Full Text for The Fourth Gospel Yesterday and Today: An Analysis of Two Reformation and Two 20th-Century Commentaries on the Gospel According to St. John (Text)

CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY Vol. XXXIV April 1963 No. 4 The Fourth Gospel Yesterday and Today JOHN W. MONTGOMERY Polygamy and the Church WILLARD BURCE Homiletics Brief Studies Book Review EDITORIAL COMMITTEE VICTOR BARTLING, PAUL M. BRETSCHER ALFRED 0. FUERBRINGER, GEORGE W. HOYER, HERBERT T. MAYER ARTHUR CARL PIEPKORN, WALTER R. ROEHRS LEWIS W. SPITZ, GILBERT A. THIELE Address all comm~llzicatiolzs to the Editorial Committee ilz care of Walter R. Roehrs, 801 De Malt Aue., St. Logis 5, Mo. -' ! The Fourth Gospel Yesterday and Today: An Analysis of Two Reformation and Two 20th -Century Commentaries on the Gospel According to St. John .- I n this paper a comparative study will be made of the work of four Johannine interpreters who are widely separated both in time and in theological approach: Phil- ipp Melanchthon ( 1497-1 560), Luther's irenic associate, rightly designated the "pre- ceptor of Germany"; l Aegidius Humius ( 1550-1603), an uncompromising rep- resentative of early Lutheran confessional orthodoxy; Father Marie- Joseph Lagrange 1 Philipp Melanchthon, Annotationes in Evangelim Ioannis, in Corpus Reformatorum, XIV ( 1847 ) , 1043-1220. Luther himself was responsible for the publication of this commen- tary, which originated in the lectures Melanch- thon delivered at Wittenberg in the winter of 1523. Luther was so pleased with the lectures that he sent them to the printer Nikolaus Gerbel with an accompanying letter which is repro- duced in CR, XIV, 1043-1046. In this paper we shall concentrate on this Johannine commen- tary rather than on the Enarratio in Evangelium Ioannis (CR, XV 118481, 1-440), which, though a more detailed work, may well represent the combined labors of Melanchthon and Kaspar Cmciger rather than the work of Melanchthon alone. Aegidius Hunnius, Commentarius in Evan- gelium de Iesu Chrino, secundurn Ioannem, Perspicrris annotationibus illustratus (Francoforti ad Moenum: Iohannes Spies, 1585 ) , C181, 443 leaves. In the preparation of this paper I have been privileged to use the copy of Hunnius' Comnentarius which once belonged to the great New Testament textual critic C. R. Gregory and which is now in the possession of the Univer- sltg of Chicago Library's Department of Special Collections. ( 185 5-1938), one of the greatest Roman Catholic Biblical scholars of the twentieth century; and Charles Kingsley Barrett, an English Methodist, who since 1958 has served as professor of divinity at Durham University, and who is the author of a highly reputed commentary on the Greek text of the Fourth GospeL4 Such an essay Marie-Joseph Lagrange, Bvangile selon Saint Jean, 8th ed., reprint of the 5th ed. of 1936 (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, J. Gabalda et Cie, Bditeurs, 1948), cxcix, 559 pp. The growth of a strong Biblical movement in present-day European Roman Catholicism is regarded as stemming in large part from Fr. Lagrange's in- fluence; Jean Levie, in his indispensable treat- ment of contemporary Roman Catholic Biblical exegesis, writes of Lagrange: "Since the founda- tion of the Biblical School in Jemsalem, through his own work, through the hudes bibliques (studies of abiding value, coming one after an- other since 1902, forty of them by 1958; Paris, Gabalda) , through the Revue biblique, which was from the start, and now in its sixty-eighth year still remains, the supreme Catholic review devoted to the Bible, he had been the principal master and the greatest benefactor of Catholic exegesis" (The Bible, Word of God in Words of Men, trans. S. H. Treman [New York: Kenedy, 19621, p. 128, et passim). M. Zerwick (Verbum Domini [Rome], XXXIV 119561, 49, 50) points out the interesting fact that Lagrange's work is the one Roman Catholic commentary specifically cited by C. K. Barrett in his work on the Fourth Gospel. 4 Charles Kingsley Barrett, The Gospel Ac- cording to St. John: An Introduction, with Com- mentary and Notes on the Greek Text (London: S. P. C. K., 1960 [c. 1958]), xii, 531 pp. Vin- cent Taylor's high praise of Barrett's cornmen- 198 THE FOURTH GOSPEL YESTERDAY AND TODAY content demands immediate justification and on two counts: first, Why a study of Johannine interpretations? and second, Why the juxtaposition of these particular commentators, in view of their obvious dissimilarities? The first question is readily answered. For those in the Lutheran tradition, the Fourth Gospel has always held a pre- eminent place. It was Luther's favorite Biblical book! and whenever he referred to it he did so in the most praiseworthy terms. The following remarks are typical: John's Gospel and St. Paul's Epistles, especially that to the Romans, and Saint Peter's first Epistle are the true kernel and marrow of all the books. They should justly be the first books, and it would be advisable for every Christian to read them first and most, and by daily reading make them as familiar as his daily bread. . . . John writes very little about the works of Christ but very much about His preaching, while the other Evangelists write much of His works and little of His preaching; therefore John's Gospel is the one, tender, true chief Gospel, far, far to be preferred tary is worth quoting: "It may be said at once that Mr. Barren's work is a very notable achieve- ment. Among British commentaries on John it is without a parallel, and it is worthy to stand side by side with the great works of M.-J. Lagrange (1948) and R. Bulunann (1950)" (Exporitory Timer, LXVII [1955-19561, 7). Barrett's work, incidentally, is the first English commentary on the Greek text of John to appear since J. H. Bernard's contribution to the Inter- national Critical Commentary series in 1928. Raymond T,,Starnrn writes of Barren's work: "The pressing Feed for an up-to-date critical and theological commentary in English on the Greek text of the Gospel of John has now been met" (]ournal of Biblid Literature, LXXV 11 9561, 349). 5 Cf. Roland H. Bainton, The Reformtion of the Sixteenth Century (Boston: Beacon Press, 1952), p. 45. to the other three and placed high above them.0 Matthew, together with the other two Evangelists, Mark and Luke, does not point his Gospel so much at the sublime article of Christ as St. John and St. Paul do. They, therefore, speak and exhort much concern- ing good works, as indeed should be done in Christendom; both should be taught, yet in such a way that each continues in its nature and dignity. First and foremost, faith in Christ should be taught and then also works.7 The key position accorded to the Fourth Gospel in Luther's thought provides ample reason to study significant commentaries on that Gospel. Added to this historical consideration one finds in present-day Bib- lical scholarship a keen revival of interest in John's Gospel. Thus Norman Sykes, in describing "some changes in theological thought since 1900 in respect of the quest of the historical Jesus," wrote in 1960: During the last half-century much atten- tion has been paid to that [the Fourth] Gospel, and recent scholars are ready to allow