioo ..1th further 2111"meol. based on the sallle text: but Ills nol difficull to detect In this contr,wersy a claim rtmarkAbty similar to the one " Two j'o>wt" 1. H Sqta!', collKtlon 01' .... )1 , 'Iudal..", Crub,I.,,;I)' .. \
1.1-5

.,

"Lso::,:;;;~~~:;~,:,~;,

name. 'Ihe lesser Yahw~h' , This is.l El1OI:h, or sixth «'IIIW')' by Philip AlcxOIllder OIlld the Qoly psetldeplgnophon 10 ha,'e been IranJmin ed by the rabbis.. .1 Enorh 11.: 5, the teJ:t qUOled by Odebel1l. testllk!; ID the ptr.;islence of a strange It'aditlon .urvil.ing 00 the 1iin&<'!I of Jud;ili;m. acconIin& to which the halLowed n;uno,..r Yahweb \\'as bestowed on an anaellc beina.. \'ah ..'eb-I:J or lbe lesser Yah ..'eh, selll by God to rn-eal hidden mystertes 10 mankloo----(ll' at least 10 «Italn chasen souls, This sliahlly more extended speculation on tbe nlUlle suggests that thtl1: m8)' be a link between these l«Iartan wfillngs and what was condemned by the Je \\,,-,h rabbI! as the heresy of the 'two poW(I'$',

Alan Segal has shown that the exegetical I'OOt of this heresy was the repetition of the name of God 10 Exod. 15: J 'Yahweh is a wEllTior, Yllhw~h is his name' ('t~'C1 :"n;"l ' ;"I""?tl W'~ :"n;"l") , Upon IhlS lext was constructed the notion Ihat thtte were rwo different self-rel'elarloos or ('.od. one a. a young man, appearlng at me Sea (the context 0( E:rodUll I ;), the other as an old man. appearing at

.....

Wheche-r or not there was any direct connection between the R<'O groups 0( tens, one beLonging 10 a sectarlan lraditlon that can be trattd back ID I liROCh. the oth .... e\1deoce of a hetny within the ranks ofJudalsm. it seems likely that one or both of the Ideas beblod them may hare malk il ea.ie. 10 believe that InUll the Messiah was also the ~pl'dllll'missary of God, bearing the ~uthorltr of bis nam~ to !'eI'eallO men ce"ain hidden !nuhs, Perhaps. howe\'er, wc shou ld be e\'en bolder In OUr Intcrpr"'alion of thtf jlil:lsaj!l', less preocrupied witb defeodln~ "t un co.!.J the thesi'

RtllgWI!S Vlmm Ihal the [ou"h cI'angeUsL like KlI good Jews. was " die-hard monothelJL J6 :\fteT till. the eailtst and most SU1Iighforward t lplanation "f 8: S8. whether Ihe allusion is to Exod, j: '4 (~. /.,2 Schnackenbul"8. etc.~ or 10 IIle dMne ocacl<: in o.,ut . 32: 39 and Second Isaiah (Barren, ilamel'. elc.l. is thal Jesus is octually claiming lhe name of Yahw~h IQr himself. Such 11 claim is not. as Odebttg 3rJ;Urs. tantamOUnt 10 saying '1 am Ihe Father·. Rather iI is an lmp~cil assc,,1on Ihal the prnlt'CIor or rcdc:cmer God. Isr""r. \Iibal delly. is not afler all 10 be idmt1llcd with the =3101".00. Fl S)..,n. bUl has m'lsiled his people In a new IIU~.n For m., fact is thal despile many resemblances. the Fourth Gospel dilkn mari;edly from lile Apoot/!l1'S'I' c! Abntlutm and 3 Enoch. Some or ito; mosl importanl leaching is unllshamedly controversial. h ~ ... 31 the cusp brtw~n the Iwin cun:es of Jewish Imdilion. one destined 10 =erge in rabbiniC ludaism. lhe "Iher branching off In 11 dilJettnl direction, h Is here thal the 1'1'0 cun'es m«l-and pdCt. The role of the 'angd inlerpreltT·. $In1clurally I'ery sImlIar. has been .. mpli6ed and streamlined 10 fil InlO Ihe slory of Ihe unhl)' ca~ of J= this Is altn all a Gospel. But hisc!aim 10 dil'ine stalus, the lerms In which il I. couched. ~nd the circumstances In wblch 11 i. uttered. all indicate Ihat 1nl. Is no! a strange foreign myth breaking Into the lewlsb religious tradition for the li!"S1 time. bul a dangerously novel manifestation of an old ~nd famWar theme. It i~ onc Ihing 10 specu lale upon an angtllc figure bearing Ihe nam~ and authorily of God when his o,dy purpose In vislllng men here below is 10 Iran spon Ih~m back 10 heaven In an apocalypllc dream. It Is quite anomer 10

-.

' ' 'm;K\on

.. The tnlllot tho, It!< ... ,hot.nc! H,..., ' .... of the Go.p..t "·Cf~ I(>o
~ ..

m. ..

" Roher! .11 .......1 ha 'Ullomd l
(ord ,he ............ ha. 1>«" <"OIl!irm<>J by ~j I""t>I< ~UIU!Y "'IWr< ro."

~h

'''oar',

'l"J'f" of oIriI)'. Fo\Iowl .... A. SlOb. St.....tt....... b< ..1b tbo< ·F... · and '!hr ...... .. """"tor ..... """'""'" """,,",or '" """""' .......nhly 0Idrr. krtil!ty "'''-- but Ioardly oCrnit>. 101_ oomIort. .i>d 'hr loo ..... _ ~ on:ho_pl,;c.,IIy ~"""- .. _ . ",'OI~ed with b.utut ........
1

-nIk._,._tor __

If<..,.."" '"

nnlll """ '£I 'Fl,..... left ptop/t wIIh _Ilarl CrbIIu1 do
.wty..........

"'"""._Goo! n...........

!

.,

tillClW thiS Hgure 10 coal~ wllh an Individual human belng who bas a~ady won a Wide followlnK as Ihe Jewish M.....iah. ObviousJ~' Ihis i$ nOllhe whole ' IOt1'. A prtclsel}' analogous mO\'e land one "'hleh Is much bett.r auested ) Is made in regard lO the 6gure ofm. Son of Man.'· And bad IIOllcsUJ wady be"n regardo:l as 11 dil'ine tmissal1' nalttd to heal'en afler bls delllb. thm iI is mosl improbable thal he would hal.., been credited ,,~th the aUlhorlty 10 echo G')lfs l'C\'elallon of his own name. Wben be did so.. through the mouth. as " 'e may lUllJllse, of one olbis 1OIlo"'ers In the lobannine camp. 1I is scartdy i urprising thal (TM)re COMer\'illi\'C lell's relt Ihrc31cned and outraged by tile appan.'lll blasphemy that was being uttered In tbe!r mldsl. (c) 'Son

IJ/ ,.od'

1be lo:o.o'S ""swtmllllm. 'Wc Slone you /or blaSphemy: btcau,", }'OU. brinK a mao. mau )·o."""lf '.od.: Jewl .0."·.....:1 thnn. 'Is il oD! wrium in your law. "I said. you arc go'!I"/lf h. eallN Ih.,." godI 10 whom the ...on:! of God ram. land 501ptUrc ,""nOl be broI:ml do you ,*y 0( him whom the: F~lh.. roIt$('O'3ll'1l.r>d scollmo the ,,'OC'ld. "You arc blaSpheming." boN:au,", I said. "I om the Soa oI'God";' (10: )4-1»

On a superiiclal reading Inls p.assagc appears quitc innocuous: Olher men arc called gods In Scrlplul'C: and since Ihls ill w. argue,; Je,; .... why should not!. sancllfied und sent. clo im Ihe title of S
..".,.

;.~

,.,

,.B spedaJ case In rclation to wha = sim1larly addressed by God. Tbis ~ntlclpatlon of Arlus is 001 a tbeoiogleal posltlon found elKwhue in the Gospel and $0 Ilecker Is indin~ to regard the p~.."ge "" an editoriaiwtru$lon .... though ~ fails to explain why an editorshould attempt 10 draw the tttth of Jo!m'sargument in this ...a~'. SurelJ' il is prcl'erable 10 look first for a "'aWng strong enough 10 JWt die context: another fierce and t",nrhanl debate with the Jews Ibat aclUnlly staTU this lime (I 0: 3 I ) 1<1th an aUus!on to their determln a, tlon to see him dead, The suggestll'n that the 8.01 in this passage might really "" .!!!'KfJi was first made In 1960 by J. A. Emcrton'" who pOInted out Ih at In Ihe Peshltta (Syrlac) ,'ersloll of the psalm 'aods' ( C,., i:lN ) In ,·v. Ib

betwCC1l God and die hea"wly rou"; even 50. we are 11 long way from die lIU5leT'" IIKKMIthrism of Deuteronomy or Second lsalab.1t is agaInst this bad.around tbll Jesus' citatioo of Psalm 82 begins to make sense. espedaUy If "'e bear in mInd lIle whole of v. 6: 'J SOI}' you are gods ( 1),.,7 1'1 . 1Ic-...1, all of you IOIIS of lIle Most High (rr7 P '1:1 . .,.'0; '*'.....,~r. The hig difJe",nce Is that In the Fourth GoaIm 82 is Identified with M(lclllf.edek, whl' Is later ,aUed ".,71'1 (tby God). Here wc have eo.1dCllCe of a theologIcal leap parallel tQ that made In the Gospel. since Melchizedek. WOOORa' appearrd on ea"h a. a man (Gen, 14) Is now gi"en what is uuque$lionably a di"ine title. I. A, Flumyer, in his careful analysis 01' this ten .... acknowledges the dllllculty by rendering Ps. 82; I lIS 'E!ohlm h"" tal:rn his WInd in lhe &=:mbly cl. El'. bUllike fmnton he blkm'5 van !In- \\'owk, the ortgInal editor, In !dmtifying this EIohInI not ,,~th God ("..lIkb Is whal tbe tmn okno1.e$ al this point In the original psalm) but <11th ~Irlchlzedek, The "loIrlm of .., 2 (In the midsl of Elohlm he gi"es Judgement') is taken by "an ref.. to MelclIiled~k ' s le~m of iillg.!s. by Emerton to refer 10 the opposing learn, led by Sell,l.'l II'hoe,'f'( is nght (and there !~ ob~-IousIJ' much unce" alnty In the Interpretation of this fnlgmentary "'XI ). dlere "",mJ Ultle doubt Ih"! "'e ha,'e heT'"

or

-- "".",....w .x;

and 615 rendl'red 'a ngels' r .,s.,d"o ). This gIVe! the lrarulation: God _ Ht

in "'" "",,_<100>

P>dzn _

01 God

!bt an ....

ll.Old. -y... ...,-"'"

""" all cl JOIl ,.,... of.br ...... Hip,'

In iI subsequent artick~' Emerton biocb this suggurlon up with further e\1dena from !he Peshltta and 8 number or !ariumlm thal O' ;"I " K Is somet:imes translared ' ansds' or '(KIllS 01) angcl5'. He also repealS his point that angds ace called C"N In ",OOus documenlS from Qumran. and mentions 'the possibllUy, accO
ruppoctw,

The text In question is part of a series of manuSCTIpt fragments subsequently grouptd together. carefully edited (by Carol N"ewsomj. and published (In 1985) lUlder Ihe title of 'Sonp of the Sabbath Sacrl8ct': What Emerton caJl.; the 'anll.t'!ogIcal \uabulary' Is InIWd remarkable. [, Includr:< angds. spirits. boly ones.. mlnislc$. princes ( .."., ' N"t1l etc.). chief. (l"'~ ' '1( and 0',,':11(. In his translation d thtse Ie):IS (DtoJd Sta StToUs-') Geza Vermes rightly reodtrs me Lust two lilies as 'gods' (usually wllh scare qUOles). Thq' are not mt'I'dy angelic IIn nsers but P'Uly dirlne belngl who surround the throne of the "KIng' or t;od' of gods and P doubt the 8~at dj"ersity Ilf tbe terms em ployed indicates a Strong distlnctil>n ' . 1'3)6

"'TIxlnlotpu..nlono(Psalmh·, " 'Mekhlud
.. Ant II"btiI!Kban.... """ ••" ,bono .. no ..-.> tu l""ado: ~. H I bdw""" .... _ mT tbe "'01 .. IlOl ~ bin ..... at' ('HO

'0'

n.... m."" " _

_

M.ktl....Jet oIWI "" ""'" T"'"""",,'. po 114~ 10, _ .. """ lb. ~1tIm1 \ k t = opeU of""(IUII _ r plo", " ""n "'" unIiI;. " " """ -.:nod lien 10 ~1<1!-rwlJe dllqui
'SO

RLli!liolU

further pcool of the ""isteD"" of It world of religious dlscourx it long way rrom the strict monothe;,,-m of Ihe Jews who an. J.. us· i!d,'ersarle$ In !he I'ounh C.qspel. No doubt the Gospells faithrullo its 1,,"1511 herllagc In continuing \0 disfingulsh betwren God and mm. IM 1I also seH Jnus (and sprrifically in the passage Wc ha,-" bern di$eusswg) III both i.riJ".-o< and Eho.. The QumrOll fragments and the Go$~t [('Stir}' \0 It boldly specula!l'"c al!cmaU\'c th...,logy that onhodor judalsm could not absorb~"r C'"Cn ucknowledge. (d) (',,"c/I<.lIon

In the Fourth Gospel there arc numerous passages h\ ..... hlch Jesus claims divine .taIUS. It Is no coindd=cc Ihat some of the strong..l ~nd mOSl explicit of tb= occur in angry ronfronlaUoru; with the Jew~ the Gospel has as one of ilS aims 10 COfI6rm Its readers in their stand against 'nOlTIlati,'C' ,udaism. The debates It records arc not:

TeildJI", daSiSlfiabk as oontTm-ersy 510nes. btu Uke the Synoptic ~pes Ih~ In somc way ,,,,,,mbl... they reflect a ~ of acrimonious IIIl1WDmI between Christiall$ ;tmd Jew¥. What is singular In the fourth Gospclls that SO man~' of lhese c:onlr(l,·ersics lum upon Jesus· claim 10 t,., divine. ~ fan:wcU dlscourses leach uS lhallhe~1 in lis finished form ""as Inlended for a Christian =dershlp. But this Is onl)' pari uf the evidence. The pulemkallone of much of the 6r51 half of the Gospd. O'"SP«ial1y In ch(1pters 5 - 10. cannot be explained exl·epl. ag~inst a background of jc wb h - Chrisllan dcootc. If the passages wc hale been considering are cat~hesis. the}" are catechesls with a bltenUl Sunduy-school lessons . but sharp remlnden of the dangerous obdu .... cr of Ihe rommunity·s lewish ad'·"I")ar1es. It musl be wC>S
..

