Behind the Fourth Gospel: Discovering the Editing and Sources of John

THE UNITY AND COMPOSITION OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL

A. THE PROBLEM Is the Fourth Gospel, as it now stands, the work of one man? (We shall exclude from this discussion the Story of the Adulteress in 7:53–8:11, which is not found in the earliest Greek witnesses; see § 30.) Before the advent of biblical criticism, the commonly accepted solution was that this Gospel was written by John, son of Zebedee, shortly before his death. We will discuss the identity of the author in Part VII below, but even if we set aside the question of identity, there are features in the Gospel that pose difficulties for any theory of unified authorship. Too often, as Teeple (art. cit.) has pointed out, difficulties have been created by not respecting the author's intention, and complicated hypotheses have been constructed where simple explanations were available. Still, even allowing for this, we find major difficulties:

• First, there are differences in Greek style throughout the Gospel. We refer to the discussion of chapter 21 (in The Anchor Bible, vol. 30), which differs from the rest of the Gospel in small stylistic details, suggesting a different author. The Prologue is written in a carefully constructed poetic pattern, rarely found in the Gospel proper. Moreover, the Prologue uses important theological terms not found elsewhere, such as logos ("Word" personified), charis ("grace" or "covenant love"), and pleroma ("fullness").

  
  

• Second, there are breaks and inconsistencies in sequence. Too much has been made of the geographical and chronological jumps in John, where one chapter is situated in a different locale from the previous without any transition. These jumps would be critical only if the Gospel attempted to provide a complete account of Jesus' ministry, but 20:30 and 21:25 specifically state that the Gospel's account is incomplete. Even if we are careful not to impose modern chronological expectations on the evangelist, contradictions remain in the Gospel’s present order. For example, in 14:31, Jesus concludes his remarks at the Last Supper and commands departure, yet this is followed by three more chapters of discourse, and the departure does not occur until 18:1. In 20:30-31, a clear conclusion is given, but another chapter with another conclusion follows. Similarly, there seems to be a twofold conclusion to the public ministry in 10:40-42 and 12:37-43. The disciples of John the Baptist, who were present when the Baptist identified Jesus (1:29-34), do not seem to understand anything about Jesus in 3:26-30. Jesus performs signs in Jerusalem (2:23) after his first sign at Cana (2:11), yet his next miracle in Cana is described as his second sign (4:54). His brothers in 7:3-5 speak as if Jesus had never performed signs in Judea, despite the Jerusalem signs and another miracle in chapter 5. At the Last Supper, Peter asks Jesus where he is going (13:36, also 14:5), yet in 16:5, Jesus complains that no one has asked him, "Where are you going?" Throughout chapter 3, Jesus is in Jerusalem, yet in mid-chapter (3:22) it is suddenly stated that he came into Judea. While some difficulties can be explained away, not all can. In John, we find a planned, cohesive outline alongside elements indicating alterations or re-editing.

  
  

• Third, there are repetitions in the discourses and passages that do not belong in their context. The evangelist’s economy of style is impressive at times, but elsewhere, material is repeated with only slight variations. This repetition is not pedagogical but appears to stem from two different traditions of the same words, similar to the traditions of the Pentateuch. For example, 5:19-25, emphasizing realized eschatology, is repeated almost verbatim in 5:26-30, focusing on final eschatology. What is said and happens in 6:35-50, where Jesus reveals himself as the bread of life, is nearly identical to 6:51-58, where he presents his body as the bread of life. Similarly, what is stated in 14:1-31 is repeated in 16:4-33. In addition to these duplications, some sections of discourse seem out of place. For instance, who is speaking in 3:31-36—John the Baptist or Jesus? The context suggests John, but the words fit Jesus. Another discourse, 12:44-50, has Jesus making a public proclamation after being described as hiding (12:36). B. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS Difficulties such as those sampled above have caused many scholars to abandon the traditional picture of the composition of the Gospel by one man from memory. With some oversimplification, we shall group modern alternative explanations under three headings. These solutions are not necessarily mutually exclusive; they may be, and often are, combined.
  

