Title Page1. Fluctuating Perspectives on JohnII. General PurposeIII. Specific OccasionIV. Literary StructureV. John and the Old TestamentEndCriswell Theological Review 3.1 (1988) 17-29. Copyright © 1988 by The Criswell College. Cited with permission. APPROACHING THE FOURTH GOSPEL* MOISES SILVA Westminster Theological Seminary Philadelphia, P A 19118 I. Fluctuating Perspectives on John Depending on the story-teller, the development of modern biblical scholarship can appear unbearably dull or altogether engrossing. It would take some effort, however, to review the vicissitudes of the Gospel of John during the past two centuries without succumbing to the fascination of this subject. Consider the question of historical value. How does one account for the fact that, while at the beginning of the 19th century the Fourth Gospel was almost universally regarded as the most valuable source for the life of Jesus, few critics by the end of the century thought that it provided any significant historical information at all? And what has caused scholars in the 20th century to move in a more conservative direction, so that it is no longer disreputable to argue that this docu- ment contains some amount of independent, reliable material? Or take the related issue of date of composition. The traditional view that the Gospel was written toward the end of the 1st century gave way to a remarkable theory that pushed the date well into the middle of the 2nd century. The well-known discovery in 1933 of the Rylands Fragment (papyrus 52, containing only a few verses from John 18), which can be dated firmly no later than A.D. 135, seemed magically to restore the Gospel to its traditional setting. Yet more recent research has suggested, to at least one prominent scholar, that a * A few portions of this article (especially the first section) are reproduced from "The Present State of Johannine Studies," to appear in a future volume of The New Testament Student (ed. J. H. Skilton; Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed).18 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW date prior to A.D. 70 is reasonable, and that therefore the Gospel of John may well be as ancient as Mark!1 And what does one do with the wild divergences that have characterized modern explanations regarding the origin of this docu- ment? The old and straightforward view that the Apostle John, as eyewitness of the events, composed it in Ephesus near the end of his life was displaced by attempts to attribute the work to a non- Palestinian, Hellenistic author deeply influenced by gnostic thought.2 The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls showed that many features used as evidence for a Hellenistic background did not at all contradict a Palestinian setting, and alternate theories have surfaced in the last several decades. Particularly influential has been the attempt to see the Fourth Gospel as the product of a 1st-century Christian commun- ity, somehow or other related to the Apostle John perhaps, though this theory comes in many variations. The controversy does not end here. Did the author (or redactor?) use the other Gospels for some of his material or was his composition quite independent of the synoptic tradition? Was his work character- ized by bringing together earlier sources or by composing an original, unified document? Did he address unbelievers in order to evangelize them or did he rather have in mind strengthening the faith of those who already believed? Did he emphasize the miracles of Christ as signs that lead to faith or as obstacles on the way to faith? The issues appear to continue on indefinitely. As far as the ancient church was concerned, the answers to most of these questions were not in doubt, and while we are under no obligation--historical or theological--to accept the views of 2nd- century believers, it would be foolhardy to ignore the evidential value afforded by certain aspects of that consensus. In short, one must recognize that the external evidence attesting to the authorship of John is ancient, clear, and explicit. Even in the midst of serious debates in the early church, no real evidence can be found for some- one other than John the Apostle having written it. Irenaeus, for example, begins his discussion of the origins of this Gospel (in a passage where he argues that it was written to combat Cerinthus and his heresy) with a straight reference to John, that is, 1 See J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London: SCM, 1976) chap 9. On p. 307 he suggests that a primitive form of the Gospel of John had taken shape in Jerusalem by A.D. 50, that a proper edition had been completed in Asia Minor by the year 55, and that it was given final form in the late 60s. In a posthumously published work, The Priority of John (ed. J. F. Coakly; London: SCM, 1985), Robinson developed these ideas more fully. 2 This approach can best be seen in R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Com- mentary (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971 [orig. 1950]). See further below.Silva: APPROACHING THE FOURTH GOSPEL 19 without attempting to defend that view or even suggesting that it was disputed by anyone.3 Roughly contemporary, but proceeding from a very different geographical setting (and thus providing broad and independent testimony), is Clement of Alexandria's comment that "last of all John, aware that the external facts [ta> swmatika<] had been made plain in the [synoptic] Gospels, was urged by friends and inspired by the Spirit to compose a spiritual Gospel."4 Other early quotations could be adduced, all of which point in the same direction. For most scholars of antiquity, the uniform character of such early testimony could not be set aside except by alternate evidence of the most persuasive sort; curiously, mainstream biblical scholars tend to place much less confidence on the weight of external data than do their colleagues in classical scholarship.5 True, the 2nd-century testimony for the authorship of John is not consistent in every respect--one of the key quotations contains a puzzling ambiguity.6 But the appeal to these variable elements misses the central point: the ancient church does not appear to have debated the issue of Johannine authorship. Considering especially the theological divisiveness that centered on the interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, the question must be asked why we find no attempts to defend