to it a more important status in their reconstruction and interpretation of the ministry of Jesus. The opinion has gained ground that this Gospel embodies a tradition of our Lord's ministry which is independent of the Synoptic accounts, that its tradition retains distinct marks of a Palestinian origin, and that in some important respects, notably in its placing the Last Supper on the eve of the Pass- over, its testimony on historical episodes -- 0 Preface to the New Testament ( 1522); D. Mavtin Ll/fhers Werke: Kritirche Gerarnzaus- gabe (Weirnar: Herrnann Bijhlaus Nachfolger, 1883- ), Derrtsche Bibel, VI, 10; freely trans- lated. Hereafter this ed. of Luther's works will be referred to as WA. WA, XXXII, 352, 353 (exposition of Matt. 5:16 in 1532). THE FOURTH GOSPEL YESTERDAY AND TODAY 199 is of greater authenticity than the Synop- tic tradition. From another standpoint also the application of the methods of Form-Criticism to the Synoptists has less- ened the gulf between them and the author of the Fourth Gospel, since the latter is recognized as presenting the ministry and teaching of Jesus in the Sitz im Leben of a later and different generation of Gentile Christians from those of the Synoptics. More attention will therefore have to be paid to the distinctive features and wit- ness of the Fourth Gospel in the contem- porary quest of the historical Je~us.~ Both in terms of Lutheran tradition and of contemporary scholarly interest there is every reason to add to the literature on the history of Johannine exegesis. But why a combined treatment of such diverse interpreters as Melanchthon, Hun- nius, Lagrange, and Barrett? The choice of each of them could, of course, be de- fended on the basis of individual merit and historical significance, and the absence of English translations of the commentaries written by three of the four theologians would in itself provide sufficient ground for a careful analysis of these works; but such justification would still leave the ques- tion of combined treatment unanswered. The four commentaries have been chosen for unified study because they represent two different epochs of interpretation and two different mind sets, and thereby provide an opportunity to cast doubt upon two commonly held generalizations with re- gard to the history of exegesis. One of these generalizations is that the unbiased exegete of catholic tasles is pref- erable to the opinionated exegete bound by Biblicistic and confessional presupposi- tions? The other generalization (not en- tirely unconnected with the first) is that, other things being equal, a Biblical com- mentator of the modern period (i. e., the post-Astruc period) is preferable to the exegete who lived prior to the advent of documentary criticism.1° A corollary of this second generalization is the judgment that 17th-century Protestant orthodoxy contributed virtually nothing in a positive 8 Norman Sykes, Sixty Years Since: Some Changer in Theological Thought Since 1900 in Respect of the Quest of the Historical lesus, Montdiore Memorial Lectures, No. 3 (South- ampton: University of Southampton, 1960), p. 16, We shall have more to say later on the question of Gentile vs. Jewish Sitz im Leben for the Fourth Gospel, and on the problem of the chronology of the Last Supper in John and in the Synoptics; it should not be assumed that we necessarily agree with the views presented by Sykes. 9 The older works on Biblical hermeneutics invariably discuss the characteristics of the ideal interpreter, and among these one generally finds such phrases as "a sound, well-balanced mind," "imagination needed, but must be controlled," "sober judgment," "correctness and delicacy of taste" (Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, 2d ed., reprint [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zonder- van, n. d.], pp. 151 ff.) . Cf. the 1950 selection policy for religious books at the Enoch Pratt Free Library: "The Library . . . attempts to pro- vide authoritative and objective presentations, avoiding inflammatory, extreme, or unfair state- ments and highly emotional treatments" (Book Selection policies and Procedures, Pt. 1: Policies [Baltimore: Enoch Pratt Free Library, 1950 (mimeographed)], pp. 55, 56); for the fallacies in this evaluative criterion of religious literature, see my article, "A Normative Approach to the Acquisition Problem in the Theological Semi- nary Library," American Theological Library Association Proceedings, XVI (1962), 65-95. 10 See, e. g., Harry Emerson Fosdick's The Modem Use of the Bibk (New York: Macmil- lan, 1924), esp, pp. 10, 11. This widely held conviction is briefly treated in my editorial In- troduction to Chytraeur on Sacrifice: A Refor- mation Treatise in Biblical Theology (St. Louis: Concordia, 1962), pp. 26, 28, 29. 200 THE FOURTH GOSPEL YESTERDAY AND TODAY way to the history of Biblical exegesis?l Much light can be shed on each of these generalizations by a combined study of the above-mentioned Johannine interpreters, for both generalizations lead us to expect certain things -good and bad - of the four commentaries, and these expectations can be tested through inductive examina- tion of the commentaries themselves. It has already been noted that the four commentators to be discussed represent two widely different time periods; but of equal significance is the fact that they represent different personality types as well. Me- lanchthon has been characterized by his most recent American biographer as "the quiet reformer," l2 and such a characteriza- tion seems eminently just. Melanchthon said of himself: "Ego sum tranquilla avis," and "Non sum cp~16ve~~os." l3 Undoubt- edly Neve went too far when he referred 11 Samuel Terrien writes: "Although the Protestant Reformation spurred in every land an unprecedented interest in the Bible, the dog- matic intolerance of the post-Reformation period was not favorable to the development of Biblical studies" ("History of the Interpretation of the Bible: 111. Modern Period," The Interpreter's Bible, 1 [New York, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 19521, 127). Frederick W. Danker also dis- penses with these exegetes in one paragraph with the comment: "The 17th-century commen- taries are notable chiefly for their prolixity and for their curioso-like display of what Spurgeon called 'intellectual crockery.' . . . Time which one may be inclined to spend on the works of these men who wrote cuwente cakzmo will be more wisely invested in the study of the patristic commentators who supplied much of their bulk. A gust of fresh air enters with Matthew Henry. . . ." (M+purpose Tools for Bible Study [St. Louis: Concordia, 19601, p. 257). 12 Clyde L. Manschreck, Mehchthon, the Quiet Reformer (New York: Abingdon, 1958). 