...<1\ ""'" whictJ l...dobm IutIdious ~ will

t..""

,

Dis~1ll

I5 I

might (7: 35) he could not ha,.., el'l)ecIOO from them Ihe kind of read}· iOCCePUInce he b1amn the Inl·S "1thholdina. Only by absuactlng altogether from Ihe cirrulIlSllIllCeII of the G05pel"$ composition and !Rating it '" norhlng but I repository of .."..,akd doctrine or II~ a limd= call to faith.;u; Bultmann doe$. can one fail to I ecoanlill' iu these hot·tempered exo:hanlC'J the type of family row In which the participants face onc another across lhe room of a house which ulI hil\·~ . harM and aU CIIIl home. If thiS Is w. the Question which we have po~tponM is ., tiil knocking at the door. Why does the author piCtunl Jesus. I~w though he Is. a. dissociatin g him..,lf 50 categorically from lhe Jews' What Is the sign.ilkanc~ of the name he gll'es th~mr We are now perhaps in a poSition 10 go be}'ood the obviouS trulh th~t it is ~ religious designation. indicating a rellglous dlffcrentlatlon. I1 now S«m$lllut I1 rt'm 10 a ro"..,[villi,.., segment within the broad band 01 a eomrnon religious U1ldi.lion. 1$ there any othu e,itlena: 10 suppor t this suggrstion;

ro..

~.

THE 11tH OF HmAIU!

The ar-gument up to Ihi> point ha. comprised t,,·o the5c5. The firs( i:s thOI the origins of the Gos~J lie In what may Ioostl)< be culled heterodox Judalsm. ·Loosely·. because notions of onhodoxy and heterodoxy ure not entirely appropriate to the period under discu s_ Sion. . wheu ludaism a s we know it was SlW lull. Infancy. TIns thesis has been satisfactorily "'itablished as a plausible workJng hypothesls. 4 ' .\\oreover. this pan of the a'lumenl could also appeal for ,upport to recrut wad on the Dead Sea Strolls" aud to excellent

'5'

Rt UgiDU' Dissem

detail..:! studies ,uch as that of Alan ~al on the phrase 'ruler of this ,,-orld·.·· And i1 will receive further conlinnalion in the remainder of

Part n. Finally and conclusi'-ely, Chapter 10

,,~l!

k de"oloo to

mowing how th e roots of the Gospel reach down into the soil of Jewish apocalyptic - from the ""inl of view of its total meaning the mOSt siguiHcallt debt of all. There Is. then, no Dud ID .,,,,reh outside the Jewish tradition for the kind of historical {exlerior] explanation of the Go • ...,1 lhat will emers" from a detailed enquiry IntO its genesis.

Tbe second thesis. which concerns th e communi!}'", Jewish ad"ersaries. Is much more lemath"c , Here the main problem is to Identify those whom the Gospel c~1ls the lews. I s uggest thal this is

the name given

to

the powerful party {hal took advamage of the

dIsarray [(lllol'.;ng th e fall of Jerusalem in AD 7() and gradually a'>Sl1m~ amhority over the Jewisb people. This pariy. not to be idemified ahsollllely wilh Ihe Pharisees. laid tile foundatlons of what we know as Judaism . If the Pharis-es had a hand in this. a, they surdy did. th~ "ill ha,'~ ~n anxious to rid th=h-es of the ! 5:i Isolationist and inden! sectarian implications of their name,' o whal better chance would they ever have of establishing their claim to be the true dc=ndants of Abraham;

(a ) Th. nory oJ Q

"a",~

The Gospel uses the lenn 'Jews' more extcnsil'ely Ihan any other 10 ",fer to a rtJigio!1S group which is de6ned and characterized by ils hostility to the re" eiation of Jesw;. Only occasionallr does th e tenn ha,.e a national connotation. as wh~n I'ilate asks Jesus. 'Am I a Jew,'. ur Wriles on a placard he has aJIixed 10 th~ CCClSS the words. Tile King of the Jews' (historically onc of the best attested clemell1s in the whole tradition) . As time wem on the national 5<'nse n udaean' ) would be 10SI - the decish'e moment cominll in AD IJ5 when the Emperor Hadrian . after brutaU}' suppressing the latest !e","ish rebeWon. dro,'e all jm's olll of Jerasalem. From then on the tenn 'Iew' on the lips of a Gentile would refer to som""n~ who was JeWish by religion Or raCe. The meanIng 'Judaean' no longer had any application ." . . .... F. S ".oo.i>ly . n all"""" ro JudO< . . . u,"" 10 be 1110011>1. '" "'" . ,oIi'n ron" rrtS from l" d.i>m.

'53

At the time the fourth e"angeUsI "'~s completing Ills Gospel. this cataclysmic c,·ent ""as a long wal" off. His contemJlOrar}' !""'phus employs the word 'J~w" or 'Jewisb' (adjective and sub,tanth'e are the ,ame word in Greek) 10 refer indi<erimlnalely to Judacans and Jews of the dlaSJIOra. as well a. to the (predominantly rdigiomj law. and practices a5S0Ciated with both. He hImself [lever underlines the di,tinClion. blU it is usually possIble to delennine Ih . refer~nc~ from the COlllext. Mea n while Jew. continued to refer to Ihemselves as ·Israel". conllning their u se of the teem 'Jew' to dcali vgs wl(h fo",igner.;. " J""'phus. wriling for foreigners. uses '[srad' sparingly except in connection "'ilh th e old northern kingdom. But there is some evidence of a mo", s~iali..zed usage. 10 denote a n limer ring. a., it were. within the J~wish (or Judaeanj nation , a religious partY that .mt"rged immedialely after Cyws" dec= had put an end to the Babylonian exile. Th e first hint come. from !""'phus h imself. in one of his ra", animadl'ersions on the origin of the " "ord 7o v(;aim . Tt derives. he tells us. from the lriOe ofJuda. and dates from the time of their return from Babylo n (AJ xi. '731. This suggests Ihat the name properly belongs to th e returning exiles rather than to those who were left behind. and supplements an earlier passage wh= he says Ihat these (i.e. the returned exiles) were the I'""ple who wer~ resp<Jlls ible for the reconstroc{l on of the Templ. (A.f xi. S4: cl. .H.). They are also (}b,1ou,ly the men mentioned in a lener 10 A"axerxC$ from some Bab}'lonian officials as 'the Jews who came up from you to us' and ' ha\'e gone 10 Jerusalem'. whc", the},'"", rebuilding thut rebellious a nd wicked city' (Ezra 4 ' t 2; d. Ezm 4 ' 17- n: Neb. 2: '7 If.: 3: 35 (Hcb. ) ). This group a lso presumably includes (h~ "jewl.h b",thren' ( C" ;"I';"I I:[;"I'n N ) who were soon afterwards acrused of breaking th e law (Oeut. 2 3: 19) by lending money at interest (Neh. 5: I tT. ). ~ood «"",plc o[ 'his di><;rin\in,tlon is , MOCCIDccs. "'~. "'~ ~ , " " Bf< (~: 2 ). tb< "'" ot' tb< t<m> = - . d in th< G....!: for )ntml to ~ignM o«t« >or pub1lc . (The
" A .."""Ion Iro", ~

·r,,,"·""

nth«

th< point of Ii<w nI ,he "'ntloch< . .... I> no< c rounk ,'O''''P!<.). Th< n, m, ·Ior whot t. onlf pan of , b<; ...Itot<. In rh\< , 0>< tbe .\J.",bnn parI)". et O. I't(lgjl . h" .. ,b< "'m< and ",f... '0 OVffY mcmt>cr of 'h< U....·;,hl "'<e. \\" , n , sp<w of. lew w j,h hi' ",tiSlou, ",ac rcligi",,' po "' ~!I()",h lp to God in mind. h< eaU. him 1.,..~1 : ,p. , 9). Tb\< h«l b by Pot'"' j. jun,,",", "110< "",.,. l!tra
Gc..,.

",
."

--

· S< Another story In Joso.phus. basnI tbis time on a nOl'1-b1blical $Ouru, relates how a group of Samaritans "'ere Initially P<"parnilo ldenUfy IhemsdvC$ as J""'$ in a race-ro-rice confrontation "ith the Emperor AlexarnkT. in th~ ho!", of bt-ina a«orded the same prMleses as Imd already hem granted 10 OIhoer je\\'S. SUI "'h,"" challenged on religious ground!; they backed down and repudiated !be name Jews. This ""gg~l!; that the lenn had a 1"1'1111100' signlfjcante distinct from the racial meaning which, as descendants of

Joseph. Ihey "'ere rt'ady to accept. To this ~tor)' (tI{ xl. 140-5) Jo~phus adds a ride, con""mlng Shechem hhe main lown In Snmarlu-modern Nublus) . Shechem. he says. alrorded rduge fm

rscaptt'S from Jerosakm expelled. de$plte their protestaUOIl5 of IRnocence, k>< violating the dietarl' laws OX the JIIbbath regulations or for 'any other such sin" (ri. ]46). The p;cture or Shec:hem as a «lUre of religious dlssl
different-looking pidu..., of a ' ...... alem [dU 1ft IOrlhe &ood and tbe pu~. 11Ie l'lWOI'et" kept 10 n:lebnlle tbe lermlnallon of the long e~i1c was " HI ,.00 for 'Ihe people of Israd who had mumed from exik. and also by e\"ery one who had joinrd tbem and 5ep;lralrd bimself from the poIlutlons of tbe peoples of tbe land 10 worship the I.ord. the God of brad' (F..,.... 6: '>' ). In speakIng of Ih"", hostile to the Temple as Ihe 'people of tbe land' ( T'N:'l Cl: : Ezra 4: 4). Ihe Chronlcler makes no distinction belween them and 'Ihe ad"crsorles of/llda and Ben jamln' (4: 2): and /05ephus. \\"ho ha. Ezra as a source a t Ihls point. blunlly Idenli6e, [h15 group OJ Sumarllarn (or Chuthaeans-AJ xl. 19-)0: 114- 8). Whatever the precise relationship betw/:I':n 'Ihe pWple of the land' and Ihe Samari[ans. there must have been 50Ille Unks be[w"",n the nonherners {nOL after all. 50 '"r!"}' far a"'~yjand those southerner.;; had mnalned behind at lbe nile and m~uenlly earned the disappnwal of the powerful group (dte ]ews.<) of " ' hleh ED"a. the liiu "';rt of the Samarlt.am. came to be a k~dlng representolh'''''' (The rabbis themSletve5 saw judaism as originaling wltb t:zra. who In~uguraled the age of the sctibcs.) So il m~y be fl(I COincidence Ihat Jesw. besides being a..,.-;.med with the people of the land (those

wno

" So R. I. CouIns. ..w, rd",,,, ..~ to S
duO".