  1. Theories of Accidental DisplacementsPerhaps the simplest solution to the difficulties found in John is to rearrange parts of the Gospel. From the time of Tatian (ca. 175) to the present day, scholars have thought that moving passages around could put John into a consecutive order. Their presupposition is that some accident displaced passages and destroyed the original order, creating the confusion now found in the Gospel. Since there is no evidence in any textual witnesses for an order other than the one we now possess, it must be assumed that this accidental displacement happened before the Gospel was published. It is generally assumed that it occurred after the evangelist’s death or in his absence, for had he been available, he could have restored his original order.
     

     • Amount of RearrangementThe amount of rearrangement proposed varies. Some scholars, like Wikenhauser, support reversing the order between chapters 5 and 6 to obtain a better geographical sequence (although we have no proof the evangelist shared this geographical interest). Bernard supports a fairly extensive rearrangement, affecting chapters 5, 6, 15, and 16 in the Last Discourse, and parts of chapters 3, 7, 10, and 12. Bultmann takes rearrangement even further, affecting individual verses and parts of verses. For example, in one of his rearrangements, the order of verses is 9:41, 8:12, and 12:44. Scholars such as Wilkens and Boismard also favor frequent rearrangement.
       

     • Objections to Rearrangement Rearrangement solves some problems, but not all. It often must be combined with other explanations, such as source or edition theories. Several objections to rearrangement exist:
       

       • First, rearrangement may reflect the interests of the commentator, which might differ from those of the evangelist. Rearranging could destroy a sequence intended by the final editor.

       • Second, many commentators believe the Gospel in its present form makes sense. If we respect the evangelist's limited purpose, the Gospel can be seen as an intelligible document. But the editor might not have known the original order and settled for the form we now have. Sharp differences between proposed rearrangements demonstrate how uncertain this task is.
         

  2. Theories of Multiple Sources If the fourth evangelist combined several independent sources, this could explain the stylistic differences, lack of sequence, and duplications. Most forms of the source theory suggest the evangelist composed none of the sources himself but received them from elsewhere. These sources were likely written (not oral), as oral sources would be more difficult to discern due to the evangelist’s own style.
     

     • Bultmann’s Theory of Sources

       
       

       Bultmann’s influential theory distinguishes three principal sources:
       

       • (a) The Sign Source: John narrates several miracles of Jesus, comprising the main narrative sections of chapters 1-12. Bultmann suggests these were excerpts from a larger collection of signs attributed to Jesus.

       • (b) The Revelatory Discourse Source: The evangelist drew on this source for the discourses attributed to Jesus. This source began with the Prologue and contained poetic discourses written in Aramaic. Its theology resembled early Oriental Gnosticism, which Bultmann suggests the evangelist Christianized and demythologized.

       • (c) The Passion and Resurrection Story: Bultmann claims this narrative had much in common with the Synoptic Gospels, but also drew on non-Synoptic material.
         

     Bultmann believes the evangelist wove these three sources together to express his own thought. However, the Gospel eventually fell into disorder, resulting in displacements. A final redactor (Ecclesiastical Redactor) tried to restore order but left many displacements.
     

  3. Theories of Multiple EditionsThese theories propose that the Gospel went through several editions, each adding or altering material. Boismard and Wilkens suggest multiple editions of the Gospel by the evangelist and a final redaction by a disciple. These editions could explain the repetitions and breaks in sequence.
     

     • Wilkens' Three Stages

       
       

       Wilkens proposes three stages of development:

       
       

       (a) The first edition (Grundevangelium), consisting of four Galilean signs and three Jerusalem signs.

       
       

       (b) The evangelist added seven discourses to these signs.

       
       

       (c) The Gospel was transformed into a Passover Gospel by moving three stories from Passover week into earlier settings, extending the Passover motif.
       

