Recent Johannine Studies: Part One: Commentaries

The Emergence of Narrative Commentaries

Towards the end of the second millennium, along with the increasing interest in literary theory, a newer generation of commentaries appeared that broke from the long-standing tradition of Johannine commentary, evidenced in the front line work of Rudolf Bultmann, Rudolf Schnackenburg, Raymond E. Brown, C. Kingsley Barrett, Jürgen Becker and Ernst Haenchen. ² In different ways, all commentators are committed to tracing various traditions that have been added at various stages during (and even after) the composition of an original Gospel. ³ They follow the dominant exegetical paradigm of that period, characterised as “historical-critical.”

This approach to the reading of John 1:1-21:25 was challenged by the epoch-making work of R. Alan Culpepper in 1983. ⁴ Dependent upon the work of contemporary narrative critics, Culpepper argued for a change of direction in Johannine studies. He claimed that the Gospel could be read as a deliberately designed unified narrative utterance, with each single part dependent upon the whole. This was not to deny the obvious truth that there were prior traditions that had been drawn into the composition of the Johannine narrative, but once they had become part of the story, they needed to be interpreted in the light of the story, rather than their supposed historical origins. The first scholar to seize upon the possibilities of this approach for a commentary was Mark W. S. Stibbe. ⁵ This relatively brief and stimulating commentary steps into the world of narrative criticism, approaching the Johannine story as a unified whole, best approached by identifying narrative sections and tracing their context, structure, the form or genre of a particular passage, plot-type, plot, the use of time, the relationships that exist between the author, narrator and reader, characterisation, literary devices, and irony. Anxious not to create the impression that John as “story” separates it from the history of Jesus, he argues: “It is . . . above all a narrative in which the author, inspired by the Spirit of truth, evokes the transcendent significance of Jesus from the traditions concerning his earthly words and works. It is a work of poetic history.” ⁶

Across the closing years of the second millennium I devoted a great deal of energy to the production of a full-scale narrative-critical reading of the Gospel. Three volumes appeared between 1993 and 1998, and the project culminated in a single-volume commentary that appeared in 1998. ⁷ Initially, these volumes were shot through with narrative-critical theory and terminology. As the work progressed I found that the “jargon” cluttered the text of the commentary, and there was a danger that the wood was being lost for the trees. I continued to read the Johannine narrative as a unified utterance, with a strong focus upon the impact that the many elements that generated the unique literary design and theological message of the unfolding story made upon an implied reader, but depended less and less upon the technical terms. By the time I wrote the commentary, such terminology had disappeared entirely from my text. ⁸

This same practice is found in the commentary of Andrew T. Lincoln, published in 2005. ⁹ Lincoln offers a narrative reading of the Gospel of John focussing upon the impact that the unfolding story makes upon a reader, while never ignoring other important historical and literary issues, such as the relationship with the Synoptics. ¹⁰ Although directed by the unique Johannine “plot” Lincoln’s return to a background for John that is also reflected in the Synoptics is a feature of this commentary. ¹¹

But does it make much difference? For example, Lincoln’s elegant exposition of John 11 recognises the tradition that Jesus raised people from the dead (Mark 5:21-43; Luke 7:11-17), and shows knowledge of Martha and Mary (Luke 10:38-43) and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31: no connection with Mary and Martha). ¹² The same approach marks his reading of John 13-17. Although the most Johannine section of the Gospel, these passages reach back to Jesus’ apocalyptic discourses, the Passover meal at which the Lord’s Supper was instituted, and Jesus’ teaching the Lord’s Prayer, all found in the Synoptics. ¹³ But Lincoln correctly points out that the Christological claims of the Fourth Gospel “are the developed post-resurrection convictions about Jesus that have become contentious in the evangelist’s own time and setting, and have been read back into the teaching of Jesus and the disputes of his day.” ¹⁴ Where do those “developed post-resurrection convictions” have their source? I do not wish to minimise the quality of Lincoln’s commentary which is up-to-date, elegantly written and at times inspiring. However, I see no need to source the Johannine narrative in the Synoptic Gospels, which are themselves theologically astute narratives that have their own “distance” from the Jesus of history, in a search for “truth.” This issue divides me from a number of contemporary scholars, especially Richard Bauckham, as we shall see in the second part of this survey. Christian truth, certainly rooted in the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus, also flows from the Spirit-filled ongoing proclamation of the Word within a Spirit-directed Christian community. History is important, and Christianity must find its roots there, but it does not determine the truths of Christian belief, and their articulation. ¹⁵