.nd ... loo.. "''''' hod fmloinrd In Judo.h [i>o ..Uo" Ill., '[hbc , ..... JI"OOp< \ ml»
_

'lguonmt of the law' In Joho 7: 49 ). l«"ated !be lews as aliens and failed 10 rebut tM charge that he himsctfwas a Samaritan (8: ~8 ). WM!her or DOl !he Samaritan. were actually those woo opposed the rebulldilti of tM Temple in Ihe lale sixth ct.'Dtury is 1= Importanl ro,. OUr pm po= than the fact thal Josephus thouKht they "·ere. Since the hkmilkation In th.. ~ (Eznlj ill unclear. it may be thQI losephus was reading back InIO the past conditions and alilmdes obtaining in his 0"'" day. The bookJ of Ezra and Nehemlah. represemlnlllhe ufIIdal position of Ihe powerful JI'Irty I have hesitantly idcutlnetl wilh 'the Jews '. evince (as do [he books of Chron ic les) an overriding COncern with the Temp le and lis appurtenan=. Much IUler. ,'orlous ple= of C"\1dence testify to the abiding Importance of !be Temple and the hostlUty prol·oJ;.ed by "'bal was Soeen as Ihe endemic COrTUption of its admlnistralors. On Ihe positil'e side. a second-century author speaks of 'Ihose who 11,·., round SoIomon's great lemple' in a pa.sage "'bieh singles thml OUt as piOlJ5 ( • .;.,qkis! and lheir Bncestors as Just 18i~Q"") .... On Ihe lll'&llti"" :;ideo ,.,.nol" sr:ctal"lan documents point to a ~ distrust. If not of the Temple itself. at least of the rites enacted there: 1 EnoeJ;. the Tnlamtm of MDStS. Ibe J.>amascus Rule.!! Onc is led to} rtOecl ho'" link: would be imo,vn of Ihe altema lk., religiolB , • •<;Ib. 0.. W. HJ!" cl: 702 -~ .n
_."ion•.,,,,,,,,

pi"". I.,.. ~ _,..,.. .......... 1.,.....u.,... ............". l'olrb...1. n. S~Jot
~ I" ......,·

" [F....xfll~, 7J: r .... .\lA S: 1- 1. t"Th .... d iniQuilia1: (1) • . [/,-, I: S. 6-7. _ uldd,iIiS 0Ith< \CIlI;IIo cult ........ bt _ .iD tbt p,.m,,- of Si' I. ~rd1. •• I:~ . Z. «c. G. 'I'. Eo Ni<' 111II1I1II1ab \lw ..-b PI • sioaPY mIctt '1»\01;,* _ no I ....... Sot!duaa. I11 I........ Po z'z~ Thuo.., ........U, tu>d xIkn _ th< T<mpic pn:I CII"om. 11: 6. I}: S: t: 6: 4' ;. .: 11' SS' I" 4». E.·.... CrwIo: Ol<"f In> ', 01[0. )'."1'.

u.--

/I«:'ion

ft."

_r btt,,_

157

outside lhe Judaean estabfuhmrm If we had to my on wl111ngs sanctioned or canonUed by the rabbinical Kboois started by the Saibe. Iccordlng ro tradition. durln& lbe Second Temple en. Both Inside iUld outside Palestine lbne is abundant evidence-the besI: known and most Impress;"e being the FJephanUoe papyrl'·-of conllnual and ftagram noJatioJ1$ 01 the deuteronomlc code." Within Palestine the"" is perbal" a distinctiOn 10 be dra ....n between the rigid conservatism of Judaea itsel f and Ihe greater flexibility of Ofher regions. more n:cepd'·e!O HeJlenlSllc InRuence! of a recogni..z. ably non-Jewish kind (such as public gymn~si ft).ll Thi s may be a further Hrllwnenl In fa.'our of a BnnJy orthodox templ~pwty with conSiderable authority 0\'rJ" a fairly small area. Two cenlurles later there is no likelihood of en)' grealer unlfonnIty. If tbe Judalsm we know (oday Is • single tf« ialbeU ,,·jlb a number of branches). at the time 0I 1~ I1 was u Jungle. Josepbus speaks of thlft reUgIow oects {",pi",«) Of" philosophies (~",) -Pbarisees. Sadducees. and t'Tnes-plus a IOunh. gcn..,."Uy identlfied "'ith tbe Zealols. not so much a rellgiow sect as a Uberatlon 1l\1l'.-emcnL He tells u s that there "-er!! rough!)' 6.000 Pb~ 000 4.000 Essenes,9 (runang whom. as Is now ~..,."Uy agreed. " 'ere the Qumran group). If the other IWO sects were comparable In size. the fOUl" between them would account foronly a small proportion of tbe country's inhabltants. probably severa l hundred thousa nd It this lime."" As with a badly du moged £=ico. our canBdence thal the original picture ..... as muth bIgger tban the sun:!<'ing fru\l.Itlonts gi"elI uS no real hope of being able 10 rc" tore it with an)' Dcc:ura(}·. That the~ muSl have ~n mall}' mort' sects thun tbose named by jOJephul Is now widely held: 'lbe ownbe. of tYJ}e$ and .-arieties grOUpS

,. See

At»_~.

" no. ~t' "' -n.. _

v..wo/>·,

... 'of ...... '....11. ~hI _ '" oboen." It,.....bh In • .\10«. '" t. (p.!16 n. s,~ ,. et J. (''''''b'rin.. ...... ;./> .~ and Rol« ...... "1 ...........•• pp.. ,,",- 17. .. M ..,11. -4': . vIII. 11>: d . 1'1"1" ()u:>j o.u.. ~ 7S. .. Cf. M. fIntntt ·,h., the popubllon. of p~ In ~ntlq u l1Y did 110! ..cm! • million po,....". (p. Ill" h. m.l", i' olMy R01 ri'
."i
n

{b)

TM

IIlu fim

U:Dl>ny

The effect upon Judaea oflhe catastrophic rebellion against Rome is hard 10 Imagine. With me lkstruClloII of the Temple. the ptm'erful pliestly CISle ,ck"ed ro in lhe Gospel. as 'Ihe chld piks!:o' had Iosl llli r~isoM d·itrt. It seems Ukely rhallhc priests rqrou.pcd along with the \'try InDuential Pha~ in an altcmpltO ~atll control and to preserve what they rnuld of their lraditions. The utraordinary amount 01 Le~lation In Ihe Mishnah rrlatlng 10 I defunct templecull tt"itifl.her --..... LiDa to tbc Ph-. ..'" tho, Ill.,. a~" coII
pt·,.. .....

«l. A. c-i
10
COIIId probably be reckoned in dol;eJ1$ .... '(\\'0 somewhat lat~ (5trotld«ntury) lists p"e MIIH! indication of lbe exlent of our Ignorance. The}" h a,", ~ names in rommon: Pharisees. Saddu= and Galileans. Then th/l1' dll-erge. llegeslppus·· names III addi!lOtl Essen iaJ1$. Samaritan •. Hemerobaplists. Md MIlSbotbeans: lustlll {himself bailin& from Samarla) makes n o mrntlon of SamarItHruS but names instead Gents". Mertst •• Baptists. and HeUenian •.• ' What he $;'I}"!; of them i. wonh 1I0ting: althougb Ihey would aU call them!!elves '/ews and children of Abraham' and profess Iheir beUefln God. In reillllY they are nOll'roperly .pea klng Jew. at all. Let alone ChriStians. Here th ere seems to be one Gnal use of the tenll 'Jews' to rder to a particular religiOUS tradition distinct from all D(hers.

........ ~of'h<~!.or rleoo"S"",,!dot . . ; _ .... 7n1 ' ..... , h _ . i:O m I6o:.or Ioof, (aooba, ,...;,.., ............. Id ........<1 0/""..' , • _ tll<1. I,. • 8 ~ "Tht ......_ l'rtportIi< T~"''''''' Sa .............. _ b of .......! I... " , wht"" ~.... _ '" lb<.. ,; '""·In.. ...:., Ho ... _~. cd. J. M. ~, .... 3&t . . .,\1.,. ...... .!!.o!lo;(tbc """",u J. I). , ........... 0 ..Noli ........ '''=piln& to cr.". '" ,hdr mll>llo.n idea l and porloct w<.Iri
Il

._.h·.

_"",w

SIIa,.

....,...,km..,..

,,,,p
\;8

rft

H

Rt]i!lioIU D/SMQl

lit occurs In only Ihree p!aa.;)," As A. I, Baumganm obscn= '1IIe rabbis seem 10 lIa ...e been reluctant 10 nil IlIelr predeco "'K"!I "Pllarisets", ' .. They = 10 hal'\: prekrml OIlier names and whm the name Ph~ OC<.'UI"S It Is usuaUy In IlIe mouth of their opponents.·.. Tills ~lUana or clllef priests and Pllarlsees was ~idenlll' 'angelbl:. we mal' oooclude. not all or any 01 rhe many disstnlm still on !he fringe of wh~1 was rurning into orthodox ludalsm. $Iill less !he Jewlsll n ee and nalion as a ,,·hoIe. bul those who, after the dCWcle 01 AD 70. had succttded once agaIn in &armring !he mns of power InlO lhelr own hands. Karl Bomh~usrr. writing in 1928, ,,'M nOl af'tu aU so "1de of the mad: lornb.fanatlcs'" may nOl be the besl \\'lIy of describing the je,,'S of the Fourth Gospel: but no doubt they wer(: also ill fll<.'t sticklers for the Law, In the Gospel Itself the ,mly d ear synonym for Jews Is 'the chief priests ond Pharise
w=

1

'59

better placed 10 understand "'hy IhiS IDould ~ so. Tllese ,,-ere !he I\\'o groups "'hose sucressful alliance In tht: Lace finl <:enNry enabled Ihem 10 escablish their own IndiUons as the basil of a ne,,' Judaism_ (c)

Conr/llsfDn

5Qme of lhe arguments 11=1 11,,", to live a plausible idcmlly «) tbe /ell's of Ihe fourth Gospel mal' appear somewhal tenuous. They 8~ cellainly far fmm conriusiw. But their weakness does not affect tbe maio point of tbl, chapler, which b 10 locale Ihe /ohannioe Christians Ihe=lves somewh= among Ihe rellglou, dlo;sentcrs II'ho prollfcnued in l'al~line in the Hrsl cenlury. The bostili ty betwt'en !he followers lIf jesus illld the jell'lll 81115 mOSI intense: at pr('(lsely th(l5C' points where Jesus is unambiguously claiming (lil'lne Slatus.. And"'e ha.,., =n toolhm the ro"'S Ihal b~llk OUI over th= dllhns a~ family rows: they coocnn whar are In lhe Iirn plaa:: Internal dJsal\=ments wilhin the broad spectrum of Ihe faith of Israel. It cannol be 0\'ffS1reMed thal this kind of doctrinal debau: WOllId be lnconall'ablc "1rhin a tradilion lIS ullSwer\in&ly mono!heistic ... the judalsm we know lOda~' (" 'hleb In Ibis respect has persisted unchanged since the second century). E"en If Ihere we~ no el~dence uc aU to pro,'., Ihe existence of dissenting groups a\ rile hun of IlIe era, and II Is no accident that tbe bulk of such evidence has beeo tnn stllilled by Christia ns ratller than )ews. 70 we shou ld ~UII lIat'e to posit their e xlSlen~ in order to explain the orlalns of Christianity. The smOOlh, rounded monotheism of Jewish orthodoxy afforded ... little purcb~:;c th~n ... il wOtlld coday for Ibe cJrums Ihat came 10 be made for )e$\lS. Tbe most slanling oIlhese, ~nd none a,., m~ startling Ihan Ihose uamio<'li withill Ibis chapler. were made ,,1thill a religious trad!lion which ill Ihe linl pia« made them possible and comlnlles 10 g!I'e lhcm inidliglbilll)'. to 11}' 'M _D_ quIrt. cl fa~ - " " 1;"711'''''' ""', I __ ot bra< ......bm ~ by "".. ~..... """pI<\aIuae ". SOl 0lIl)' ~ but "'''''' _h im!»r .. ,..,.. ~f 1'11110 ond ~ ..,... hal-. _ bom pan of ,.,. i<'W"h In~ from tt<

or

m. .....,.1Ied

""'" dne _....., "" .. n-N -=I """"""UN

fm:word '" 0IarIr0w<>rth. fa",; f'.