13 CR, VI, 474 (epistle to Buaer, Aug. 28, 1544); 880 (epistle to Carlowitz, April 28, 1548). to Melanchthon as "the feminine principle of the Reformation," l4 for, as the recent Melanchthon revival has emphasized, he was "in no sense a weakling." l5 However, unlike Luther, Melanchthon was much con- cerned with mediation and the reconcilia- tion of opposites; indeed, his tolerance and catholicity may be a factor in the present repristination of interest in Of a far different cast of mind was Aegidius Hunnius, the orthodox Lutheran controversialist. What Luther supposedly said of Melanchthon, Hunnius could also have said: "Philip can sting you too, but he does it with needles and pins. . . . I stab you with boar's spears." l7 Hunnius' personality is manifest both in his life and in his writings.'' His career was largely J. L. Neve, A History of Christian Thought, I (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1943), 256. 15. Wilhelm Pauck, "Luther and Melanch- thon," in Vilmos Vajta (ed.), Luther ad Melrrnchthon in the History and Theology of the Reforntrrtion (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1961 ) , p. 27. 16 Cf. Walter G. Tillmanns, The World and Men About Luther (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1959), p. 106. '7 WA (Tischreden), I, No. 348 ( 1532). For biographical data on Hunnius see, as the basic primary source, Melchior Adam's sketch, based on Hutter's funeral oration for Hunnius: Vitae Germanorurn theologorum (Haidelbergae: J. Rosa, 1620), pp. 723-731. Cf. also Pierre Bayle, A General Dictionary, Historical atzd Critical, trans. J. P. Bernard et al., VI (London: G. Strahan et al., 1738), 318- 322; Friedrich Wilhelm Strieder, Grundlage zu einer hessischen Gekhrtm und Schriftsteller Geschichte (Cassel: Comer, 178C--82 ) , V1, 243 ff.; IX, 391; Philipp's des Grossmuthigen hes~ische Kirchenreforntrrtionsordnung, ed. Kad August Credner (Giessen, 1852), passim; Alex- ander Schweizer, Die protestantiscben Central- dogmen (Ziirich, 1854--56), 1, 529 ff., 568 ff.; and Gustav Frank, Geschichte der protestanti- THE FOURTH GOSPEL YESTERDAY AND TODAY 201 spent in enesgetic opposition to Crypto- Calvinists, Flacians, and Romanists. In 1576, at age 26, he obtained a professor- ship at the University of Marburg and received his doctorate in theology from Tubingen; forthwith he entered upon a vig- orous campaign of antiCalvinist polemic. So successful was he that in 1592 he was invited into Saxony to reform the elec- torate. In his position as chief professor of divinity at Wittenberg, minister of the castle church, and member of the Consis- tory, he so successfully cleared the country of Calvinists that he was invited to Silesia to perform a similar function there. At the end of his life he opposed the Jesuits Gretser and Tanner at the Regensburg col- loquy ( 1601 ) . In Hutter's funeral oration for him such statements as the following are typical: In what strong as well as frequent con- tests he was forced to engage in Hesse, as well at Kassel as at Marburg, one moment against secret enemies, and another against open ones, who are called Sacramentarians by the Lutherans; what mighty combats he sustained, on account of that most holy article of the Christian faith, concerning the person of Christ and His adorable majesty sitting at the right hand of God -these things, I say, are known to God, who sees and judges all things, nor are they unknown to many pious and judicious men?Q The controversial nature of most of his publications is evident from such repre- schen Theologie, I (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1862), 248, 249,257,265,275, 280, 343. The most accessible biographical article in English on Hunnius is that by Johannes Kunze in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedk of Religious Knowledge, V, 409,410. In Adam, p. 727. sentative titles as:20 Examen et refutatio assertionurn jesuiticarum Lw. Arturi Fauntei . . . de ordinatione ac vocatione ministrorum in Eccje~iis reformatis (Francoforti ad Moenum: J. Spies, 1591); Calvinu~ judaizans (Witebergae: M. Welac, 1595);21 De indulgentiis et iubi- loeo Romani pontifrcis tractatus, scriptus et oppositus duobus libris R. Bellarmini Jesui- tae (Francofurti: J. Saurius, 1599) ; Anti- pareus, hoc est Invicta refutatio venenati ~~ipti a D. Davide Pareo ( 2 vols.; Wite- bergae: C. Berger, 1603) ; 22 Articuli Chris- tiame religionis de lege et Euangelio . . . forma qwestionum ac responsionum per- tractati, confatatis etiam pontificiorurn, an- tinornorum, calvinianorum aliorumque novatorum erroribus (Wittebergae: J. J. Porsius, 1606). Hunnius' two most important and in- fluential doctrinal writings were concerned with the central dogmas of the majesty and omnipresence of Christ as man (LibelLi IV. de persona Christi, ejusque ad dextram Dei 20 Copies of these works are held either by the British Museum or by the BibliothPque Na- tionale (Paris), and citations have been ob- tained from the printed catalogs of their depart- ments of printed books. A complete edition of Hunnius' Latin works was prepared by his son- in-law. H. Garth(ius), and published in five volumes folio at Wittenberg, 1607-09; it is titled, Tomus primus {- quintus) Operum Uinorum. 21 Of this work Bayle says: "Calvin was there accused of so many heretical crimes, that he might have been afraid of being treated like Servetus, had he lain at Hunnius's mercy" (VI, 321). 22 David Pareus (1548-1622) was one of the most distinguished Calvinist theologians of the early 17th century; on him, see my Seven- teenth-Century View of European Libraries: Lomeiw's "De bibliothecis," Chapter X (Berke- ley: University of California Press, 1962), pp. 27, 28, 100, 101, 161. 202 THE FOURTH GOSPEL YESTERDAY AND TODAY sedentis divina Majestate [Wittebergae: B. Raab, 16121 ) , and the absolute authority of the Bible (Tractatlrs de sacrosancta majestate, aabtoritate, fide ac cartitdine Sacrae Scriptwae [Francofurti ad Moenum: J. Spies, 15901). His exegetical labors in- cluded not only the commentary on the Fourth Gospel, but also works on Matthew, the Pauline epistles, and I John; and he wrote Biblical dramas (e. g., Josephus, conoedia sacra) as well. To a certain extent the two modern Johannine interpreters to be discussed here parallel the two Reformation commenta- tors. In Father Lagrange one sees an exe- gete firmly wedded to a powerful confes- sional tradition. Granted, Lagrange was no contro~ersialist,2~ yet, like Hunnius, he was more frequently motivated by faithful ad- herence to a doctrinal tradition than by a Melanchthonian desire to reconcile op- posites. W. F. Howard wrote of Lagrange and his John commentary: When a fruitful and very absorbing min- istry in South America prevented Pkre Calmes from bringing out the new edition of his excellent commentary, the duty of writing a new work devolved upon Pere M.-J. Lagrange, whose unusual equip- ment on the linguistic side gives to all his discussions of grammar, especially on questions where a Semitic background is in dispute, an unsurpassed authority. It is unfortunate that the Biblical Commis- sion of May 29, 1907, has prevented a reallv unbiased discussion of the critical points ar issue for the great learning and 7 23 For a full bibliography with detailed sub- ject index of M.-J. Lagrange's prolific exegetical writings, see F.-M. Braun, L'oeuvre dn Pdre Lugrange: Etude et bibliographic (Pribourg en Suisse: L'lmprimerie St-Paul, 1943). Cf. also Mkrnorial Lagrange (Paris: Librairie Lecoff re; J. Gabalda et Cie, Editeurs, 1940) , pp. 1-1 1. sound judgment of this scholar, who lives in Palestine, would carry weight beyond that of any ecclesiastical committee. But the second sentence in the Introduction reads: "It is no longer a question of know- ing if it had as author the Beloved Dis- ciple, John, son of Zebedee. This point is fixed by ecclesiastical tradition." 