I do not wish the close my remarks on Andrew Lincoln’s commentary with these hesitations on my part concerning his introduction of the Synoptic tradition into his interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. This is an excellent and very “right-headed” reading of the Johannine narrative that is beautifully written and well-researched. He stoutly defends the unity of the narrative as we now have it, rejecting, for example, any suggestion that there is a need to transpose John 6 into a better geographical sequence, and offering a reading of John 21 as “the Gospel’s epilogue . . . later reflection on specific issues that have arisen at a late stage in the Gospel’s composition.” ¹⁶ It must be regarded as one of the best single volume commentaries in English currently available.

The issue of the transmission of traditions is important in the recent commentary from the hand of a significant European Johannine scholar, Jean Zumstein, but he takes quite a different, and innovative, approach. ¹⁷ Surprisingly, Zumstein has published the second volume of his commentary first. His reasons for this are that his research is currently focussed upon that section of the Gospel and, more importantly, because he regards the final discourse as the hermeneutical key to the whole Gospel. It is dedicated to the meaning of the cross and to showing how the revelation of God in and through Jesus will continue after Easter. His approach to the composition of Gospel is marked by a method he has pioneered: relecture. As for the Synoptics, he wisely remarks: “In n’est plus possible de dire si Jn a connu l’un ou plusieurs synoptiques ou si les convergences relevées sont dues à un fonds traditionnel commun.” ¹⁸ John 13-21 is made up of three major parts: Jesus’ farewell with his own (chs. 13-17), the passion and the crucifixion (chs. 18-19) and the resurrection (ch. 20). John 21 is a later addition, and does not belong to the literary and theological unit of John 13-20, but has its own role in the Johannine community as part of the relecture of the message of the Gospel in a different setting. ¹⁹ Jesus’ moment of farewell has three parts: the footwashing (13:1-30), two farewell discourses (13:31-14:31; 15:1-16:33) and a prayer (17:1-26).

A brief excursus is called for here on the method of relecture and the associated réécriture developed by Zumstein and his student, Andreas Dettwiler, also fruitfully used by Klaus Scholtissek. ²⁰ To assist an interpreter to understand the obvious literary feature of “repetitions” in the Johannine story, often regarded as indications of redactional activity or the use of a variety of sources, they suggest that, as the Gospel developed the author(s) deliberately read and reread (relecture) earlier traditions. The final form of the Gospel is deliberately composed of these various traditions and their rereading. Six basic principles are involved in recognising this process and interpreting the text. ²¹

The process has been carefully used for the interpretation of ch. 21 (Zumstein) and chs. 13-17 (especially 14:1-31 and 16:4b-33) (Dettwiler and Scholtissek). The process of réédition is purely synchronic. “The Gospel as a whole has a unified style and language. . . . This is the result of continual reworking over decades of the decades of the community’s telling and retelling (in this context one should also say writing and re-writing) of the story of Jesus.” ²²

Already in its third reprint, the important commentary of Udo Schnelle is a significant contribution to the European commentary tradition. ²³ Schnelle’s work is unconditionally committed to reading the text of the Fourth Gospel as a unified theological statement. In his introduction and throughout the commentary, Schnelle points to the evidence of the Gospel’s long and complex literary formative history, but insists that its final form is a uniquely new theological literary whole, and must be read as such. ²⁴ Schnelle accepts the text’s long prior history, yet its final unity is surprisingly simple. On the much-disputed unity of John 6 he writes: “The tradition history of John 6 is not unified, but its final composition is.” ²⁵ The product of a Johannine school (not to be identified with the Johannine community), the Gospel is the work of a gifted leader of that school, under the influence of a spirituality (Paraclete) that he shared with his community. The Beloved Disciple cannot be regarded as an “ideal” or a “fiction.” His historicity is essential to the credibility of the story, but the tradition linking him to the Son of Zebedee fails to convince. Schnelle suggests that, as the inspired leader of the Johannine school, he may be identified with “John the Elder” in 2-3 John, as did Papias, according to Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiae III: 39,4).