.. i" ]..... "

J~J ,

anrl 12. This =
bt'

11>1' Oil r~

Chrblilo"~'

""',.I.,.,.......So','0/,Samurl SanJ.nd

loo a l fI. ,,_ A quirk cl

," to collcl ude that some of the m""lng fragments were ne\''''' reCO\~. Most fra,ue of aU is Ihe <wumptlon Ihat the Gospel did at

5 TH E COMMUN IT Y AND ITS BOOK T _ TilE

!OO ~

All we know aboUT the Jobannine community is what can be Inferred from Its writings. Such enemal gu ides as we have are at best unreUable. al wom misleading. ' Bm within the pages of the

Gospel and Letters 15 bUJied a surprising amounT of pClSIUI"e dala enabling us TO pi«c together a pkwre of the nature and hisCOf)' of

the community. or rourY the piecing-together CBnllOl be done ..1111001 conjecture. As in all hiswrical 5tUdy 1I III Importam 10 hold apart Ihe fanu:.) evidence and the shaping hypothesis. AI the SlIme time Colllngwoo.r5 point concnnlng the corrdall\~ty of the two m~l not be lOrgollen! Without ...me bn.othesls 10 inbm the material facu with In telligibility there would, ",oyer!y speaking. be no evidence either. (a) Sow, Ih~rld ~urw!}tJ

As always wC mUSt begin with th e text. In Ihls cast: with a book of such consistent lnlricaq· that it could impcess SIT8<155 as a 5eam\es;s

ganneRI. yeT tum$outon closer lnsptctlon to be full oflheawkward conJuncllons and disc!ocations Ihat h.ave come to be knolO>1l as <rpOriirJ or problem spotS. No one ~ can satlsfllClOrily aocoum for all of Ihese: and It has to be said that tMre 11 ItU! no general agrmnent among ""holars as to Ihe bes:I aplanaUon. Perhaps Ihe lellS! satisfactory of a.U the IheorIes. although still advocaled by some. is hi lhe displacnnent Iheof)'. No rearrangemenl )1elds an order completely free from th e bumpS and blemishes uposed by the c..mul sifting of Schwattz and Wcllha u$ClI. Evell Bullmann. who Bdopted a rriined version of this theory. was "'r=:I , ~I. n.n •• l·, TIlt ~I!II!'" """'.,., (I.£>nO<",. r 9~ 91..-.c1l0
,tII. 10 lOt< """"'nl ofhiO "rtlWI>nd. "," rUff ",11_ . TIw Idt. of HUW<1/. pp. >lB- s>. he

one time uIst a. a perfectly composed unity. the " 'ork of one man "nting alone tiInt and in one plaet. The G"mdsrhrjfl Iheory f~1 accordlng 10 which Ibe Go:.pd began as a relatlvdy simple singk documem which $\Ibsfquelltiy underwent enlar~"" alteratiom. and revlslollS. h as III" writer. FlnaUy (41 tJ"r,en, ls the multip!Mlage theof)' of Ihe kLnd adl"Ocoted by Brown. IJndDrs. and. mOSl nundy. Bobmanj. Uke tbe Grtmd1IChri/ltheory. I>"ilb wbicb it is eas~y combined. Ihis requires further sp«lllcation If il is to ...·.".k properly. In gen!.'fa!. the more daborate and detailed a theory is. the moreusdUlIt ls 10 the IntcI l" der. but at tbe sa me time the more vulnerable il ls 10 CTiticnl scrutiny. We may

r"",,"

, JIoohj"" Iif< ,...".1. p. jS. • IlnId doomion 01 hi' ~"'f\ on
,.,

Tht Community

th lnl: dther In tem\5 of small IUld gradual rewortlngs. minor rev!';ons. and pI~meal alterations or. as Undars p<"efcl'$, of ftl least [WO major editions of lh~ Gospel. ThCie are nol mutually nc1uslv" u!tcmall\'es. An InlercsUnK sugg""tlon of BrOl'",'5 Ihat may ~ tohn 00 board al Ihls poInl Is litat ..1 onc vital stage in Its bistOf)' lh" Cospri conilited of Indepmdenl homUles. $Ubsn[uendy eobbled on [0 already erlstIng lIlaterlal. Lastly ,,'C should remembc.r the po5SIbllIty of a final redacto!'. ecclesiastical or other. wh __ contribution might be quite nlenl!'~. as Brown thinks. or rdati\'dy In,;gnilkant . like that of a sllb-<.-dltcr. But It [, u1
/.+

"Ie""

(b) A [Mary udopUd

s... ,''''

• fl 'r itIt"'" GoIII. o:Jt,~ 1:It""-"'l Dl
or ~.)"!T\..,d _ ' n iu Thr (...,m ..f,g of 'N •

,wi,/o.... i"lIt ChrU,~.

iu Boot

'"

from the teSt. are bl!"st thought or IS bunt upon the ....ords or a preacher addressing a resj)Onsive audience and not simply Ihe work uf a writer toiling away with calamus and pal'}'ru •. Any theel"}'ln ,,·hkh the main argumellts all lean on one another runs the lisk of circularity. But we can 10 SOfm degree (i. cum,·ent by making Ollr excisions In to the ttll at tlu points Indicated by Schwartl's problem sJI"l$. TIK' perIcopes thus disclosed can Ihen ~ examined alonlJliternry and form
m.. lis"

IIt.t lb" ....·angellst Introdll~ dr.tSlk modil\cafioos inlO a document ,,11h " 'hIch be WWi In radical disagreement. Why did he DOt simpl}' dbcard this and Slan afl't'lh on his own acrount? Othrr theories \hat rely u~n a Similar hypothesis. such as .hoSt of Wolf,ang J.ang. bnmdtner' and. more recentlr . lido Schoel le. · are O!",O to the ~me objection. Th~y must a lw assume tbat the e"angcli$t batched the jGb bildlr: omerwise he would ha"<"c ~lTIO\'ed ~n trace< of me mal IK' found otrcnsh~. AhOgethn" this type of m~ is probably !he ,,·eakesl and kast plausible of the wHn)' mal ha'·e been acl'·lnced.

A fully rounded thwry roncem.lng 'the Johannine community and Its book' mUSt imegmte me stud}' ofbatb of!h~ into a comprehensl'~ acconnt of the Gospel', growlh . the sucre!iSi,'c Slal" of composition corresponding to the chlnging situation of those f..... whom it was being ,,·ritlen. I say ·..·ritten·. but the oral stnge of Ihe Gospels may ha,·c e.>:tc-nlkd much further. lasted much longer than the appUcatioo of WUITe ~od form criticism might lead ItS to suppose. Tbe e"ungellst< them5eI"es may ha'·e been aeU,·c preachers ~f,-,,"e their work "'as finaUy committed to ",ritlng. It is kno",n that Matthew and l.uke (and probilbly loon 100) made uS/: of wnUtn iIOUrres: but the)"llliY han' done SO in me first iliaet' ionhe ~nelit or a listening mllter man a ...,ading audlenct'. Certainlr me grra{ revelation disrnurses. wruch lift me Fourth Gospd so strikingly apart

n

!~1

-11

,

L Thc sl~s source. Fau"!', suggeStlon. dallng back 10 1922. h .... un
,6,

Tht Commu"lly QIJd Us Book

roruJdeTable all forma supposed. 1b.ii iIOUTCe and lis IIl1t~ will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 7. 1. AlongsioU: [h~ signs sourtt ""' to be postulated (.. , ~ pawon

165

S. Consequently the leader or lMders of the Chrtstlan group pe. rv. "led two rote.. acting both as apologists and as preachers (".prop/leu), In ",hat Brown calli; thr smmd stage or the Gospel"s rornpos!Uon !he !hemes no\\" regarded as dlstlncUve or !his ('~ were ..-o"en into an Impressh'~I)' cohesl\'e ron~p!uul pau~ MeanwhIle ttrtliln of the group', new inslghts we~ embodIed in namull'es and dlscou~ tha! relkcted the conlrtlstlng sltuaUons. of Contro"ersy wld prophecy. in which they arose. Some of these. will have been nnMbed to ~pisode, of the signs sou.-.:c or consUucrffi round tradl!lon~1 5a}'lng, available from elsewhere. 'Slnce the general traits of Johann;ne !hought are so dear, even In the units that betra), minor diJf=nces of style. we should probably think of 3 close-knit scbool of thought and expesslon . In this scbool the prlndpal preacher was the one rnponsible!'or the main body of the GospelllUlterlaJ. " Morm''l'r. In spite of the oo.1ous cracks and )oIns In both n"mlll,'e and ~ j{ Is '~rtuaUy Imposilble to find a pa!llSllgt flft from all elements of !M typically lollannine vocabulru-v and swle. This can be SQ"n front el'en a cunory examination oflh~ work of any scholar (e.g. Bultm.. nn. Forlna . IloIsmard) ..-ho has attempted a detallro:i reconstruction of the prehiStory of the Gospel. The perplexll)' such an examination may induce should nOt lead uS to abandon Our efforts to trace these tilrUer stages. SIll! le", to

conclude that they nC'<'rI' ensted; hut It does belp to ,indica~ BfoI,'II'S "ieIo' that for !M a<"tUaJ wrilina-OO!O.'11 of thf: Gospel one IIUIn "'as resporu;ble, To achieve the sl),llstlc \lnlty that is such a mark~ featu~ of th~ Gospel he m$de numerous adjlJSUIl~nu througho\ll. some '1uit~ minor, others lm'oh'ina oomIderable w..placemenu. Only In Ihe case of~an)' maJor bruks. 5\1ch ... those at the end of chapters 5 and 14. is it rtason~ble 10 s~ak of !lepara~ editions. At the same lim~. ",e cannot suppose th~t the evangelist "'85 anxious to ~I-"id inconsistenctes at all COStl-otherwise the inl!:enlo\ls suggestions of Bultmann and BalsmaN! \\'ould have n o pJauslbllll}' what"..,r. It =ms that bet",een tbe signs source that preceded the blrth of the community and IU expulsion from the i}'TIagogue not onc of the dlalol!:ues or dJSCO\lr5eS In the Gos~l was ori&1nalJr composed in pnci;ely the IOrrn that we now ha" e IL 6. Towards th~ end of !his second stage tbe lob~nnlne group was expelled from the Iynagogue, The_~rst edition of the GospeIloduded reminders of this experience, no,,' bulll InlO dillogue (chs. i. 8, Md 10) and narrati" e (ch. 91, But it certalnl)' did not <:OI'1Ialo aB the malerill at the disposal of the e"lInaeliSl, ~ narrative oecrlon 0( chapter 6. for instance, was not in llle first edition. and the public mlnlst!)' terminated a\ the end of cbapter t o. Chapters I 5-17 wen. also mIMing (d. Undars. Behind tM FOlJrlh G(5)!!!/). 7· The second _edition incorporated more material: It .hows e'idence or tension within the Johannlne comnlull.ity Itself (ch . 6) and perhaps a slackening of ho,tiUty towards 'the lews' (ch . II), Tbe community dc;,otes mo~ aneOlion \0 Its o",n Interna l uiJalrs. The alleiorles of the "ine (ch. '3) and those of the door and the shepherd (lO: 1 -18) beloog h=. The cleansing of !he Temple. whleh originally led into the passion nUmllIl'e, Is now displaced to lls prtSent position in chup!u 2 . &own. foe wborn the =ood edllloI1 In.'ol,·ed a relath'dy minor ~orkin8, assigns most of the major changes la a final =!action. ~e.'ertheless he aarm thal '!he adaptation 0( the Gospel to different aoals ~ant the Introd\lctloo of new malerllll des;gned. to meet: oew problems'," Clearly m\lch depends \lpOO one', .iew of what these problems were. The most Important question is how far the e\'~ngellst himself was responsible !or the \'arlous edItions. Commentators differ on the extent to which he wOldd bU'"e tolerated lhe dislocations and duub!el5 10 the present

, Browo . p. =1'.

• p. >D\;'

source ("'bleh mayor may DOl bal'c been combined with the signs 1KIIIrt:e In the first place' and (h) an indefinite number of Synopl:icI)l't' tradlllons. whkb certainly included sayings and mal' ha'-", included short narratives. Tbe synaSOj!ue which ga,"c 11 "'(leom e 10 the stlllS!
d!s!<enlers who ch~mploDed tbe gospel bad tmditlonw kHds ofllleir owo which affected their understanding of the mesiaae concerning Jesus. This III turn led them to reapprnl<e their own faith . 4. If many proI'm Sl~npalhellc 10 Ihe gOSpt't others were sceptical. e'"en hosUle. The radical questioning of this group prompted Jesus' roUowtn 10 reOect upon their ne,,' faith and 10 develop U in

une,;pected ways.

_}

I

,66

The CommurUty

tUI. Brown . for InSlan~. ~lie\'15 that quill' • s"bsl:anlla] P
J rei'::;.

may have been reluctant \0

mm

more all.el1llions than be was

compelled 10. 8. hen so It Is hard 10 disl"'ru;" completely With the theo,}' of a !\nul redactor. responsible 31 the ,e'Y leml for the addition of the lasl

'cbHPler. Brown. who attaches collsidenable lmponance 10 the rtdaClor', work. buists that "the ran th~t tIlls mmertaJ "'lIS adckd at

I.

the last stage d(le5 not mean that it is any less anciellllhan material that round Its I'I'ay IDln l'arlier edition•. In avesslng the rt
•

~nd

Its Book

,6,

separate strata lhere !. nothing In the texlltself to tcl] u. ,,·hkh came liNt. PerhapS only thr source can be locau:d \\'ith any assUl'8nce as the of the community and Ihe earbest II"Tinen expr=ion of its faith. MiIftl·o dbtlngulsbes ~ periods In Ihe hlstoty of the rommunlf)'. earl)'. middlt. and lale. The early period Inl"Olves ·tbe conception of 8 messianic group wllhln the ~ommunity 0( th~ s>'nugogue'." In th~ middle ",,"od 'part of the group (po:rrl only.'] is born as n separate community by experlenctn8 111'0 major traumas: exoommunlc~tion from the synaWOHue !md martyrdom· ... The late pcorlod b chalaete~ for Martyn by a 'mo\'~ment towards firm social and theological oonliguratlom· ... He'" Martyn diverge,; from Brown In assigning to this Ii!~ ""nod tbe wrltln~ of Ihe Gospel 'in its 6rsl and S«OT1d editions·." In what roUOWJ. whll5llTtaining Mart)·n·s division of lile hlslory Inlo Ihree periods. I ba"e categori=l these somewhat dlfferenlly. In particular. [ ~lie\'e that the charge of ditbdsm If lLkeJ)' to ha,·e preceded (and Indeed preclpitaled) tbe upubion from the S)'IIagogue. Many.. 'lJlCaks of this cha'1le and the persecution tbat accompanied It as ' tbe Serond Tmuma' thllt rollowed upon the