24 It seems that Lagrange, no less than Hunnius, would be subject to modern criticism for representing what Burton and Goodspeed term the "dogmatic method, which assumes that the results of the inter- pretation of a certain body of literature must conform to the dogmas of an accepted body of doctrine or system of thought." 25 Moreover, like Hunnius, Lagrange held a very high view of the inspiration of Scripture, for he accepted without question the Roman position on inspiration and Biblical studies expressed not long after his death in the papal encyclical Divino afinte Spisitg (1943) : "What task can be more sublime than to study, interpret, expound to the faithful, and defend against unbelievers the very word of God given to men under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost?" 2s In C. K. Barrett one finds a modern counterpart to the irenic Melanchthon. It is true that Melanchthon took a far more conservative view of the inspiration and 24 Wilbert Francis Howard, The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation, 4th ed., ed. C. K. Barrett (London: Epworth Press, 1955), p. 88. 26 Ernest DeWitt Burton and Edgar Johnson Goodspeed, "The Study of the New Testament," in A Guide to the Study of the Christian Re& gion, ed. G. B. Smith (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1916). p. 176. 26 Quoted in James D. Wood, The Inter- pretation of the Bibk: A Historicd Introduction (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1958), p. 169. THE FOURTH GOSPEL YESTERDAY AND TODAY 203 authority of the Bible than Barrett is able to yet in their basic concern to present all sides of an issue they have much in common. Many critics of Barrett's commentary on John have pointed out the media vi4 character of his approach. G. D. Kilpatrick writes: "Mr. Barrett's cornmen- tary belongs to the same kind as that of Dr. Vincent Taylor [on Mark). It is a work of reference rather than a vehicle for a particular view or thesis about the Gos- pel." 28 E. Kenneth Lee notes Barrett's "mediating position" in such matters as John's sacramental teaching.29 W. H. Cad- man of Mansfield College, Oxford, states that "by the time they are through with it readers of this Commentary who are not new to the serious study of St. John will be reflecting that the author has taken a middle-of-the-road course with the prob- lems which have to be faced in connexion with the Gospel." 30 The distinguished Ro- man Catholic theologian William Gros- souw of the University of Nijmegen, author of Rmelation and Redemption, a Sketch of the Theology of St.]~hn~l argues: "Of the three authors under discus- sion [Dodd, Barrett, Bultmann) Barrett is *7 See, for example, Melanchthon's "The Church and the Authority of the Word" (1539), in Mekanchthon: Selected Writings, trans. Charles Leander Hill (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1962). pp. 130-186. It is noteworthy, how- ever, that Melanchthon never stressed the doc- trine of Scriptural authority as much as Hunnius did in his Tractatus de sacsosancta majestate, rutoritate, fide ac certitudine Sacrrre Scripturae. 28 Theology [London], LIX ( 1956), 369. 28 Scottisb 10mJ of Theology, VIII (1955). 429,430. 30 Hibbert loud, LIV (1955-1956), 294. 31 Trans. and ed. Martin W. Schoenberg (Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1955). the one who expresses himself in the most cautious terms about the question of the background of St. John, his whole work for that matter being distinguished by a great carefulness. For all its laudability this wari- ness does not unoften refrain the author from taking sides." 32 In his ~eticence to "take sides," Barrett shows himself to be a kindred spirit with the Quiet Reformer. On the ground of contemporary ad hominem argumentation, it would seem that the more "tolerant" commentators, Barrett and Melanchthon, would be prefer- able to the more "opinionated commen- tators, Lagrange and Hunnius. Moreover, on the present-day assumption that, other considerations being equal, modernity is a positive virtue, Barrett would be pre- ferred to Melanchthon, and Lagrange to Hunnius. And in light of the severe criti- cism directed today against the theologians and Biblical commentators of the 17th cen- tury, Hunnius would be certain to receive last place in an evaluative arrangement of these four Johannine interpreters. How well do these ad hominem evaluations stand up when the four commentators are studied inductively in the light of the Gospel they purport to interpret? That is the question to which we shall address ourselves. But in order to make the required comparison, it is necessary first to set forth briefly our conception of John's Gospel. THE THRUST OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL Rudolf Bultmann, one of the greatest contemporary interpreters of the Fourth Gospel, has raised the vital question, "Is exegesis without presuppositions pos- 32 "Three Books on the Fourth Gospel," Novurn Testawnturn, I (1956), 41. sible?" 33 His answer is that although exe- gesis must not presuppose its results, it always presupposes the method of his- torical-critical research and requires an existential "life-relation" between the Bib- lical subject matter and the exegete him- self. Thus there is a necessary "circularity" involved in all Biblical exegesis:' and no exegesis can be definitive in an absolute sense. With certain elements of Bultmam's ap- proach we readily agree: he is correct when he asserts, following Kant, that presupposi- tionless intellectual endeavor is impossible; and he is likewise correct that no exegesis can be absolutely definitive, for all exegesis involves the communication of a text to the historical situation of the exegete. However, when Bultmann argues that not only historical method 35 but also existen- 33 "1st voraussetzungslose Exegese moglich?" Tbeologische Zeitscbrift, XI11 ( 1957 ) , 409- 417; published in English trans. in Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bult- wnn, ed. Schubert M. Ogden (New York: Meridian Living Age Books, 1960), pp. 289- 296. 34 Bulunann's circularity principle is well set forth and persuasively defended in Armin Henry Limper's thesis, "Hermeneutics and Eschatology: Rudolf Bultmann's Interpretation of John, Chapters 13-17," unpubl. Ph. D. diss. (Chi- cago, 1960). 