Wilkens' theory contributes significantly to understanding the reworking of the material throughout the evangelist's lifetime. However, one objection remains: the close harmony between sign and discourse. The difficulty of explaining the connection between signs and their interpretative discourses challenges the idea of rearranging or editing these elements without fundamentally altering their meaning. Moreover, Wilkens' suggestion that the process consisted only of adding and rearranging material, without rewriting the original, seems like an unusual method for editing one's own work.

Second, there are less radical theories of editing. Parker, for instance, suggests two editions of John. The second edition would have added passages like 2:1-12, 4, 6, and 21, which focus on Galilee. Parker's first edition was more of a Judean Gospel, in line with his theory that the evangelist was a Judean disciple. Another example is Boismard's theory, which proposes that John, son of Zebedee, was responsible for the central plan of the Gospel and its tradition. He supervised the writing of the basic Gospel and oversaw two or more re-editions, which introduced slight changes in plan and formulations. A final redactor, possibly Luke, brought together all the Johannine material into the Gospel as we now know it.

In judging these various editing theories, one must separate individual peculiarities, such as Parker's geographical division or Boismard's identification of Luke as the final redactor. Theories of editing can explain many of the breaks in sequence, as well as the repetitions, by positing that an editor inserted new material into the original outline. These theories can also explain unattached portions of discourse, which might have been preserved by an editor unable to find a perfect place for them. However, theories of editing face the challenge of reconstructing the precise history of the editions. While it's possible that multiple editions caused problems in the text, it is difficult to determine what belongs to which edition with certainty.

C. THE THEORY ADOPTED IN THIS COMMENTARY

We will comment on the Gospel in its present order, without imposing any rearrangements. Some object to this approach, arguing that it attains only the meaning of the passages as they appear in the final edition of the Gospel, which might reflect a subordinate editor rather than the evangelist himself. However, if the final editor was loyal to the evangelist's thought, we believe that editing likely did not fundamentally change the meaning of most passages. We prefer this risk over the greater risk of imposing a meaning on passages that they never had by rearranging them.

We propose five stages in the composition of the Gospel. These, we believe, are the minimal steps required to account for the Gospel’s complexity. We suspect the full details of the Gospel's prehistory are far too complicated to reconstruct completely. Here, we will simply describe the stages, and the reasons for positing them will become clear throughout the commentary.

1. Stage 1: Traditional MaterialThere existed a body of traditional material concerning the words and works of Jesus. This material was similar to what went into the Synoptic Gospels but was independent of the Synoptic tradition. We will discuss this stage in Part III of the Introduction and address whether this material came from an eyewitness in Part VII.
   

2. Stage 2: Development in Johannine PatternsOver several decades, this traditional material was sifted, selected, and molded into the form and style of the Fourth Gospel's individual stories and discourses. This process likely occurred through oral preaching and teaching. Toward the end of this stage, the material began to take written form. Some of Jesus' miracles were developed into dramatic narratives, while his sayings were woven into lengthy discourses. Various Johannine storytelling techniques, such as misunderstanding and irony, were developed. The close relationship between signs and interpretative discourses became more pronounced during this stage. While the process may have involved more than one person, the main body of material seems to have come from one dominant preacher.
   

3. Stage 3: The First Edition of the GospelThis stage saw the organization of the material from Stage 2 into a consecutive Gospel. The dominant preacher, or evangelist, likely supervised this first edition. It is unclear whether he wrote it himself or used a scribe. The first edition was probably written in Greek. This edition included a cohesive outline, which forms the basis of the Gospel as we know it today. Contrary to some theories, we believe that the first edition likely included Galilean ministry and was more than just a collection of signs.
   

4. Stage 4: Secondary Edition by the EvangelistThe evangelist likely re-edited his Gospel during his lifetime, adding new material and adapting it to address new concerns. This stage likely introduced passages responding to specific objections or challenges, such as the excommunication from the synagogue (as suggested by passages like 9:22-23). We will note traces of editing in certain sections, though it is not always possible to distinguish between the evangelist’s re-editing and the work of the final redactor.
   

