The Christology of the Fourth Gospel Its Unity and Disunity in the Light of John 6 Paul N. Anderson TRINITY PRESS INTERNATIONAL VALLEYFORGE,PENNSYLVANIA Copyright © 1996 by J.C.B. Mohr All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher. First U.S. edition published 1997 by Trinity Press International, P.O. Box 851, Valley Forge, PA 19482-0851. Trinity Press International is a division of the Morehouse Group. Originally published 1996 by I.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tubingen, Germany. Anderson, Paul N., 1956- The christology of the Fourth Gospel: its unity and disunity in the light of John 61 by Paul N. Anderson. p. cm. A revision ofthe author's thesis (doctoral}-University of Glasgow, 1988. Originally published: Tubingen : Mohr, 1996, in series: Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. 2. Reihe. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 1-56338-199-0 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Bible. N.T. lohn-Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Jesus Christ-Person and Offices. 3. Bible. N.T. John VI-Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. BS2615.2.A53 1997 226.5'06--dc21 97-7838 CIP Printed in the United States of America 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 321 Contents Foreword by D. Moody Smith ............................ ix Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. xi Acknowledgments ................................... xii Abbreviations ...................................... xv List of Tables xix Introduction: John's Christological Unity and Disunity: Identifying the Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Part I: Three Relevant Surveys ............... . . . . . . . . . . 16 Chapter 1: Recent Approaches to the Christology of the Fourth Gospel ........................... 17 A. Comprehensive Overviews of John's Christo logy ..... 18 B. Text-Centered Approaches ................... 19 C. Theological-Christological Approaches ........... 23 D. Literary-Christological Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26 E. Historical-Christological Approaches ............ 29 Findings .................................. 32 Chapter 2: A Survey of Significant Commentaries ..... . . . . . .. 33 A. RudolfBultmann ......................... 33 B. C. K. Barrett ............................ 36 C. Raymond E. Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39 D. RudolfSchnackenburg...................... 41 E. Barnabas Lindars ......................... 44 Findings .................................. 46 Chapter 3: A Survey of Three Approaches to the Unity and Disunity of John 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48 A. RobertKysar ...........................' . 49 B. Peder Borgen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52 C. C. K. Barrett ............................ 61 Findings .................................. 67 Summary of Part I ................................. 68 vi Contents Part II: The Unity and Disunity of John 6 70 Chapter 4: The Stylistic Unity and Disunity of John 6 .......... 72 A. Stylistic and Linguistic Evidence for the Semeia Source .. 74 B. The Style of the Offenbarungsreden Material and the Reordering of the Text ...................... 78 C. The Contribution of the Evangelist .............. 83 Findings .................................., 87 Chapter 5: The Relationship Between Sign and Discourse in John 6. 90 A. The Problem of Jesus' Answer ................. 91 B. The Problem of the Redundant Request ........... 94 C. The Discontinuity Between Sign and Discourse ...... 97 Findings .................................. 107 Chapter 6: The 'EucharisticInterpolation' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 110 Excursus: What is Meant by 'Sacrament'? . . . . . . . . . . . .. 112 A. Was the Evangelist an Anti-sacramentalist? . . . . . . . .. 115 B. Ignatius of Antioch and the 'Medicine of Immortality' ". 119 C. John 6:51c: Opening Sentence, or Concluding Clause? .. 127 Findings .................................. 134 Chapter 7: The Dialectical Character ofJohn 6 .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 137 A. Faith Development and Dialectical Thinking . . . . . . .. 142 B. Dialectical Thinking and 'Transforming Encounters' ... 148 C. Rudolf Bultmann and Dialectical Theologizing . . . . . .. 151 Findings .................................. 163 Summary of Part II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 166 Part /1/.' John 6: Three Levels of Dialogue ................. 167 Chapter 8: Not an Attesting Miracle ... But a 'Testing' Sign (anExegesisofJohn6:1-24) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 170 John 6: 1-24 (a translation) ...................... 171 Exegetical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 171 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 183 Findings .................................. 192 Contents vii Chapter 9: The Exhoration of the 'Two Ways' (an Exegesis ofJohn6:25-66) ........................ 194 John 6:25-66 (a translation) ..................... 197 Exegetical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 199 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 210 Findings ................................... 219 Chapter 10: Returning the 'Keys of the Kingdom' to Jesus (an Exegesis ofJohn 6:67-71) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 221 John 6:67-71 (a translation) ..................... 