Initial expulsion. (A) The wly p:riod

Before Ihe foulldatlon (If the community. e,·en before the composi· l. THE

COMM USIT~

Martyn brglns one of his programmatic essays by comparing .he Go!IpcoJ IQ an arci",aeologisi"s leU. It contains. as Ile says. ·num=>u. strata. and 10 """'" extenl tbese SlnIla may be dltrerentlated £mm one Br"IOIher'." The crncb and joins known It!I aporias Indlcale the presence of such strata. but 10 Ikcide wIdth is tile earlier ,lM>rmatJoo ofa diHerml kind Is requlred Unlike tbe!.ell. Ihe GosptI ~ lKIl display Its SU"dUI onr on cop of !.he other In a gll'en ordet-. Consequentl)' It Is not always easy 10 ",[Bte the differenl S\J1Ita Il> Ibe sUe<:eslh~ stages 0( the c-ospe!·s composillon. Somellml':S Ih!'St are so Intricately connwe
.. GoOptI '" /ohn. p. ~

tion oflhe signs source. Ihere was B dispute betwccn Ihe discIples of Jesus aud those of John tb~ Baptist. Since. however. John a i",ady Hgures as a wllness to JesuSIn th e signs source Itself. the earlif,st discernible !(",rum of the Gospel. we must relegate Ihls dispute to the prthmory of the rommunity. Accordlngl)', I 10110", ~Iarlyn in beginning with the inundation of'B messlanlc &rOUP \\1thin the community of the synagogue. But II'hal kind of synagogue are we speaking of ",,",1 .\Dd what ,,·as the gospel whkh It first: heard; The s«ond of thtse qU<'SlIorn; I defer UntU Chapter 7 r~lessiah'). The Hrst presents us w[lh conslderJble dil!iculties. The C\·!&ur· becou.. tt 11 tbe ".orc;oll...-lsh .. MaJou' • ...,..b!y . ..,d thi< 11 how It .h""kI \It In the pr<>«It ,h.pt
..,.,......00<1

,68 Is scanty Bnd Ill-defined. and we must proceed ,vilh some cllution. In discussing the origins and background of the comnlllnity in the

last chapter I al'Olded the term "Jewish sectarianism' for IWO reasons. one ronnccted "1111 the adjealve. the other ",lIh rh/, noun , To speak of the lobannlne group as Jews Is [0 fail 10 Iue .mously the deUbttate auenlltlon~fI'ect of the U~ of this Imn In lhe Gos~L Such is the nrgatl"e \'alency the term has acquired within the Gospel thal Ucan hardly be applied to the foUowtn of Jesus without mnmsion. When. \0 taU only the most obvious Instance. the eYanKrlist ""}"5 of u.., disciples thalther kepc the doors !>hut afl6 Jesus' death 'for fearof the le.n' (20: 191. then he Is Ipso fatl,o distancing them (and bimselI} from those: he caUs by Iha1 name. In COfllfIltoting upon tM Gospel one Should respect Ib.is deUbmue dis:socl811011. We mow that the Samaritans. desttndants of larob. repudiated the name Jews (as altestc:d In chapler 4): and althouah there an' no strong ...,awns fOf" Identifying the Johannlne group directly "~th lhe Samaritans. I. it is nb..-lou$ that Ihey 100. for the most pan. though! of themseh-es as "o,,-Jews. We n~ to ack.nowledge thatln ~lmost all the contexts ill which the Jew, pia}' an Bcth'e mle In the Gos~lthey ""' the obj~ of fear. anger. or t1atred. The objecUons to the term 'stCUlriMlim' are of a different order. The fact Is that We are sure of the names of only t~e =ts In contemporal)" l'alesUne: l't1arlsees. Sadducees. and Hsse"es. Of th~ only the Essenes. who hlcluded In their ranks. as nearly all scholars now belle,·e. the mem~rs of the QUlIlnln community. exhibited all the features of what modem soclologiSI! would call a =1. in their Isolarlonl~m and their uncompromising relecUon of 0.11 other daiIru; to be the rlghlful heirs of the promises of Isra.el. The ,oast numbers af people who. 115 we must suppose:. neither belongrd to onc of these groUp:i n(lf ~upported the judaelo establishment \\"= men and ...·omen widlOut a name and, ~ slgnlAcantly. without an organWitioo-l1Ither like the ftinae members of a political party .... ho feel ofusati1lled with the part)' line but who. for the momenl. have nO"'here else 10 go. This Is the ptlenomenoo of political (or religious) dissenL [t repre$elll$ a groundswetl of opinion that can remain undeteCted ulIIll It has pushed to the 5Url'ace 9nd the wave crumbles and falls. Without It there woold be no hrmka"'ay groups

\

The CommunilY Qnd lIS Book either In reIlglon or In po lItIcs: It is a cond!t:Ion of their (fmu ... ) pcmiblllly. Th~ prc5 welcome 11 ultimately feU foul of the PQ\\-erful reprcselllaU"d of the Jutlaean escabllshment: 'He came 10 his m,... bomc:. and hl$ own people reaI"ed him nOf. But to all who did r«eh.., hhn. who believed In his !lame. be gave pm\'~ 10 become chlkiTTn God' (1: 1 1 f.). The origlnal messaae much "'eake!" than the one by the )0\\'5. Oth~wlse 11 would nC\'eT ha,.., gaIned a footin& among thnn in the first plact. To make sense of \\'hat evidence IhffC is K'e ha"e therefore to postulate a period of de\"Clopment In wtllch the follo\\"= of Jesus mo,'ed from a low to a hIgh du1slOlogy. Bullhatcame later. FOf lbe prnenl, 115 Manyn suggests aj)r(lpo$ of the homiletic materialln Joon I : )5-49. ·the preach~ takes for granted that bis hearers al ... ady held CffIaln weU.formed m=iank ~tions. and these erpcctaUons constitule In hIs vIeI\' a son of launching pad for the !rti/sgtsclrirlrrIkht chrlstologlcal tra.jectory which has its fulfilment in Jesus of NfW\relh. He Is the MMaiC prophet. the eschatological EHlah. the expectro MeSSiah. The preacher of the sermon. therefore.l!ke John the Baptlst. points to Jesus. so that those who ha"e beeu brought up on the tradltlonal/ewish upe<:tatioflS may nOW fi"d the one so lon~ upected.''' I agree with tbis ~umm"ry. with the caveat thatlhe preacher is un!ih.l}' 10 have had any dcar Idea of the cbristologkal trajectory ahead of him. The foonda!lon document of the johannlne communIty was roughly equival~nt to what we hn"e called the llgns source. I shall argue In Chapter 7 that thIs was malnly deslgnrd to promot~ belief in the messlahsWp of Jesus. a relatively modest claim. n eaber unprecedented nor bhupbemous. Though unJ.iidJ' to make much headway lWloog the dle.hards of the /udaean estahllihment. this d~lm WIIS put forward wIthIn a broadly based conteIl of religious apectation. There were many varieties 01 messlank hope. but thrir \
or

'"

\

Gtnab

populace or III'$1-<:enlury PaLtstine, 10 embrace 11.01 clalm that had a measure plauslblllty and could """",how be corrobor.ucd. Much of the pro&reSS of Ih" fle"\Oo' faith would ~ conditioned by the kind or corroboration Ihat "'... sought and the way In which challenges from non«llen'f1j "''"'" actuan)· "",I.

or

tb) Tilt middlt ~riod

If we compare Marlyll's version of the history of the community with Drown's veTslon (In his commentary) of the history of llli hook. we .h~1I Hod Ihn\ they diverge al one importa", point. Only ~I Slage 4 (tbe second edltlon of the Gospel) does Bm.." speak 'i\Il adaptation of the story of the blind man 10 Ihe new situation In Ihe lale 80S

or

or early ~O!i which in"oivrd me ""communication from the Syn_ agogue of the Jews who believed in ,nu. as the Me$Siah', .. For Martyn the finl edition of the Gos~l wl15 nO! published umil after this 0"8umalk I!\~nt. H~. though [1hinlr.llrown Is rlgllI to ,uuest that Ihue was an earlier \'~on of the Slory ri lhe blInd man (s« 1"'111. p. 179). "'e must side with Martyn. "ny ."trsion of the ('""'pt! wriUtn btfort the split ..i lh the Jews mUSl hll"t looked compielriv different fmm the om ",., ba.·~ now and It would be hazardous ~.'en \OJ IlIemp( to recor>SInlCI 11.

Howe"er thts may be. it is el'ident that Martyn's middle period coven mnny yeln of hidden history . Brown speaks Ilf hls 5eCOnd .I~ge us 'lalUng perhaps severd! decad,,;·.'9 Throughout Ihls tlme we must suppose that the Jobannin e Chrl~lIans were nOI only in oonllCt with the synagogue but belo!lJ!cd to It and look paTI in its worship. This middle period mdal at>nJptly. 115 dramallc dose has been lmpressl"ely charted in Marryn', book . Sut Oll what hap~ned In Ihe Intervenlog years he has rather less to say, In the laS! chapttr thr~ short ~[!eS or tbe Gospel "'ere selected fIX" dose scruliny. ~1I ru:emplif)iog tM bla2ing ' Famlly rows' thal presaged the final 5e\"eranC(' of relations between the Johannin., Christians and 'tbe Je...... The ultimate Dare-up was onc Fmm which neither side could bad:. do",n. bill I1 was preceded presumably by a longish period or"mnre or less acrimonious debate. The claims pul forward on behiilf of J<=I< were nalw-all)' probed and prodded by suspicious Pharisees. bul at the same time tbey were sct.w:J upon by "

p. ... vi.

"

p . =I •.

I 7'

the relillious dlssrm .... and ucitedJy ussnsed in the light or thrir own ancient tradilions and belids. Thne .. -ere then IWO distinct impulses 1000'ards a ~h and creati~e fonnulatlorJ of the I",dlllons ooncernlog Jmu: 6rsr the need to defend the faith againSt chalknges from \\1thin (he synagogu~ sn:ondly Ihe &rOwinG a\\'areness lbat Jesus was tn his OWn penon tM fullllment 0[ much more than Ihe mo:ssllUllc claim. Ihat had ociglnaUy been made nn his bebalf. ComprisinH RI il did at least n,"o IlIOUpS with differing rellglous lradltlons. th~ slJ""!IO!l "" i~1f Jurnlshrd tJ" C!"utiblt "·;!!ti,, "'hkh old lieJltja a'u/ n~W loyallies Wtre f,/£nl l"tD 11" glc\\Q,rg olfinnllliolU of 11" f"ourOl Gospd. To be sure. this was mote thun a simple chemical reacllon. Seariuw as il d~ so many signs of a gradual and complc~ comlng·together. (he shining sike, 0[ the Hnlshro product also curries the hallmark 0[ genius. mOSl. probabl}' of an Indllidual genius who may or may nlll ha.'e drawn upon the worlt of other. less gifted preachers than himself. '0 Seo,'eral Olhrrn
or

The Cumm,mity rum it, Rook

Genesis

'{2

and reformulate tho"" l>eliers for which the Phanse.. •. suspicious and hostile. wanted proofs and guaranTees, ~ Iartyn expresses the challmge ,,1th characteristic \'er\"e under the heading To Ihe Bet ha, Midrashl': Some of the !",r"""s exposed to the Sigilli Cos!"'I. spectlically some of the poteotial Jewish ron,..,rt.
mid"",Wc examination. ""me
(cl Th. Jatc p"rioti

In the second cditlun of lifs/Or!! und TheoJogy Martyu inserts a clause briefly summarizing th e consequences uf thc break between Christians and Iew", 'what had been an inner-synagogue group of Chrisli
'&our« Cri,ki=·. p.