35 We readily agree that the canons of his- torical method must be presupposed in historical investigation, but such presuppositions are prop- erly heuristic and do not limit freedom of in- quiry. However, when Bultmann asserts that historical method requires us to "understand the whole historical process as a closed unity" and that "this closedness means that the continuum of historical-happenings cannot be rent by the interference ofsupernatural, transcendent powers and that therefore there is no 'miracle' in tiJs sense of the word" (Existence and Paitb, p. 292). he confuses historical method (empirical method applied to history) with historicism (rational- tial "life-relation" must be presupposed in exegesis, he blurs the aim of objectivity which is essential to all proper literary and historical study. Following Dilthey 36 as well as the general stream of philosophical existentialism, Bulunann attempts to "cut under the subject-object di~tinction";~? he claims that "for historical understanding the schema of subject and object that has validity for natural science is invalid."38 But in fact the subject-object distinction is of crucial importance in history as well as in natural science, and only by aiming to discover the objective concern of the text (rather than blending it with the sub- jective concern of the exegete) can success- ful exegesis take place. For us then, in analyzing John's Gospel there is only one valid question-not a multiplicity of existentially determined -. questions- to be put to the text, namely: What is the intended message of the book? Unless this question is objectively posed, exegesis will inevitably presuppose its re- sults, regardless of Bultmann's strictures to the contrary. The "circularity" of exe- gesis must be broken by the subject-object distinction, or criteria for distinguishing 36 Bultmann's dependence on Dilthey in this respect is evident from Bultmann's essay, "The Problem of Hermeneutics," which appeared or- iginally in the Zeitzcbrift fur Tbeologie und Kircbe, XLVII (1950), 47-69; published in English trans. in Bultmann's Ezsayz, Philoso~h- ical and Theological, trans. J. C. G. Greig (Lon- don: SCM Press, 1955), pp. 234--261. 37 Tillich so describes this basic characteristic of existentialism in his "Existential Philosophy: Its Historical Meaning," first published in the loud of the History of Ideas, V (January 1944), and republished in Tillich's Theology of Culture, ed. Robert C. Kimball (New York: Oxford University Press. 1959). p. 92. iGc scientism operative in the historical realm). as Bulunann. Existenca and Faith, p. 294. THE FOURTH GOSPEL YESTERDAY AND TODAY 205 sound from unsound interpretation will forever be rendered impos~ible.~~ A second methodological issue requiring clarification at the outset is the question of literary unity. Here we argue on the basis of Aristotle's dictum that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the work being studied, not arrogated by the interpreter to himself.40 In practice this means that we regard as unproven all theories of textual displacement - e. g., the recent theory of MacGregor and Morton 41 -which cannot be supported by objective manuscript evi- den~e.~~ This is not to say that such theo- ries canaot be uue; we say only that sub- jective literary speculation and the "scissors and paste" method must not be allowed to substitute for patient exegesis of the text as determined by the objective canons of lower criti~isrn.~~ 39 1 have argued this point with reference to philosophy of history and have criticized Bult- mann's approach in detail in my recent book, The Shape of the Past: An Introduction to Phil- osophical Historiography, in History in Chris- tian Perspective, I (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Ed- wards Bmthers, 1962), esp. pp. 120-122. 40 Aristotle, De arte poetica, 1460b, 14Glb. Cf. my article, "Some Comments on Paul's Use of Genesis in His Epistle to the Romans," Evan- gelical Theological Society Bulletin, IV (April 1961), 4-11. 41 G. H. C. MacGregor and A. Q. Morton, The Structuse of the Forrrth Gosfiel (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1961 ). 42 The adulterous woman pericope (7: 53- 8 :11) must be rejected on textual grounds; for a summary of the manuscript evidence see Nestle's text. 43 "I conceive it to be the duty of an inter- preter at least to see what can be done with the document as it has come down to us before at- tempting to improve upon it" (C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Povrth Gospel [Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 195 31, P. 290). The Johannine authorship problem must be faced by anyone who intends to inter- pret the Fourth Gospel. In applying the above stated Aristotelian principle of liter- ary criticism to such passages as 19:35 ("he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knower that he saith true") 3 we must agree with W~lliam Temple when he asserts in his Readjags ia St. John's Gos- pel: "I regard as self-condemned any the- ory about the origin of the Gospel which fails to find a very close connection be- tween it and John the son of Zebedee. The combination of internal and external evi- dence is overwhelming on this point." How strong this evidence actually is may be seen in a detailed article by Hugo Ode- berg which takes into account 20th-century papyrus di~coveries.~~ The important issue is not whether the apostle John was the actual amanuensis of the Gospel that bears his name, but whether the Gospel represents the first-century apos- tolic witness; we find the affirmative argu- ments of Odeberg and Temple compelling in this regard. It follows, moreover, that if the Fourth Gospel is a product of the apostolic witness, and if the Synoptic Gos- pels were written even earlier - within a half-century of the death of our Lord, ac- cording to the best evidence-then the exegete should expect to find harmony rather than disharmony between John on the one hand and Matthew, Mark, and Luke on the other. So, for example, when faced with an issue such as the date of the Last Supper, where the Synoptics and John appear to disagree, sympathetic at- tention should be given to a reconciliation 44 Hugo Odeberg, "The Authorship of Saint John's Gospel," Concordia Theological Monthly, XXII (April 1951). 246. 206 THE FOURTH GOSPEL YESTERDAY AND TODAY of the kind offered by Jaubert, who, by successfully demonstrating that two calen- dars (the official lunar and a Jubilees- Qumran) were employed at the time, pro- vides a harmonization which does not.do violence to any of the records4" Assuming, then, the literary unity of the Fourth Gospel and its source in the apos- tolic witness, what is its intended message? Obviously a direct statement of purpose within the book itself would carry max- imum weight, and we are provided with such an assertion in 20:31: "taGta 62 y6y~mra~ iva ZL~E~~TE 6t~ 'IqooG~ Qat~v 6 ~g~otb~ 6 wibg to6 O~o6, xai 'iva Here the writer stresses two elements: belief and the object of belief. He wishes to bring his readers to belief (and thus life), and he has in mind a specific con- tent of belief, namely that Jesus is "the Messiah, viz., the Son of God." We can term these two foci of John's interest the "evangelical-apologetic" and the "testifica- tory." The former - John's aim to bring read- ers to belief -is evident in the prologue, where the author employs the k6yog con- cept familiar to Greeks, to Hellenistic Juda- ism, and even to Rabbinic Judaism, in an effort to show that all their hopes are ful- filled in the historic JesusPB Concern for 46 A. Jaubert, b daze de la Cdne. Calm- drier biblique er liturgie cbrhienne (Paris: Gabalda, 1957). Cf. F. F. Bruce's excellent review of tlii work in the Journal of Semitic Stwdie~, 111 (?958), 219-221. 