It probably appeared in Ephesus, some time between 100-110 AD. Although it should not be linked with the Birkat-Ha-Minim, a painful separation between the Jewish and the Johannine community was an important catalyst for the production of the Gospel. The literary structure of the Gospel is highlighted by the relationship that exists between the prologue (1:1-18) and the conclusion (20:30-31). The widely accepted division of the Gospel into two major sections (1:19-12:50 and 13:1-20:29) is proposed, within which further concentrations of single themes can be traced (e.g., the conflict with “the Jews” in chs. 5-11; the theme of departure across chs. 13-17). However, even though certain themes dominate these sections, they are foreshadowed and recalled in other parts of the narrative. The Johannine theme of the revealing mission of the Logos in the world and the return of the Logos to the Father are at all times, in John, seen from the perspective of the Johannine theology of the cross. John 21 does not belong to the original Gospel.

The background to the Gospel is to be found in the Old Testament, the Wisdom literature of Hellenistic Judaism, and there are close relationships with Qumran and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs. Although not dependent upon Hellenistic philosophy and later Gnosticism, there are traces of a closeness to these currents of thought that were “in the air” at the time. The commentary itself focusses intensely upon the text as a unified narrative to trace John’s process of communicating his Jesus-story for his community. This leads to a reading on two levels: (1) attention to the internal process of the narrative that runs from the pre-existent to the post-existent Jesus Christ, by way of the cross, and (2) attention to the impact that this story is intended to make upon those external to the text so that they might come to know and understand what God has done in and through Jesus. Both levels run side by side in this outstanding contribution to contemporary Johannine studies, splendidly written, and within 321 pages. ²⁶

The vitality of the current practice of reading the Gospel’s story for the sake of the story is evidenced in the recent work of J. Ramsey Michaels, a large-scale commentary that was 17 years in the making. ²⁷ Ramsey Michaels argues that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (not the son of Zebedee, and maintaining respect for his anonymity) was the ultimate author. This links the story with an experience of the life of Jesus, but the commentary is not overly concerned about what actually happened (the historical question). It is a stimulating, and often innovative, reading of the Johannine text as a unified narrative. He suspects that there are many places where earlier traditions can be traced (e.g., two earlier discourses in 13:36-14:31 and 15:1-16:33), but has anyone ever read 13:1-17:26 that way? There is a freshness and warmth in the analysis which evidences his close reading of the Johannine text, in many settings, over many years. He looks to the work of Bultmann, a most careful reader of the text, as his model. Bultmann failed when he decided to change the Gospel once he had read it carefully! This remark from Ramsey Michaels is an indication of some of the whimsical reflections and theologically astute remarks that highlight this long but eminently readable commentary.

There are some surprises. For example, he offers two readings of John 7-8, one of them without 7:53-8:11 (the woman taken in adultery), out of respect for the textual evidence that this was the original story, and another including 7:53-8:11, as this is the way the text has been read for more than a thousand years. He regards 1:1-5 as a “preamble” to the Gospel, with its focus upon logos, regarding 1:6 as the narrative beginning of a story that is about “light” and Jesus as “Son.” John 21 must be read as an integral part of the Gospel. He makes an innovative suggestion about the use of “I” in v. 25, the conclusion to the Gospel. The only other place in the New Testament where the author uses the first person singular is Acts 1:1. Ramsey Michaels suggests that this may have led to the insertion of John’s Gospel between his Gospel and Acts. The “I” of John 21:25 leads directly to the “I” of Acts 1:1. Narrative commentary comes not only from a newer generation. ²⁸