226 Exegetical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 226 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 232 Findings ................................... 249 Summary of Part III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 250 Conclusion: On 'Seamless Robes' ... and 'Left-Over Fragments' ...... 252 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 263 Postscript ...................................... 264 Appendices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 266 I. John's Exalted Christology ................. . 266 II. John's Subordinated Christology ..... . . . . . . . . . 267 III. Johannine Signs as Facilitators of Belief . . . . . . . . . . 268 IV. Johannine Signs and the Existentializing Work of the Evangelist ........................... . 269 V. Realized Eschatology in John ............... . 270 VI. Futuristic Eschatology in John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 VII. Philo's Use of Manna as a Secondary Text ........ . 272 VIII. The Papias Tradition, John's Authorship and Luke!A cts . . . . . . . . . . ............... . 274 Bibliographies 278 I. The Christology of John ................... . 278 II. John6 .............................. . 287 III. The Sacraments in John .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 IV. Johannine Christianity .................... . 293 V. Interdisciplinary Resources ................ . 295 Indexes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 297 I. Scripture and Ancient Texts ................. 297 II. Names. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 316 III. ThematicIndex......................... 320 Foreword Paul N. Anderson's Glasgow doctoral dissertation is at once one of the most concentrated and intensi ve exegetical studies and one oft he most wide-ranging and suggestive essays on 10hannine christology that I have seen. As the author himself states it, his purpose is ''to gain clearer insight into the christo logical tensions oft he Fourth Gospel by means of seeking a deeper understanding of the dialectical process oft hought by which the evangelist has come to embrace such a distinctively unitive and disunitive christo logy ." In pursuing this goal Anderson concentrates on chapter 6, the Feeding oft he Five Thousand and subsequent events and discourses, in which the tensions and dialectical characterofJohn 's thought become apparent. The identification of tensions is credited to Rudolf Bultmann, although his efforts to resolve them by source and rearrangement theories are rejected, and C.K. Barren's suggestions about the dialectical character ofJohn' s thought then become seminal in their resolution. Anderson's exegesis of John 6 is itself a major contribution. In my opinion both his appreciation ofBultmann 's interpretation and and his refusal to accept his literary-critical resolution of exegetical problems are well-founded. Also like Bultmann, he cannot regard the narrative and discourse of chapter6 as simply derivative from the Synoptic Gospels or Mark. At the same time the relationship is clear. Rather than regard it as a problem amenable to source and redaction criticism, whether oft he Synoptic Gospels or other documents, Anderson seeks to understand the Johannine version of this material as an independent development of, and reflection upon, the same events that are somewhat differently recounted in the Synoptics. This mode of understanding leads Anderson to some of his most stimulating suggestions, which, however, might make him seem vulnerable to the charge of psychologizing the text. And yet, by using the research and categories of the American theologians Fowler and Loder, who have undertaken to analyze and describe the experience and development of faith on the basis of empirical investigation, Anderson applies their insights and results to the Gospel ofJ ohn. The proposal that something like what they describe lies at the root of the tensions of Johannine thought is provocative and will doubtless raise questions. Just at this point, however, Anderson's positive theological relationship to Bultmann's hermeneutic becomes evident. Like Bultmann, Anderson believes that the basic structures ofhuman existence and experience are universal through time and space, so that the analysis of the nature of faith among twentieth century Westerners has relevance to what is enshrined in a first-century text. Moreover, he also believes, again with Bultmann, thatthe nature ofC hristian faith, ifit is genuinely faith, cannot x Foreword be different in a Christian of the first century and one of the twentieth. By contrast, however, in his appeal to empirical evidence and experience rather than the structures of human existence, Anderson is typically Anglo-Saxon. One oft he most remarkable aspects ofA nderson' s research and proposals is the way he is able to take into account the perspectives of recent major contributions to Johannine research. Aside from Bultmann and Barrett, there is C.H. Dodd, whose work on the historical tradition of the Fourth Gospel as oral tradition with a historical basis Anderson obviously finds congenial. lL. Martyn' s (and Raymond E. Brown' s) position on the Jewish-Christian, originally irmer-synagogal, dynamic behind the Fourth Gospel is basically accepted, although Anderson believes it antedates the birkat ha-minim. At the level of the present text, or the most recent environment oft he Fourth Gospel. Anderson finds considerable room to agree with Kiisemarm: the Joharmine version