46 See Dodd, pp. 263-285, and my article, "Wisdom as Gift: The Wisdom Concept in Relation to Biblical Messianism," Inte~fllebtio~, XVI (January 1962), 43-57. In his Author- ity of the Bible, rev. ed. (London: Nisbet, 1955), pp. 200,201, Dodd presents the follow- an apologetic evangel is also seen in John's use of oqp~ia 47 and dialogues 4s to induce ing balanced judgment: "Some critics, approach- ing it [the Fourth Gospel] from the side of Judaism, have pronounced it the most Jewish of the Gospels, while others, approaching it from the other side, see in it a thoroughly Hellenistic book. Nowhere more evidently than here does early Christianity take its place as the natural leader in new ways of thought, uniting in itself the main tendencies of the time, yet exercising authority over them by virtue of the creative impulse proceeding from its Founder." In spite of recent tendencies to understand the Fourth Gospel in thoroughgoing Jewish terms (Cf. Howard, pp. 158,159), it is imponant to note that a "Greek (i. e., non-Jewish) audience is not entirely removed from the purview of the author (note especially 12:20 ff.: "And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast . . . and they said. Sir, we would see Jesus"). As to the frequently debated question whether tk Fourth Gospel was written for "believers" or "unbelievers" (cf. the debate on the reading x~ars6qrs vs. niateirqr~ in 20:31--both of which have ex- cellent manuscript support). two considerations render the argument superfluous: ( 1 ) "Believ- ing" in the Fourth Gospel is consistently pre- sented as a continuous, moment-by-moment experience, and therefore witness can be meaningfully directed to believers as well as to unbelievers (cf. the theological aphorism, "No Christian is more than one day old"); (2) As we shall see, the major focus of attention in John's Gospel is on the source and object of belief, not on the one believing or the one about to believe; John is concerned not with the psychology of belief but with its ontology. 47 Note, for example, John's apologetic use of the supreme oqpsiov, the Resurrection: "Then answered the Jews and said unto Him, What sign [oqp~iovl showest Thou unto us, seeing that Thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt Thou rear it up in three days? But He spake of the temple of His body. When therefore He was risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this unto them; and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said" (2:18-22). Cf. also J. H. Bernard's discussion of the "signs," THE FOURTH GOSPEL YESTERDAY AND TODAY 207 belief. E. C. Colwell is thus quite correct when he titles his interpretation, John De- fed the But the Fourth Gospel is not simply a "Gospel of belief" in the traditional sense of a book which centers attention on the subjective production of faith. More important by far to John than the believer (or unbeliever) is the "on- tology of belief," that is to say, the ob- ject -and source - of belief, Jesus the Messiah. This is evidenced especially by the prominence in the Gospel of the idea of "witness." 50 A word count reveals that the verb pagtvgto appears in only one verse in Matthew, in only two verses in Luke, and not at all in Mark, but in 33 verses in John; likewise, the noun yaqmgia is found not at all in Matthew, in only three verses in Mark, and in just one verse in Luke, but in 14 verses in John.51 The writer of the Fourth Gospel intro- duces believers and unbelievers alike into the narrative in order to point to Jesus- and on occasion summarily dismisses them in his Critical and Exegetic& Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, ed. A. H. McNeile, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928), I, clxxvi, clxxvii. 48 A particularly clear example is the dialog with Nicodemus in chap. 3, where Jesus' object is to bring Nicodemus to a "new birth/birth from above" (5v:voftev). Vv. 14 ff. (probably representing John's comments on the incident) connect this transcendent birth with a believing relationship to Christ (sc~aze6e~v eiq ahw), who will be "lifted up" on the cross for man's salvation. 49 Chicago: Willett, Clark, 1736. 50 See Bernard. I, xc-xciii. 51 These word counts are derived from Moulton and Geden's Concordance to the Greek Testament, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1926), pp. 616,617. (e. g., Nicodemus) after they have served this function. The witness of unbelievers to Christ is often unconscious by way of double meanings, but it is no less real be- cause of that; especially clear examples of such Johannine irony are provided by Caiaphas ( 11:49-52) and Pilate ( 19: 19- 22).52 Thus the thrust of the Fourth Gos- pel is in the most real sense Christocentric; Luther recognized this when in 1537 he commented as follows on John 14: 5,6: The evangelist St. John is wont to write and to emphasize that all our doctrine and faith should center in Christ and should cling to this one Person alone, and that we, brushing aside all science and wisdom, should simply know nothing but the cruci- fied Christ, as St. Paul says in 1 Cot. 1 and 2.53 It is imperative to see, moreover, that the Christ on whom the Fourth Gospel centers attention is conceived historically, not just existentially. The Christ is viewed not primarly as a means to existential self- understanding (as Bultmann leads us to believe in his Kommentar and in his The- ology of the New Te~tament),5~ but as the Divine in human flesh, whose historical 52 I am indebted for these latter two points to Dr. David Granskou of the Department of Theological Cooperation, National Lutheran Council. 53 WA, XLV, 489. 54 Thus Bultmann existentializes the Johan- nine concept of "true light" by defining it as "the state of having one's existence illumined, an illumination in and by which a man under- stands himself, achieves a self-understanding which opens up his 'way' to him, guides all his conduct, and gives him clarity and assurance" (Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kend- rick Grobel [London: SCM Press, 19551, 11, 18). In actuality the fourth evangelist, at the very outset of his Gospel, defines the "true light" as the "Word made flesh." (19-14) 208 THE FOURTH GOSPEL YESTERDAY AND TODAY reality provides the only proper focus for THE COMMENTATORS COMPARED existential commitment. The historicity of the Christ of John is seen particularly in the key verse of the prologue, 1:14 (6 h6yo~ ah& Byhsto); in the historical detail of the Passion ac- count (Dodd, in approaching the Johan- nine Passion narrative, writes: "It is as though the evangelist, having sufficiently set forth the meaning of the death and resurrection of Christ, turned to the reader and said, 'And now I will tell you what actually happened, and you will see that the facts themselves bear out my interpre- tation' ") ; 55 and in the exceedingly great stress placed upon the facticity of Christ's resurrection -both through the prepara- tory miracle of the raising of Lazarus and through the "doubting Thomas" incident that climaxes the G~spel.~" As Dr. Wright well says, John's Gospel "was a Gospel of God- he knew that there was no 'Gospel' at all unless it was God's own Gospel: but it was a Gospel of God incarnate in a real man.'' 57 55 Dodd. Interpretdim of the Pourth Gos- pel, pp. 431,432. 