The Continuation of the Historical-Critical Tradition

In 2003 Craig Keener published a two volume, 1600 page long commentary (with over 200 pages of bibliography and extensive indices), and in 2010 Urban C. von Wahlde published a three volume commentary on the Gospel and the Letters that runs into more than 2200 pages. ²⁹

Keener devotes over 300 tightly printed pages of massive erudition to introductory questions, taking a “middle of the road” position on most issues: John is a unique use of the genre of historical biography, there is no direct dependence upon the Synoptic Gospels, but many of his traditions are from the same background, and some are even more historically reliable than the Synoptics. John the Son of Zebedee can be identified as the author, in so far as his oral communications lie behind the Gospel. It was probably written in Asia Minor, possibly Ephesus, in the 90’s of the first Christian century. There may be some influence from an intellectual and religious line of speculation that later became Gnosticism. The recent tendency to disregard the impact of the break with the Synagogue, and especially the timing and effect of the so-called Birkat-Ha-Minim is questioned. ³⁰ The Gospel is a story written for a rejected Jewish community, claiming it is the true Israel. Jesus is the perfection of the gift of Torah. A great deal of the uniqueness of the Gospel, and especially the discourse material, is that – although rooted in traditional material - the author has “taken more sermonic liberties.” ³¹

Keener’s outstanding contribution, however, is his capacity to review debates surrounding various questions, and especially his ability to locate the Fourth Gospel within the cultural, social, political, religious and literary milieu of the ancient Mediterranean world. His well-researched and widespread first-hand use of documents available from that era is at times overwhelming. While not unaware that this work is best understood as directed to a reader, Keener devotes little time to any detailed analysis of the internal literary structure of the story as a whole, although perceptive and well-informed comments are made at the opening of each section on the purpose and function of the section under consideration. ³² It is hard to ask more of an already immense and learned commentary. Keener’s work must serve as a reference point for all who work seriously with the Fourth Gospel. The work is theologically conservative and depends almost entirely upon works in English. The significant European contribution of such people as Zumstein, Dettwiler and Scholtissek and Schnelle is not taken into account. ³³ Thus, although dedicated to a reading of the Johannine narrative as such, more attention is given to possible religious and cultural sources than to the literary processes that may have produced the final form of the Gospel.

The opposite is the case with the three volumes of Urban C. von Wahlde. Decades of persistent commitment have been dedicated to determining criteria for tracing the various layers of tradition that were eventually assembled into the Gospel as we now have it. His conclusions are found in this large commentary. The first volume introduces the work as a whole, provides an overview of the history of the Johannine community and, most critically, presents the criteria that von Wahlde uses to decide the nature and content of the three editions that were eventually unified into what is now the Gospel of John. This volume closes with a lucid presentation of Johannine Theology, as it is represented in each of the three editions, and a translation of the Gospel and the Letters. The translation is presented typographically to enable a reading of the final text with each of the editions indicated. The first edition is printed in normal typeface, the second edition in italic typeface, and the third edition in bold typeface. Von Wahlde also believes that material came from other sources (e.g. much of the hymn that lies behind 1:1-18). This material is indicated by small capitals. The second and third volumes are made up of commentary on the Gospel (Volume 2) and the Letters (Volume 3).

It is impossible to do justice to the richness of this commentary. I must limit myself to reporting its bare bones, leaving to one side the rich commentary provided on the Gospel and the Letters found in Volumes 2 and 3. The three letters of John are all written by one author, “the Elder” of 2-3 John. 1 John indicates a point of view that appears for the first time within the third edition of the finished Gospel. It is thus prior to the final composition of the Gospel. ³⁴ The figure called “the Beloved Disciple” appears only in the third edition of the Gospel. “The Elder” and “the Beloved Disciple” are to be identified.