~:39:6:Jolr.: 7 : I7 .

lU4 ••\lort)"n

\mi""

IllI

John "p.66..

to romid
173

ranks!' and of dforto; to ~stablish closer tie'! with other Christian groups. During ill; long assoclal!OD with the s)'nagogu~ the ]ohannine group continued to ho!", for com·erts. I'lnding itself a lone and confronting persecuTioo it had two choicos. It could either look for support d""where or huddle self·prOTectively in a small knot. Perhaps it did both th= things. but the e,~dence Is sTronger for the lauer. The community's concern for its own snn'lval found expre'!sion in a ""nes of allegories (door. shepherd. \"ine) which. are eloquent Testimony of the .us!enam;e it continued to derhe from its rotal commlimem to Jesus. Martyn [){fers a strong reading of the allegories in lOo 1-18: th e sheep stand for the johannine community: the straogers. trueves. robbers, and wolf represent the Jewish authorities (a really dedicaTed allegorist would be c,'cn bolder at this point): the hirding's coward· ice rellee", that of the crypto-Chrtsllans. the secret sympatlili", ... among the 'rule ... • of 12: 42: while the shepherd , of course. is Iesm," Verse 16, which Bultmann rejects,... a gloss. opens ncw ~ ,isms for the community hI' speaking of 'other sheep'. not of tht. (k~ fOt " fold. which are to k gathered together to fonn a single floclr.. r-iow at this stage the Johannine community was shut otT not JUSt from the synagogue bllt from the world at large. This is dear from the "~f)' negative u"" of Kno".o; thronghout the farewell discourses. with chapter 17 affording only a partial exception. Were it not for the singl~ nl"$/l ( w: 16) on which Martyn huilds so much. one might be tempted to think now in terms ofa Christian ghetTo, But we " In hi. I.let ",,,tri'mlo,,,, to jo/lannlne .. uti.,. ~ ••nn""d Bm",,, ha> .dopttd a lImiIo:r .~ to M. ,,)"o '.. and In Ono 1IrtIC .... ·-otb< d;,"ngui>bc> no kwcr than :Iix lroup> ID what h< cou. 'dJ, ",honnlt>< ,..,U~lou, puniow' . What h< has ID say rooc<mlnZ < wmrnunity i!>CIf. Th< .. m. i, 1nl, 0/ lh< ·O<)·jlIo-Chmfutru·.!oc I"hich tb< tMdenc< is V"J' m&ht: ,~:~ " L and ( p! th' rommu.n.ity lru:tuded Gspl. Con""", llultmann , who ""t>OOmI~ =iru oIt ltUoliOD. rh, porabto.' olIezory", probably. «ronliar}' d. th, \ m=phoricaJ "'" ollh< 1h<0'" in ,00 .6 f, Bultm. "" rompar .. ·tbo \I'OY ID "'hJch lhemo of ,h. ~;SOOUt,. 00 tl>< bread of !if. "' ",-uoourhoric.al fipm.s;on In f>: '7 .• nd 5Imilorlr tbe them< of tl>< <11""""", OIl th< Ugh' In ~: 19 - ~' IP.}SS n , ll,

1

.t""

'''pOn
'h'

Gmtsis

TI,e Community and it' Rook

shall = that in this GmI'd univusali,m and isolationism go band in band: th~ l..sus worshipped by John and his community is stjll th~ light of Ihe world even wben Ibe world Is blind.

impoflimce of tbe tlistinction by introoucin g it imo its own ' PIcture. No! for O(l!hin g does Bultmann ha,'c !WO roaill sections in his commentary: the"" a"" ,trong """""ns , ~ially the so]"",n introduction of cbapter 13. for making a break between chapre.,; 2- 12, 'Ihe revelation of the ~a (gloryl to the world', and chapters 13- 20, 'the """dation of the ~" hefo,.., the rommunil)". At leas! th~ farewell dl.
174

3. T HI

CO"~!l'N I T Y

IN ITs

BOO ~

In demonstrating how the natu"" of the Johannine community is exhibited in the ("""I'd I shall coofioe my illustrations to the middle period. in pi!Ilicular the period of growth and d."dopmen t preceding the fUlal ruplure wilh the syn agogu e. Throughout this time the Johannl oe group had two preoccupations and faced in two direc· tions. On the one hand. it was forced to respond 10 challenges from the establishment party in the ne of so much of the Gospel material. Some of these challeoges "ill ~ discussffl in Chapter ~ ('Soo 01 God' ). Others will ~ gi
(a) Call1 rowrsy

, 75

I'.h_: ..

The presence of oontro,'ersy materia) is oft"n enough signalled directly a nd unambiguom l)': ·You enquire of ( 'p<"" ",, = i:i')7 \~')J ) the scriptures ... but their ,,-imess is of me' (S: 39). Here, how<,wr. ] want to examine some less obvious passages, ,,"hose contro,'e",ial natune Is Indicate
Reduced I() its bare essentials, the challenge to Jesus" authority reads like this 'So thc Phariseos said 10 him, "You are testifying on your " 'John

did no _

orl• • P" 9" From ' hi'

&e"..-..tiLition "'.

nu... ~
oonlun . I w~ r' ""'pI'\j'eO In tl>< OM~t <>I . =#,I'I'_'<)9- '30; f-

"""'!or. no.. $Irort f"l"'''' h" ~ COOlbi,,
,!any"', 1'1', 214- ,1. "

f«Ogrllzilbk un" . llut i' 100", oIr .. d)" rompuoojt<, oomprisi"~ a[ I
di/!,,,,,,,

dcmrn ..: Co) v , '2, 'a r"'llmrn' 0/. =el" tlon~ OOIllI"' ",blc ' 0 ,:)7. I, iO reI.o.t by tbo Ulumlnation =""y, and it "_on to

'0

[t"" ,- "" Po 1; 6)

,,6

Th~

own ""half: your testimony is im'aUd:' Jesus answered. "E"en U' [do testify on my own b.half. my u.stimony i'l ,'alid " .... In yaur I.w it is written that the testimony "ftwo m~n i'l ,'aUd; I testify on my own behalf, and the Father who sent me" testifies (In my behalf as weU"

(8: 1.1-I4a. 17- ,8). Tt should be observed straight away tbal lb" Pharisees' challenge ha. no parlicular bearing on Jesus' claim to be the light of the world (8: 12). It is dirNCtoo not to the content of his proph etic utterance but to Us form. Tbe Pbari= wan! proof tha! Jesus hall a right to'l"'ak

bcloo& ,,1,h tb. theme of ch,p«! ~. (llndan . p. J(3)-o< porb .... It "'... OIl iml<porui!ion of )"'''', ""Slns.oo d<>Uny and hi' role .. ju<4;<, Wh.! lntt=><> U. be£< ~ the >econd el<ment I~~ The quootIoo o/)eru<' ow ,,-n....:. I h.... « 1 om g,.;ng" i8: '4b). 1ltl1 ,hc>o ,,,'o qUdlioo. iIf<: thcm.ch-c> disIin """'om J«u' orI&ln ""d hi> mon-I« ''C<}' '''[f"lly_10 ~ict~or, the ,de",,,,, to J<>w' tlny (".;; .... y .. ) Is f" Uy <=I - }O. Th .. this ..'•• ori~lr on truJeprnd<", p (,,(\to '0(] th • • hl~ from 'Pharl"",,' to 'J'''~' ) _ 1, >it" ... , ,ho, Ill< therno of. J.... ,' dying in'" JIocy. the 1"/ >pjod OS • ~ CJ
u..

""'''e<

""",lie.",.,. _

<""'''piU''' .......

""*"

.lJ
.u""'rJ is di>!In:Iw.h«I from the That ',..Ild' i> tb. 00""'" ho..-n by tbe par.n.1po. ... ~e in 5: }', ...""", l< I, " i ""nd), . b$u,.! "" .. y. 'II ! gi'" .... imooy on my 0..... bob.1[ "". I<$Ilmm)' is ,," I ",,'. The p"",""h ...1 """nin~. ~,unlonWla",jy. oloD """ IIOOsl\JP. But ,I>oo.,h """""I), inoroduced ., the COltlpooitionol i' I, W>Q,l><SlIooaN) ' poin'. '" • profound th«>low;lrnI rrlIectIoo upon the """'"'0 of Jesus ".thm!]". whk:h I. >1 tb. """'" ilogi-dopm.n be aIdeJ " an <.>:'"mol Jtimulus. in this c.... ., M'!l)'D flU"'lt, the ,umm"", lO 'he &1 h. ·~lidr.>h , "

The ,alid or

. d.u..;bl, t<SIiJnooy 1;......'...

""" 1<>Jf«:m""t (. ";0" .u"s......

V. 16~

i"''' ""

t''''''''

".g•.

ot'I""""'''' "'

'"'0

Community ami Its Book

Iii

as a prophet. lbis is in itself a perfectly reasonable request; 11 (orresponds moreover to a well·anested tradition: ·As Jesus was walking in the temple. the chief pn. ",... and the scribes and the dd~,,; came to him. and they said to him. ""By what authorHy are you doing the.., things. or .... ho ga,,~ you thIs authority 10 do Ih~m;'" (Mart 11: 27 f.) El",where ;n th~ Fourth Gospel the same word. 'authority" (i{ou~ial is empJoym in the sam~ . en", (5: :>7). Accord· ing 10 the SYlloptlc version jesus dodges the question by posing an unanswrrabl~ question or his own: the Fourth Gospel el"",t it; for othen>.i.., the rule about two wimcsses would have to be appUed. and that is sheerly absurd (th,. Ab_m,diliil},"" (H )

s:

}1 - 40

Thi. ~pisode. like th~ precm ing on~. is predominantly concerned with the theme of witness and records an allemath'e reply to the same challenge." It must hal'e e~lS1ed lndependently Defore belng

GtI!~sis

Th. Communily and its Book

placNl 'vh~re it is now. JesWl' ad"~rsaries are rt()wh~,., oam. d in the I"ng discou,"", s: t9 - .H: and although thl. is formally addressNl to the Jews (d. ;: 18 ) thi. datum is irrele vant to th~ prehistory of the passage." The", is a fonnal cootradiction. noted b}' many commentators. be{\"e~o 5: 31 ('if I gi"e TestimOOY on my own behalf. my I
swear to have =n the Loch Ness monstcr. ultImately only 'Nessi~ ' herself can prove them right. But in religious matters questions of Testimony and e\1dence are especially delic~le. and challenges to estabilshNl authorities es!"'cially threatening. 'VOlt search the ScripTUres: Jesus tel!. the [ews/Phari=s. 'because you thin k that in them you have the new life: yet it is 10 me that the)· bear wim"",,' (5: 39). The Johannine Christians have accepted The illl'itation to the Bd ha·~ lidr,,-,h and iD so doing acknowledged th~ anthority of the ScriplltreS. Hul they surprise their opponents by whi,ling the book out of the ir hand,. Imp li citly the whole point and porpose of The ap!",al to midrash h; b.iog challenged and deniNl. Perha[lS the most important lesson th~)" have learned from this brush with mhbinism is that they must go their own I,·ar. taking The ScripTures with them.

.. Con,-.n; 19 . But . lti"ld, oto.c i,;"he ~~ "'00 = ,j il-lC. Tb< " '",&<list " .. «id..",ty t
"ne<

<"".

.. Cen"" L S<"""k

Vot"..,. '!J
woo tbinh that th, "utbo, 01" 5;

J<>u !ni, den Ju
j <>-

J,' rned~: [3- 'q ...

" 0., 'hiS '''''' "" Str._B. li. p.• 6 7 ~nd any """"",mar}' (tspffiO lly Schl'lter. Tlnd
"""1>0)". 'L'(liJ,-r< du Chrisl".

T79

(iill 9: 1- 4 1 Along with most modem comn1ent~tors. Bultmann treats chapter 9 as a unity: but it was not alwa}'S so!' Th~ sardonic query. 'Surdy you are not eager to become disciples of his?" 19: 27) originally belonged to an old debate. focused upon a divisioo wilhin lhe .yna!tO&ue between the fo[[owe,.. of Jesus and the establishment. who declared themsekes disciples of '1,1= (9: "R: d. 5: 4 6 f.). The first STep towards rffonstructing the earlier form of the debate is 10 bracket out the central section. g: 18-" 3. which is a deTachable =ne belw"",n the blind man's parents and 11.. J_m,. We arc th~n left WiTh 9: 13- 1; and 9: 24- 34." Together. th""" rollStitut~ a long dialogue belw~n the blind man himself and the PhnrlstfS. In the C"OoclWlion. Y: 35 -4 1. the moral of the story is drawn with g...,at art and dexTerity . The central section. In whieh the Jews Interrogate the blind man's par""ts on their son's recalls their crucial decision to expel from the synagogue anyon~ confessing [esus to be the

ru"".

" ~lanyn ",!et> if! . ""'" II! ..",..~. p. 3~ ". JJllO the th"",), oI"wSIlrtI>. imply '''''lUffiWlication . " Th, mtrod"t"lo~'"-onb ID V. ~4 h.,·. t:ftn:>dded to~...... ttan>it"", t..ck to th, d;.!osae bc:n<""" , be: blind mon .nd th< I'h..-is=. bUl d,. t!
""If"

/><,ertb
"""'ion

=

",,,,,t,,,,,,

,80

,"

Gmfsis

Th. Co",mUl,i!!j Gild ilS Book

M~ssiah. ,. &'hind this laconic "'ide. inte*ctcd bl' the cl'angdisi as

S1my.~o Basically what we ha"e he,.., is a straightforward arglilllent

an explanation of the Jews' inuansigeoce. Ue, hidden the 5tOlj" of a ["ngrhl' debate b.tw~ Je"'s and Christians which has no\\' b.en ddiniti"ely broken off. But in the earliest form of the story. COntained in the exchange l>etweeo th" Pilar;"'.,; and the blind man himself. the debate is still "1.'1'1 ' much ali,·e. There are "e"ctal [ndieal;""s of the primitiw nature of this debate. First of alllhere is a n all",;"n to the infringement oflhl.' sabbath res! 1'1: 16; d. 5: ,6 fr.; 7' 2]. I[). though the writer is clearly impatient with the legalistic simplicity Ihat would cnd the matter Ihere. Secondly there is the continuing interest in tbe probative \'a!ue of J<'Sus ,ig"" (9' I fi: d. 10 : n j. Thirdly the blind man 's own declaration of faith. 'He is a propbd (9 : 17) Is perfectly consistent with th~ simple creed contained io th~ signs sourc~. Finally the passag~ indudes what mar well have been the ~arli"st fnrmulation of the aflirmation of l~slL'l' di"ine origin. Subsequently this would be as.5Crted quite Categorically and be ba~ on lesus' exclusi" e knnwledge of h ~a\"enly things. Here it fi~ures in all argument of unmistakably rHbbinic Ha,'our: '"'W~ know tbal God has "pok~n 10 Mo~, hu! as for this man. W~ do not know where he comes from."' The man answered. "Why, Ihls is a maryet! You do not know where he COmes from. and yet h~ opened my eyes'" (9: 29 f. l. It is Important to recogn~ that the distinctively /ohannine Ihigh) christology i. absent from this debat~. It miltus simple argumenls of the kind that did in fact carry weight ,,11h som~ of the Pharisees: 'How can a man who is a sinn~r do such si~sr (9: lb.) On readin g Ib~ stmy for Ihe lirsltime one might conclnd~ Ihat i l "'as designed to show tlO more than that lesus was (a) a prophet and (~) from God - claims with little diff~rence of meaning , Only in the .. ery last =ne. Ihe cucounter bet",,,,,n Jesus and thc man he has cured. is tb~ much ""onger title of Son of Man introduced, abruptly and unexpecledly. And this may well be an Hddition to the original

based on a mlramlous cure ~nd dcsigtled \[) d~monstratc to Pbar~ of good wW th e lrutb ofth~ earlie51 claims made on Jesus' behalf Ill' his ch ampions Within the sl'nagogue.