60 "Thomas stops short at the glorious scars, and the book, as originally planned, ends with his adoration and the challenge to all readers to believe. The reader is bound to be left gaz- ing with Thomas" (Barnabas Lindars, "The Fourth Gospel, an Act of Contemplation;' Studies in the Pou+th Gojpel, ed. F. L. Cross [London: Mowbray, 19571, p. 35). On the historical significance of this Thomas incident, see my Shape of the Pact, pp. 173-175. Bult- mann greatly weakens,the factual thrust of the Johannine resurrection accounts when he warns against "taking the Easter-stories for more than they are able to be: signs and pictures of the Easter faith - or, perhaps still better, confes- sions of faith in it" (Theology of the New Testament, 11. 57). 61 C. J. Wright, in Major, Manson, and Wright's Mission amd Menage of Jesus (New The preceding inductive analysis of the message and approach of the Fourth Gos- pel will now be employed as a standard of comparison for the four Johannine com- mentators under discussion. In each case an attempt will be made to see how suc- cessfully the given commentator deals with such central hermeneutic issues as the purpose of the Fourth Gospel (with special reference to 20: 3 1 and the prologue), the general function of the ay~s'icr, the inter- pretation of a key discourse (the Nico- demus incident in chap. 3 ) recognition York: Dutmn, 1938), p. 675; Wright's italics. Dodd makes the same point when he thus de- scribes the Johannine theology: "The knowledge of God which is life eternal is mediated by an historical transaction. Only through the 'de- parture' and 'return' of Christ, that is, through His actual death on the cross and His actual resurrection, is the life He brings liberated for the life of the world." (lnterpretdion of the Pourth Gospel, p. 423) It will be noted that in the foregoing anal- ysis of the basic message of John's Gospel we have not dealt with any of the "special" her- meneuric theories such as the allegorical (Loisy), the mystical (Von Hiigel) , the sacramental- liturgical (Cullmann), etc. This is not to say that we totally reject these emphases, but we believe that where applicable they must be re- garded as subordinate and contributory to the central purpose of the Gospel as set forth in the direct and literal statements of its author. With regard to the "realized vs. "futurist" eschatology issue, we reject Bultmann's argu- ment that the Fourth Gospel is absolutely non- futurist; his claim chat 5:28, 29, 6:54, and 12:48 are later additions to the book has no textual basis and actually represents the opera- tion of exegetical presuppositionalism. 58 Excellent precedent for the use of the Nicodemus dialogue in comparative exegesis has been provided by Barrett himself who, in his revision of Howard's Potlrth Gospel in Recent Criticism (pp. 243 ff.) , examines the treatment of the Nicodemus episode given by Hoskyns, Bultmann, and Dodd. THE FOURTH GOSPEL YESTERDAY AND TODAY 209 of unconscious testimony to Christ and of the ironic use of double meanings (1 1: 49-52; 19: 19-22), the significance of the Lazarus story (1 1: 1-44), and the treatment of alleged contradictions between the Jo- hannine and Synoptic Passion chronologies. Melanchthon For Melanchthon the theme of the Fourth Gospel is the declaration of grace in Jesus Christ over against the old dis- pensation of Law as represented by Moses. The reformer introduces his commentary with a lengthy section entitled "Legis et Evangelii differentia," 59 which forms the backdrop for his entire presehtation. In his detailed discussion of the Johannine pro- logue he places particular stress on 1 : 17 ("The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ"),so and the incarnation is viewed from the stand- point of the Law-Gospel distinction. In- terestingly enough, Melanchthon makes no comment at all on 20: 31p1 The Johannine "signs" are generally re- garded as symbolic of the Gospel-vs.-Law issue. Thus the miracle at Cana (2: 1-11) is interpreted allegorically (the six water- pots = the Law; wine = the Gospel; the governor of the feast = the apostles and preachers, who dispense the Word) ; O2 and the feeding of the 5,000 (chap. 6) provides an opportunity to distinguish between the manna of the Israelites (i. e., justification by the Law), and the Bread of life (i. e., righteousness provided through Christ's Gospel) .63 The Nicodemus dialogue, typ- 69 CR, XIV, 1047-1049. 60 Ibid., COIL 1065,1066. 61 Ibid., cols. 1216.1217. 82 Ibid., col. 1078. 88 Ibid., cols. 1099-1103. ical of the other Johannine dialogues, is regarded from the same standpoint as the signs: Nicodernus represents "the wisdom and righteousness of the flesh which seeks to be justified before God through the "ex- ternal works of the Law," while Christ preaches justification through the Gospel of regenerati~n.~~ In discussing the raising of Lazarus, Melanchthon cautions against allegorical interpretation,B6 but then char- acteristically sees in Christ's admonitions to believe in Him as the Resurrection and the Life an opposition to reliance upon "good works," "human works." 6e In spite of his preoccupation with the Law-Gospel distinction, however, Melanch- thon does not entirely lose sight of the testificatory emphasis of the Fourth Gospel. It is true that he does not catch the uncon- scious testimony and ironic double mean- ing in the superscription incident (19: 19-22),67 but he does see such a witness in Caiaphas' statement that "it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people" ( 11 :49-52) ; indeed, Melanchthon parallels this testimony with that of Ba- ham's ass and with God's use of Pharaoh in the Old Te~tament.~~ Melanchthon does not of course deny the historicity of the picture of Christ pre- 84 Ibid., ~01s. 1079,1080. 85 "In histoda resuscitati Lazari non quaete- mus allegorim, ut Lazari morte repraesentetur anirnae mors, et hoc genus alia. Sed factum ipsurn consyderandum est" (ibid., col. 1 138). Unhappily, Melanchthon does not restrain him- self from employing allegorical method else- where in the commentary, and here he does not see the facturn ipsum of Latarus' resurrection as a pointer to the factum ipsum of Christ's own resurrection. 6% Ibid., col. 1139. 67 Ibid., cols. 1213-1215. Ibid., co1s. 1144, 1145. 210 THE FOURTH GOSPEL YESTERDAY AND TODAY sented in the Fourth Gospel, but his main concern is with doctrine rather than his- tory, and thus it is not strange that he no- where deals with the problem of reconcil- ing the chronology of the Passion narra- tives -in spite of his willingness to in- clude bits of factual antiquarid throughout the commentary.09 His commentary be- comes especially brief and sketchy when he reaches the Passion narrative, and this contrasts markedly with the detail at the beginning of the work-particularly in his section on the prologue, which, of course, provides much material for doc- trinal exegesisJO In summary, then, one finds Melanch- chon's commentary to be dogmacentric - to suffer from an unfortunate tendency to force John's Gospel into the straitjacket of a single doctrinal motif - the proper dis- tinction between Law and Gospel - which, though a sound doctrine per se, and pos- sibly even a minor theme of the fourth evangelist, is unquestionably not the cen- tral concern of the Gospel writerJ1 - 69 For example: "Al~era die vidit, etc. [1:29] Altera die, i.e. alio die, quia graecismus est, ne urgeat esse sequenti die" (ibid., col. 1071). 