The first edition is profoundly Jewish, the bearer of the tradition of Jesus’ miracle working activity, described as “signs” (sēmeia), and response to them indicates faith. Terms used to describe Jewish leadership are uniform, and their reaction to the faith of the people, as they react to “the signs,” is stereotypical. The Jewish leaders’ response to Jesus is generally more political than religious. Palestinian topography is accurately described. The second edition is marked by a change of terms for religious authorities, who now respond to Jesus in religious terms (e.g. “he made himself Son of God” [19:7; see 5:17]). There is no stereotypical description of belief, the word for “miracle” is now “work” (ergon), the Christology becomes “higher,” and the people are afraid of “the Jews.” This indicates that the crisis of the break with the Synagogue was faced by the second edition. But serious internal divisions emerged around the true humanity of Jesus, eschatology and ethics. These internal conflicts were faced by 1 John, and they then played into the formation of the third and final edition of the Gospel. It is at this stage that a traditional end-time eschatology is added to the Gospel, running side by side with the earlier realised eschatology.

Perhaps the clearest way to indicate von Wahlde’s chronological understanding of the development of the Johannine literature is to report his schematic presentation of its literary history. ³⁵ The first edition of the Gospel was written in the late 50’s of the first century, deep within a Jewish life and experience. The community was expelled from the synagogue in the early 60’s (not the mid-80’s, as is often claimed). ³⁶ The second edition, from an author different to that of the first edition, is written about this time. The community began to divide in the late 60’s and into the early 70’s. It was in the midst of this crisis that an author later known as “the Elder” writes 1 John. In the early 80’s “the Elder” writes 2 and 3 John. Von Wahlde suggests (probable, but not certain) that Papias had contact with “John, the Elder” at this stage. In the mid-90’s “the Elder,” already deceased, is given the title of “the Beloved Disciple” as a third author writes the third edition of the Gospel of John. The crisis that emerged from the second edition is faced by “the Elder” in 1 John. The open conflict in 1 John between the author’s views and those of his opponents carries into the third edition of the Gospel, where the views of the author of 1 John are represented. Each edition of the Gospel comes from a different hand, but its final form is the result of a process of continuity and discontinuity that runs from one edition to another. ³⁷ This history locks neatly into the tradition that the Letter of Polycarp (very early in the second century) knew 1 and 2 John, that Ignatius (who died about 110) knew the Gospel. It also explains how the Rylands Fragment, that comes from the early 120’s, contains the Johannine text.

In conclusion, despite my reservations about the possibility of certainty in these reconstructions, I can only state what I have written elsewhere: No one has analysed the composition history of the Gospel and Letters of John with such consistency and thoroughness as von Wahlde. The clarity of his exposition, as he lays bare criteria that must be used to identify the traditions, his respectful use of other scholarship, and his lucid commentary on each of the strata make this work a milestone in Johannine scholarship. ³⁸

Conclusion

Many of the issues that have bothered Johannine scholars since the beginnings of critical scholarship remain: the use of sources, the development of the Johannine traditions, the history of the Johannine community, “the Beloved Disciple,” the time and place of its composition, the role of John 21, its relationship to the Synoptic Gospels or, at least, the Synoptic tradition, its roots in Judaism, Gnosticism, Jewish sectarianism, creative late-first century Christianity, possible dislocations, the Johannine Aporien, etc. Maybe because of these unresolved issues, the “industry” of producing commentaries on the Fourth Gospel is still alive and well. No doubt the introduction of more narrative approaches to the text, greater respect for the text as it has come down to us in its present form, and an appreciation of the literary and theological skill of the author(s), have generated increasing interest in recent times. But we would do an injustice to an earlier generation that reaches back to Westcott, Lagrange, Bultmann and Hoskyns if we did not recognise that these matters have always been part of Johannine commentary. ³⁹

It is no doubt time for fewer commentaries on the Gospel of John. No less than 23 have been mentioned or reviewed in this presentation. Ongoing research into unresolved questions is called for. Much is being done and I will review some of it in a later article. However, the above review raises a question that bothers me. Are both sides of the Atlantic speaking to one another? How many readers of The Expository Times are aware of the studies in French and German mentioned above? Contemporary biblical scholars continue their expertise in the languages of the text itself, but I sense an increasing isolationism where new initiatives and approaches on one side of the Atlantic are ignored by the other. Despite the ease and rapidity of communication, are we speaking only to our geographical and linguistic Johannine colleagues? I hope not.