5. Stage 5: Final Redaction by a DiscipleAfter the evangelist's death, a disciple likely performed the final redaction. This redactor was probably a close associate of the evangelist and part of the same Johannine circle. The redactor added material not included in previous editions, some of which came from the evangelist’s earlier preaching. This redactor also preserved duplicate versions of certain discourses and inserted them alongside existing material. For example, passages like 6:51-58 appear next to 6:35-50, suggesting that the redactor chose to include both versions rather than rewrite them.
   

The final redactor also seems responsible for adding passages with a stronger sacramental emphasis (e.g., references to baptism and the Eucharist). These additions were not intended to impose a sacramental theology on a non-sacramental Gospel but to bring out the latent sacramentalism already present in the text. The redactor also added chapter 21 to the Gospel and may have included the Prologue, if it was originally an independent hymn composed in Johannine circles. Some suggest that the redactor introduced Synoptic parallels, but we believe that most Johannine material with Synoptic parallels likely comes from an independent tradition of Jesus' words and works, not directly from the Synoptic Gospels or their sources. While there are a few passages where John is quite similar to Mark (e.g., 6:7, 12:3, 12:5), this could be explained by the fact that both relied on similar early traditions.

There are also editorial remarks (such as 3:24) showing awareness of details about Jesus' life not previously mentioned in the Gospel. However, this does not definitively prove dependence on the Synoptics. In sum, the redactor made some adjustments and additions, but most of the Johannine material likely stems from the same tradition that informed the earlier stages of the Gospel.

Conclusion

In this commentary, we adopt a five-stage theory for the composition of the Gospel. This theory resolves many of the difficulties mentioned earlier. It accounts for the uniform style found throughout the Gospel, as well as the elements that challenge the unity of authorship. The work of the redactor in Stage 5 explains the presence of material with different styles, duplicate discourses, and seeming rearrangements of scenes without resorting to elaborate displacement theories.

However, we acknowledge that this theory still contains uncertainties. For instance:

• In Stage 2, how much of the Johannine material reflects the evangelist's personal contribution?

• What precisely was included in the first edition of the Gospel, and what was added in the second?

• How can we definitively distinguish between the evangelist’s hand and the redactor’s work?
  

While we cannot answer these questions with certainty, our proposed theory offers a working hypothesis for studying the Gospel. It combines the best details of the theories we reviewed earlier, while avoiding their more obvious pitfalls.

Bibliography

• Becker, H., Die Reden des Johannesevangeliums und der Stil der gnostischen Offenbarungsreden (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1956).

• Boismard, M.-E., "Saint Luc et la rédaction du quatrième évangile," RB 69 (1962), 185-211.

• Easton, B. S., "Bultmann's RQ Source," JBL 65 (1946), 143-56.

• Hoare, F. R., The Original Order and Chapters of St. John’s Gospel (London: Burns and Oates, 1944).

• Käsemann, E., "Ketzer und Zeuge, zum johanneischen Verfasserproblem," ZfK 48 (1951), 292-311.

• Laconi, M., "La critica letteraria applicata all' Vangelo," Angelicum 40 (1963), 277-312.

• Macgregor, G. H. C., and Morton, A. Q., The Structure of the Fourth Gospel (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1961).

• Noack, B., Zur johanneischen Tradition, Beiträge zur Kritik an der literarkritischen Analyse des vierten Evangeliums (Copenhagen: Rosenkilde, 1954).

• Parker, P., "Two Editions of John," JBL 75 (1956), 303-14.

• Ruckstuhl, E., Die literarische Einheit des Johannesevangeliums (Freiburg: Paulus, 1951).

• Schulz, S., Komposition und Herkunft der johanneischen Reden (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1960).

• Schweizer, E., Ego Eimi (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1939).

• Smith, The Composition and Order of the Fourth Gospel (see General Selected Bibliography).

• Teeple, H. M., "Methodology in Source Analysis of the Fourth Gospel," JBL 81 (1962), 279-86.

• Wilkens, W., Die Entstehungsgeschichte des vierten Evangeliums (Zollikon: Evangelischer Verlag, 1958).