" It may """" odd tho, 'hI:< "''''''''m. ,.,.,uld b,,,, brffi

(h)Rewwlio!l

"' .. ,. ....... /; ......

MosI r"""nt discussions of ~arly Chrislla n prophecy tend to 't~r dear of the F(mrth G!JSpd. In an imponam anicle atta cking Bultmann 's assumption that a greal deal of spiril-in.pired prophecy has found its Wa)' into th e Synoptic Gw;pels. l. D. G, Dunn u\"oids any dose examination of th~ Fourlh: 'It must suffic~ to point out that tbe discourses In the Fourth Gospel ha .. e mor~ of the cbaracter of midrasbim or meditations on original lesus·tradition (sucb as the words of th~ Last Supper m th~ parable of Ihe lost sheer) than of prophetic utterances. '" Da"id HW;,; e<JuaHy sceptical. insisting 011 m e cI~ar diffe",nces I:>clw~n the Gospel and the Book of Re"dalion:

In the first place the authm of R",'~l.Uon iJenti6.. hlmoelf as a (><"Ojlh.t: the compoStr of the Joh.nnin. disrou~ does not. Secondly. in the "f-wortls of R",-d"~on the exalted Lord "P"~h ",1Ieu.s the disc"".....,. of the Fourth ~I • ..., presented as Ihe .. }in~s of Je,us, .. , The ,'lew thal the homili .. nr di ""'u~

In john's Gospel derl,'e from a Chri.tian (><"Ojlhet , presumably withtn the Johannme school or circ le ... mains a1 best a hypoth..l. and a bypoth",,;,; Jogged by oome difficult questions."

Oa" id Aun ... in an e.. ~n more comprehensi"e sun·CI'." omits Ihe Fourth Gospel altogcther. Those scholars who do accept tbe tbes;,; Ihat propbels operated I.

do

, , DO[

by . >impk profe>" ,h Ol ~ w.... M=iah. a nd I"-m.po prophet, j =! h.d won .~h="" ~i"'ln lIJ"'l ' iOIue In ,he ~'" ptoc.. 'fhis .. aIlluod at ioD~!b In Ch. i. Tb<
"'at

coonOlaUoo<>-whl
"",,'okr.!

,h.

,hem...r,..".

lronIcolly. h.", """'" a_ ' . . . ""llIt of <>1 ,bli< .,_.h$hlp ""'Y b< ~U£
' ' 'mjI<S to """,,1 ~1l<Stionet:o from

'h~ J~.,I'"

lhe _ 0/ I""'" "",h."iI" J<"" ... I<>u. 10 ,d! lhem plainly Who I:< the .'\<ssi. h ' "0 =rn" • ~J rulmin.>ttnl In Ih. """m"'''L 'I .nd tb. Fa!h.. ...., "",,' \ 10; jO). occreti
ch. 10. "'~ th.

la"',

Tilt CcmlllM/1g and Us Book

most famous of Ihese 15 lesu,' proclamatloo On 'tbe greal day' of the Feut of Tabemadl'$: 'If an)' one thlm let him come 10 me. aud !et him who bellel'CS in me drink. As the scrip1UJ"ei said. "Out of his bean Ihall How ri"us of living water'" (7: 38).4' Another such SIIytng affords an additional due: 'He ""ho belic".es In me. belleo"('$ DOt In lilt, bUlln him who sem me ..-I.nd be "'00 ~ me sees him who $Cn! me' (Il : 44 f.). for here, as P. Borgm aq;"... we hl\"e a 5IIylng nf j<5US wllh a firm pi""", In the tradition. occurring in oue furm or ~nother no less than Ie\'<,n ~ in the Founh Gospel." This Is not the place to discuss this lmpon anl tut in detail. It could easily hl"c llten appropriated from the ITIIditioo by ~ Christian prop/ld In I cuttle setting in onkr 10 claim, indirectly but unmistakably. the same luthorlly 10 speak on behalf of Jesus as J = claimed when he spoke on behalf of the fathC\'". FJsewhere I difI"=ru fDml of the sam .. iogloll i, UsN ~o underline this !=on directly: 'AIoen, amen I say la you. whoever receives 8.0)''''''' whom ' send receiVe:! me: and whoel·tt: receh'es me recell'es tbe one w ho 5nl! lite' ( 13: 20). In both (ases the sending Is I pmpheiic mission and its rec<'Ption H Ustenlng "1tll faith. And 50 in a saying Iha! =ploys a ll a dditional de,'lce (the !ntrodUctll"Y 'Amen' f to inl'ok~ the I""""nal authortty of Ics~s, the prophet eslabU.lles ht~ claim to be heard in terms CI'en cto.er to the Synoptic tl1ulitJon. For a nyone bold eno ugh 10 apply it Ihis tradition arrords an expUrit lustificallon of a pracllce alle.'IOO nOI lUSt In the johannlne group but Ih rou ghout the e arly Chrtstian ch urches. Ousel)' ro rme'Cted II'lth Ih ls 58yln ll, and fitted Into th e same con text. Is another :III),lng, with a dcar formal resem blance to the firsl: 'Amen. amen I say to you, 8 Ilave Is not grea ter than his m",ter, nor Is an a8cn! (d." oo' o""") greater than the onc " '00 sent him' ( 13: 16; cf, Mall. 10: 24 f.). or Ih.. other 'Amen' saylng.~ In the Founh Gospel (they total no fewCl' than 25) !I\"O 0: j. 5) look like Johannine adaptallons of

..1thin the johannlne rommunity usuaU}' confine themselves to .. tablisbin~ the principle without s.ecklng exampl.. llf the practice within the text of the C.ospelltself,"" There Is somelbJ.cl~ 51rU1J~e ~OOut this reticence. Perhaps it stems from a proper awareness 01 the "ery complex lJurary character of most of the dialogues and dl5c:ourses, For obviou5l)' the ~I had 10 be written down. But a reader's ol"trwhelming lmprl'SSion is not of 1I"I1[\ng (lI'hkh may be takm lOT lVanted and Ig:r>IImI) but of sp eecb. The Gospd Itself does not mention writing until the ,'cry end. Of course this 15 satl5factOfily uJ)lalntd on one Ia~ as a response to the demands of the gospel ronn. which In the nature of the C8s.e must asnls attributed to him III the Gospel , It s.eems reasonable to asIr.; who did. Wen: they 1111 wrlnrn words. right from thutart? .-I.nd ifnot. in ,,'hal circum stances would they ha~e been spoken! What klnd of man would consclousl)' Imltatc the fell' 'Amen ' sa)'ings that he found in the tradltloo or deUberately uncr any nr all nf the great " am' sayings? Or are we to suppose tha t ~ phrase llkr" am the light of the "'orid ' was a S«Of1dary Im'C!lIion of the e',lOgelist, ra:alling a sermon In which he had pronounced (or heard pronounced) the words , 'Ht Js Ihc light of the world'; The Fourth Gospel 15 full of 1r1(!J"idual :>a)'ings and extended discourses that desen'c to be called prophetic In a broad Sl."n 5e of the t~mt. But when It romeJ to delectlng p.a n lcular Illlla thal mlgb t quali fy as charismatic prophe<:y In the £trict sense. ullerm "'i thin a conte., of Chri~tlan worship , lhls "ery richness is a ""UI'Ct of embarrassm.. nt. Some of thc prime candidates may ha\'e been inserted into len~th)' und carduU)' con5tn1cted dio;c<>urscs that are most unlikely to ba"e been deUI·.. red w impromptu declamatiolL' in a charismatiC gathering. (I) 'Amen' 5llylttgS" I ; i "' , t'l' One !DI"lbledue Is the useofthe wonJ'dtdaim' ("pG, ... ) to in~

wbat ba,'e aD the appeHrances of being prophetic saylngs. 46 1bc . . .... G. I............. flat s,IriI·,.....1r1<: D. :.I. Smith. }oI>zau _ ~, pp. .5 L: '-1-\: :.I. ... Aoxtna. "'Tb< tnliu."" .... ChrbIIan "'",*",,, ': IL Eo I"", ",. I'lqllkliL SjIItII'• • , So:< <SP«Id1 K. ",..... "..w....... pp. ~5-' '7. .. n.m "'" , 0«IlLT0D«f .... "'" W
_
. , ""'" """""""loa riohis _ I s ~""""aI ... P .' ~. Lh< romLVNat· Il&kt .... ~ .... pp. 50 f. JOIa:: s: '1: 11: '9= ,>: 44 f.: I ): .0: ,~: 7·,: .s: H· (1. .\loll. .\Jut ,: .17: u.L. 9: ~ 8: ,0: ,6: piu. funhto panIIo!s la _ ..'riLl:tp. ......\!= l' 11o..... 1Nodo, ~ ' 5' ) ...t Sf. ., ....... 0 J .... u : '. s... P. iIo:J!
..

......... I(.

I

u... of Tr.dlll.....

Gtoo:no'.... p. ,; 1.

,0: ,0:

I~A.

8ilh ..... i6n. pr "LI' onoIysio of ja/m ' " 44 It. in ~

Th. Communily and its Book

'"

Synoptic 5a},inll.S.·· whilst the rest hm"e apparently been furnished wilh this wlcffin introduction by Ihe johanniDe prophet himself. Mm' 6gure in mrlle:unl suggests /00 much deliberation. it mUSI be remembered that all human speech. c,"cn the m!)!;! inspired. draw. In.tincti,·dy upon a buge stock of models lodgM in the indhwual"s memory and immediately available to him in tbe appropliale circwnstances, In Ihis case the Synoptic p;!rallels give us d ear examples ofa quit~ distincth'e type of saying. and th= mal' be thougbl to bave generated many other similar sayings within tbe oort of cul(lc ",ning that would call them fOrlh. (iij 'l am' sayings' " To appreciate the force of {he 'I am' sa)'tngs we must first of all understand their deep structure and the social oonteJrt whicb 15: '7. Un<w>: nOM . nd t1,. S)'n(It'I~ Gospel,'1 "'goes ,h ;, "'.. on out he:rn~ "ytng "hl< H"" I confine my .. lf '" tbe pr: 10: 7. 9, 11 . 14 : ' " l,: q' 6; '3' !. \ . ne: ' _"'e " yillll' (8; '4 • • 8. \8: ' 3' 191 . n: in • d;fI<=l, <~I<JO0 .r< 1h< opparmtly 'tralJhtJorword ca><> of ""lI.J.Ilon . . .\t .... 18;]: .\tm IQ' T5: Lub

th.,

,I

lxmuL.-, "'hich a n'~''''' the qu«tlon ' 11'hn .... ~",,;' : [hi ,he ·qu'lit>:oto<)· k><mul.·. "'h1, h ' os.'"" 'h< qo<Stion ·Wh.t ore )'0<11': [ <) ,he ';drntilkaoon Iormul..... ",hicb the """obr ideatili ... blmselI with ODOth", !' not ....b)«< but pr tb. on, woo I> ap«tI«n 1(1)' Ily d;o s;tng rno . IM',).. «m. 1h
"'J",

PfOi-l""'"''

pt<SOfJl
rno>'

""u'

lomwlao' ("'hkh ,,'ould mearo thot ther ~~ ..~io\B """,akr). nu, .. ;! ;0. Ihey • .....rt nothing more: thou th. bar< rh
w=