of Christian faith and the Joharmine conception of the nature of the church and churchly authority stand consciously over against the Petrine. Anderson would, however, nuance this tcnsion more in the fashion of Brown than ofKasemaM himself. John represents a view ofg ospel and church in tension and dialogue with the Petrine, rather than a sectarian version ofC hristianity that is, so to speak, beyond the pale. In holding open the possibility that the Gospel of John represents an original, independent, eyewitness source, Anderson' s work will doubtless appeal to certain conservative and evangelical interests. It would, however, be misleading to characterize his work as conservative. It is, rather, bold and imaginative. Doubtless any scholar will find reason to take exception to some parts or aspects of it. Nevertheless, by putting old and important issues in a fresh perspective and attempting to apply new methods, Anderson stimulates us to reappraise our own solutions to the Johannine riddles. In doing so, he will have also set an agenda for his own career, ifhe undertakes to address all the counterquestions his proposals will doubtless engender. D. Moody Smith Preface This work is a revision of and considerable expansion upon my doctoral thesis submitted to the University ofG lasgow in December of 1988. Much appreciation is felt for D. Moody Smith's contributing such a complimentary Foreword, and for Martin Hengel's generous inclusion oft his work in the WUNT 2 monograph series. Much appreciation is also felt for the helpfulness of SiebeckIMohr publishers on the production end of the project. A bit ofe xplanation is due regarding the reader's use oft he footnotes. Simple, bibliographical references are usually made in the text itself, but fuller discussions of points and multiple bibliographic references are reserved for the footnotes. Because this work is often critical ofm ajority and minority views within the guild, judgments in the main text at times require substantiation, which one hopes does not digress too far afield. Where end notes in the original thesis were overly lengthy, these have either been shortened, reconfigured or included as separate appendices at the end oft he book. Tables and charts have also been added and crafted to clarify points made within the text, and Greek has been adapted for accessibility. While significant monographs by J. Ashton, J. Neyrey, 1. Painter, W.R.G. Loader, U. von Wahlde, F. Segovia and others, produced recently, as well as significant works by Synoptic scholars, receive little explicit mention, this does not imply their being overlooked. They will, one hopes, be engaged in future discussions. Paul N. A.nderson Acknowledgments In many ways scholarship is a parasitic venture. The scholar draws his or her 'Ii fe' from the vitality of those whose work has preceded theirs, and from the support of many others. Continuing the analogy, where the parasite simply feeds off the host, offering nothing in return, both host and parasite are soon diminished. However, where the parasite offers back another contribution in exchange for sustenance received, not only is the relationship between parasite and host mutually beneficial, but the biosphere is strengthened and ecosystems sustained. Therefore, this work represents the contributing side of a symbiotic relationship; it is but a small beginning of that which is offered in return for that which I have received so generously from so many others. First, I should like to thank the faculties ofM alone College in Canton, Ohio and the Earlham School of Religion in Richmond, Indiana for my undergraduate and graduate introductions to the pursuit oft ruth: to Roger Barrett, Alvin Anderson and Miriam Burke, for their training in the fields of cognitive and developmental studies; and to Elton Trueblood and Alan Kolp fortheirencouragement to write and stimulation of my interest in the Gospel of John, respectively. I am also deeply grateful to Otto Betz and Martin Hengel for their tutorial guidance during my research in Tiibingen over the summer of 1987, to the communities of Tyndale House in Cambridge, and Woodbrooke College in Selley Oak, England, for their assisting my research over the summer and autumn of 1988, and to the faculty of George Fox University for providing the 1991 summer research grant which facilitated preparing the thesis for publication. Second, I should like to thank members of the Faculty of Divinity at the University of Glasgow for their guidance and support. Guidance has been enriching, ranging from the course on the history of biblical interpretation, taught by Robert Davidson and Ernest Best, and the provocative seminar on the Gospel of John, taught by Christopher Evans, to the Glasgow New Testament Seminar, hosted by John Barclay and John Riches. I am also grateful to the university for being 'liberated' to give myself to full-time study by receiving the Overseas Research Scholarship and the Divinity Postgraduate Fellowship from 1986-1988, as well as to the John Sarrin Trust in America for their support. To my fellow researchers, Leslie Milton and Hugh Pyper I say a hearty 'thanks', for endless cups ofc offee and discussions about 'things Johannine' - not necessarily in that order - and to Wendy Sproston and the British New Testament Conference Johannine Seminar, to Robert Kysar and the National SBL Johannine Literature Section, to Jeff Staley and Michael Cosby and the Pacific Northwest Region SBL New