"""'#ll that ,1JcIr tru< 'source' ..... ,be joonnlne .. uphe, tums
originally ga"c them point. In other words. we need to enlisl the services of form clilici., m. Of the many scholars who ha<'e pored o\"er Ih = saying, only J. A. BiihneT has succeeded in disco" ering their true origin. The Sill-;m-Ld",,, is prophecy and in particular the prophet as mes.<>enger. Th e broader bad;)!.IUund i1; nO! properly religious but political and social - the ron"cntion obtaining throu~ho uI the Ancient Near East wh= by one man was entrusled by another "~th a task 10 perform or a message to ddh'er In a different place. Th e m",,,,nger first ra:eiwd his errand. then carried il out. and finally retUffiM to report on it. In presenting himself to the recipient of the me, sage the m=n, ger conld begin by announcing tbe purpose of his mission: 'I ha,'e come (10 p"rfor m such and such a task): Altcmatiwly be migbt start by identifying himsd f: ' 1 am (so-and-so)." Abrabam', se ....'ant. for instance ('Ihe oldesl of his house. who had charge of all that he had'). informs I.aban Ihat h ~ will not eatl1nt!l be has told his errand. and then open,; by saying simply. '1 am Abraham's ", ...."ant ' (Gen. 24: 34). T hese {WO formulae oorrespond. Biihner suggOlS. to th e two basic forms of proph~ti c S[>C<:ch in the Fourth Gospel: Ihe ', have oome' sayings (~Aeol'-Sprnc!'~) and the 'r am' .a}4ngs." Sometimes the name itself can be significant. The angel Raphael says to Tobit in the aprocrypha l book of that name. 'God sent m~ to heal you and your daughleT-in-law Sarah." and conllnues. '1 am Rapbael. oneof the """,."n holy angels who pr= nt Ih~ praye~ of the saints and enter Into the presence of the glory of the Holy On . ' " 1Iiih=', :lIne> In • chajur 0( hI> worl: b, al·. ODd buikb upon tbe lomo-critical ,von. of 1h< 6rs! pon. 'the human ~ .. tt., of"" dll'lne·. I'.arlirr "ud'" ofrl1, '1om' " )'ini>. !lUii<£tln, a ,""""ic bad:[t'Cl': IL O"d«. HRIrn ( I9>6 ~ Iler a iJo. mnaln, enm .. hed In tho 1011> of Bultmonn', 11,nd ..." hypoth. c;. ~1""1l ... "The fa<>l'roclomorloo', W« doe""","« I'Qm lhe 1'.g H.!!l!mdj Ubr-ory. moch clospel. Bu, for h im the most rom1roctn& puoUrI """" in the ~-pt1an hymn. to bi:I. whe .. 'tbe IlWP<"" alth. many -I ;un" say;ni> i< "' .... '" 1h< """," ...11;'9 <)/ ,be , odd< .. 1sI<; "'" I> m.:m' n by no.ny "'m<~. ,I>: .. 'he ""um: .00 ori~ of h' rorm: bu, Ih
"""pi...

w..- c! """"",", &cm .. Ifucu..In& Od. H 16-r 8). >imply ..... """ it! (ino,,\< prOl'.n""" •. !!ut the ,, 1 . tI ,·e ~· _ lo.llIIUOll< of tbo Gospel '1 om' "yin!!' ","'lr4!& """'Jiy " 'ilh Ihe: lu,h ",oocru>« 01

GosprI " .• b. ,·, ,,, 'urn to Ih< (pp.

'he tl
,"

1~ ComllllmilY Wld

Gtr~sis

(Tob. I.l: 14 i.). Ih~ polnl here l~ Iha! the name Raphael meall5 'God heals', 50 that the errand is uctuaU}' tolllainrd in the !lame.

sayingo: like the bealllu~ they are IoIlowed (or In ~ortwocases pr«eded) by an eq!l!naOO!t.or justIHcatlon'>' Tbis stat~ the pu~ oI'wballs rewly 8 dlvlne commlsston. t.,. 'I am the bread 01' lire,; whot"'er comes 10 me shall IlOl hunger. and whoe\'er belit"."eS in me shall ne.'er Ihirsf (6: )5). In the C(IIJ.OO! or tM sa"", dialogue Jesus has ~ady affirmed: This Is the work of God. that you bdle\... iD him wbom be bll5 Jlen( (6: 19)-and tile relldl>r already knows thal belief In Jews 's what ensures life (d . J: r; . ]6. etel· If. [umlng from IOnn 10 conlmt. we enquire ,,·hQ! It is that the "' am' SlI)ings aIIirm. \\"e find further SIllprising tlStwblancrs. !ill of them. dira:tly or indir«l l~.. contain I proml5le of lift (the Go5pe1's trIllral metaphor KJr the attendant bmcfIts 01' faith). Consequentl~· tbey are..n mlnfuture Qnptls: the)· affirm simply and grnphkally tbe purpose ror whk"h the Gospel was writtl.'1l. ',h at yoo may and believing. ha"e IIf~ In his nam~' {lO: J 1). What Is mO«'. they do this b)' compresslnllthc affirmaUon Into a stalent...,t that ld~ntjfi .. Jesus wllh the purpose of his coming ('that tru,y may ha,'~ life' -10: to), The supreme eXBmpl.-s of this compression (', am th~ r .. urrectlon and the life', " amlhe way, the truth and the life') ~re nOI different In kind from the rest, 115 Buhm~nn hold., but exprcs5ions of an InSight oommon w th em all, espedally concise In that the purpose and conscquen~ of the I'CCCpllOl1 of Jesus' message (life) is dmwn b"ck Into his self-proclamation, " In ch. 6, ~'here Jour M\'lnJl In Q"l< (the 1 ",,,,,,,,1 <1"tion of • . ~'I omIt> Lb. npbnat\oD

""lie,....

<,pIa'''''im

ure

_"Itiy

mer

_ """'*"_ ,"", "'"'

p_

7

_

,

_ .

an .......wot oIemtm 0( tho Ionn.

'"

Onc furthu fearure of the '1 am' llaylnss makes them all but unique In Ibe New Testament' ) and distlncti.'e enough In religious litc.rature generally, This Is Ihelr '!rikinily bold use of symbolk Imagery. Hue Is whue the Gnostic p;tl"llllels hare sermed 10 some so convincing. especially In eomexlS ... bleb lmpJ~' a self-revelation of a di\1nc btin,. iklt the actual symbols usa! in the Fourth Gasp..! "re. wIth .....,ucrp1Ion.!-O ahWldantly IUestcd In rheOld Testa ment. and the fonn.!IS ,,'e ha,'e .seen, Is simply an ut~nsil>n of th.. mossenger lOrmula, It seems likely thaT the GnO$lk !nU: an: mostly Ind) rommcoces with an anooun«ment or ml!$lon ("I was seDt funh !"rom the j'IO'<\·er'J. roJIowed by an .] came' saying n ha.-e come to those wOO reflect on me'). bdof~ embarking OD a IoDg se. its of'l am' sarings chldly remarkable rar polarity and paradmt le.&. ., am the whore and Ihe holy onel $I Few ohbese an: 1$ coInurfull)' e\"(>cati\"~ "" the'[ am' $a)'lop of the C.ospel: extnlOr'dinary '" these symbolic alIinnations are. IT was perhaps nO( beyond tbe powers of the Johannlne prophet 10 Invent them. 6ut il must be admlunI. that if h~ did he was ,'e.:rillg asdose as he e,'er lOt to a typically Gnostic style. Howe,'er that may be, the content of !he sayings puts them at the heart of the Gos,.el's teaching. All of them represem a distillation of one of Irs main themes, lun al In Ihe ca.
Now thm: IS an Importam Jorlf111l characterisUc or the 'I am'

lItos«bodrt 1.-a.IO<) ,...ular. but ""Iy JI,..... """" 10. ,~ !he obrpl" ,a'''r"", ha. Lb .... uplon.otion •. OD. ('«QCdi"llv. ro~ lilt OIbm 1oIloor!!tJ. wtth ...'O rip' lbnl ~ !mm Lb.-., 1ornI: '1110 IIIOdd oIIep/lnd It)~ do"" bls for his Jhoi< of ......, a>cIlj>I<1c I it>. but pt'II>o.. "If I ~" ")'1111 <"Ort>til",ic:.b • lull .......... don dion>u ... muId _ . A "'""" ...un... of f.. Sch~_'. I£GO nun to !U IaIIur

lis Book

"y\r>,

1

_.

.. 'rh< ........ panlt.llo R.... n: .6-1 . . ,h.

nX1I and

"",,"1nl

1)"'_'

of

.. , am tbt door' I "" 7. ,). Undooo. ,. )!8,.--nu mo'
J ....-cc .... ri
"n.. ...... "-.,

tt..tr.tJ.pp.~7' n)':d.n.~~.

,S<

The Comlllwlil!l and !Is Book

of detibo:rate composItion. Even so. gl'"en the formal background of the sayings, It Is likely lhot before being Incorporated into one or other !le Ibt Gospeh Sd pI«n they " "ere first UHere.:! In a properly prophetic mm"" , This Is probable nOl Just becau5l' of the history of lhe form. Its ortglns as a ~ngef-rormul.;i. but also becallSC iI remained p«UlIarly adapud to the circumstances of propbecic spetth: i1 both identifies Ihe $peaker and contains. In a Iftllarkably rucdne! form. the k(TJlcl of his mesnge. It Is nO! possible 10 locale eadi IndMdual :lllyink pnrlsely within the hlltory of the community. 8u\ one may obsern that for aU Iheir I'ormaJ. and malerlal Hn\l]aritles Ihey do !>Ill all mau me sarnr point In tbe same " 'ay. Some seem whall)' pos!tl\'e: rru, Imilatioo is open to all. "' am melight ollbc ""Orid: he who follow, me will DOl " 'a lk in "adu "', bUI will b",-e Ihe Ilglll life" (8: ,~). Laler on. ",hro the communlty had b«ome rl\Of'e Im.'anI·looklng and Imlatlonisl. ,,·hat Is ba.ically the same Im'llallon am the doo,?} 11 ... a condilioo attached 10 It - one must come Into IlIe fold: 'wlloel'l'I ~nters by me will be S8,'aI' ( 10: 7-9). This Sll&h ll}' ungcnel'O\l~ lnf~tation really dcpr:nds on Ihe GO!!pr:!". own exege$is 01 th~ passage In v. lb. 11 could n~\'ertheless be ..... rung. bUI ("cn if il is. a door o[ ils \"el}' natur( Is a IeS!i unl"ersal symbelthan a lighl. for a door can be shut as well as Openl.'d. whereas a light shInes out Il' welcome far all ta see, without arl}' hint In this oomeXI Ihat the world is naturally dark and unreceptive. In c hapter 6 th e 'hread life' saying (8 paradoYlcal example of lhe coincidence of revelutlun und rlddlel Is th~ occ,,~ion of dl'-;,ion and misunlkrstuoding. As for the \·ine. '",'try bruoch that bears lIO fruit he (the hlher) remo\'cs (eip")' and every branch Ihal does bear fruit he prun es (.....9alp<,)'. or rke/lSts 5/) Ihall! becomes clean (K484P0'"' (15: 2). We are reminded that Jesus hItS already IOW his disciples. 'You ~ not all clean' (13: 11): the "iot passage belon8sln a SCUin8 or potential and actual apostasy. Rnally. while the 'I Bm' :saylngs are all rn'datary in the [ull sense. whether addressed 10 lhe world 8t large. 10 COnlemJ)Ol1lry Judaism. or 10 Ihe Christian C(M1Imunlty. Ihey all contain an ImplICit answer 10 the ~atcd requests [or 50ITIe e<1dence ofJ"''''s' prophetic slatus. That hls _ g e should be u !IOW'Ce or life is the ~ possib~ proof orBn authorization from aoo.'e-1lO Iongn an appeal 10 an mernal 51gn. but tesllmony 10 Ihe essenllaJ nature DftM mtMage Itself: 'You ba" e the words of new llre' (6: 68). Ikspite the dlqlncililll between

or n

m

,8,

ronlro"CTS)' and re"datlon (11 dlsllnction stili worth mak.ing). in me expcllmce oflhe )ohannlne group the uo'o went hand in hand: the challenge or the Pharisees prompled reOe.::tion en the meaning of belief In JdUS, wh~t the group's Ih~ng-ou{ of il'l faith found upuosslon In prophelic ullenmtl'S tb~t were in tbemseh'es an Ind"ulable answer to demands !or ronoborntion of the claims wllich Ihat failb Lmpljes. l<) RWIt

•

r"' .. ...; .. .. I ... "

....

The aim of Ihe rtddIe ma)' appear to be dlamerrtCltlly opposed to that or the Te\'elatOl'y AyiniS we bao-e just been ronsle, lIS we ha"e 5een, the two are rombinl.'d in a single saylng: '1 am the bread of ilfe; whoewr comes to me shall not hunger. and whoe"er bel].e\·es In me shaU never thirst' (6: 35). Here we have an '1 am' saylnB-a prophetic logIon thal 8"thers up the preadlng mldrush on the manna into a phrn.., formally indistinguishable f'rom a ll the other '{ am' sayings thal we hm'e jU5l bttn ]oo\;ing al. Bul the context Is no"' onc ofehallenBe and debate. n.., bread of life Is a ,'mant Ior the bread 01 hea~en. a consciously amblguou, f~ that to J$1" interlomt ....... the Jews. can only mean the manna gifen In Ihe desen ("p .... le rn" .",.:;-Emd.. 16: 4 : ¥o>S" o~pa.>'O,;-{L\"X) Ps. 77: 24). Onl)' In its hidden esoteri<'"

r/t~

.. ~ can it ~f.". to Jesus' self-re<-dation - a paradox strongly reminiscent of the puJlXlS" a'Signcd to tlle parubles by :\larl.:, The saying is consciously and dd ilx.rateiy divish'e, and the CODseqU~nt incomprehen$ion exDe<'1t'