70 Of the 169 columns of the commentary, 28 are spent on John 1. This is three and a half times the emphasis one would expect if equal stress were placed on each chapter of the Fourth It is a striking experience to pass from the somewhat flat, static, abbreviated, and doctrinally oriented commentary of Me- lanchthon to the work of Aegidius Hun- nius, whom Johann Gerhard called "der trefflichste unter allen neueren Theologen." Hunnius quite obviously reacted to the Gospel of John as J. B. Phillips did to the Pauline epistles: "Again and again the writer felt rather like an electrician rewir- ing an ancient house without being able to 'turn the mains off.' " 72 - and this same dynamic reaction is conveyed to the reader of Hunnius' commentary. This character- ization of Hunnius' work might seem ex- aggerated in the light of his use of a loci commanes method of but in actuality his presentation gains in syste- matic effectiveness through the controlled use of this methodology. As I have pointed out elsewhere, it is manifestly unfair to condemn 17th-century writers for their concern with "system"; every writer em- ploys some kind of system, and problems arise only when a given form is allowed to twist and pervert contentJ4 Gospel ( WA, XXXIII, 82 -sermon on John 6:37-39 [I5311 ) , but he clearly recognized that the focus of the Gospel was not on doctrine but on the source and object of doctrine, Christ Himself. Gospel. In contrast, only four columns are de- voted to ~~h~ 18 and only two each to 72 J. B. Phillips, Lett@~ to Young Cburcher chaps. 19 and 20; in the case of chap. 18 this (London: Bles, 1947 ) , p. xi. is half what one would expect, and in the case 73 After presenting the general argumentu;m of chaps. 19 and 20, it is but one fourth of the of a chapter, he divides the chapter into two expected emphasis. or three major subject units or paragraphs; then 71 n G~ uudoubtedly ~~~h~f~ legiiimate he makes general explanatory comments on each preoccupation with [he L~~-G~~~~~ issue [hat unit; finally, he derives specific loci from the caused him to look with such favor on M~- units. The approach is not greatly dissimilar to lanchthonss commentary. has also been sug. that employed in the Znt~p+eter'~ Bible, where gested [hat Luther appreciated Melanchthonps historical-philological commenrs form the back- suDDorr of his Dosition on free will over against ground for theological-devotional insights. ~r'aimus (ibid.; cols. 1043, 1044). ~utheihim- 74 My Chytraeu~ 07s Sacrifice, loc. cit. Ir can self saw the doctrine of justification in John's be argued, in fact, that the concern for system in THE FOURTH GOSPEL YESTERDAY AND TODAY 211 In his prefatory section dealing with the drgamentunz of the whole Gospel, Hunnius begins with the title of the book: "the Gospel according to John," and under- scores the two elements in it: the Gospel ("the joyous and salutary news of our Savior, the eternal A6yo~ and Son of God, manifested in the flesh") and the eyewit- ness character of the testimony to it, which assures both its "historicity" and the "in- dubitable veracity of its doctrine." John 20:31 is then quoted, and Hunnius com- ments: "This dospel sets forth the One who is the beginning and end of all out salvation, viz., Christ - in the knowledge of whom eternal felicity has its focal point, as Christ Himself said, 'This is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.' " 75 Thus a thoroughgoing Christo- centric tone is set for the entire commen- tary to follow. Mention was made earlier of Hunnius' important treatise, De persona Chisti; in- deed, he was "the most able representative of the Swabian theology of Brenz and consequently of the doctrine concerning the majesty and omnipresence of Christ as man." Not unnaturally, then, one the 17th century was the epoch's greatest strength and most permanent contribution; see my "Libraries of Prance at the Ascendancy of Mazarin: Louis Jacob's Traicti des plus belles bibliothdques," unpubl. Ph. D. diss. (Chicago, 1962 ) , Editorial Introduction. 75 "Proponit enim eum, qui omnis salutis nostrae principium & finis est, Chtistum scilicet, in cuius cognitione cardo aeternae foelicitatis vertitur, dicente ipso Christo: Haec est vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te solum vemm Deum, & quem misisti Iesum Christum [17 :3]" (Hun- nius, Commentarius . . . , fol. 3v). 76 J. Kunze, "Hunnius, Nicolaus," New Schaff-Hezzog Encyclopedia V, 409. finds a powerful treatment of the Incarna- tion in his comments on the Johannine prologue. The victorious majesty of the incarnate Word stands forth in spite of the blind ignorance of the tworld and re- jection by His own people. Hunnius regards the aqpeia in the Fourth Gospel not as allegorical symbols of doctrinal truth, but as pointers to the Christ. At the conclusion of his discussion of the raising of Lazarus (which, inci- dentally, Hunnius recognizes as the crucial event that polarizes opposition to Christ and brings about the plan to kill Him) ,77 Hunnius states the "purpose, fruit, and re- sult of Christ's miracles, that by them men may be convicted in their own consciences with regard to faith toward Jesus. Thus the evangelist John testifies in chapter 20 that he has described these signs (among which the resurrection of Lazarus hardly receives last place) in order that we might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that believing we might have life in His name." 78 Indeed, "all the mir- acles of Christ declare His divinity, inas- much as He performed them by the power of divinity alone." 7Q Hunnius' interpretation of the Nico- demus dialog is remarkable for its Christo- centric emphasis. The verse upon which Hunnius concentrates most is 3: 13 ("NO 77 Hunnius, Comrnentaeus . . . , fol. 277r. 78 Ibid., fols. 291v, 2921. 79 Ibid., fol. 291v; the Latin reads: "Itaque omnia miracula Christi divinitatem eius astruunt, siquidem ex solius divinitatis potentia haec miracula fecit." (On the meaning of astruo here, see Baxtet and Johnson's Medieval Uin Word-List {London: Oxford University Press, 19341, p. 34; and Alexander Souter's Glossary of Later Ltin [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 19571, P 8.) 2 12 THE FOURTH GOSPEL YESTERDAY AND TODAY man hath ascended up to heaven but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven"), and he inserts two essays at this point to expand his treatment ("De descensu Filii hominis de coelo"; "De ascensione Filii hominis in coel~m")?~ In this way the stress is placed not on Nicodemus (as representing the law, or as a potential believer, etc.), but on the Christ whose descent from and ascent to heaven provide the only basis for the birth "from above" (dvwi3sv) which Nicodernus so desperately needs. That Hunnius is well aware of the basic testificatory character of the fourth evan- gelist's message is also evidenced in his recognition of the ironic, Doppeldeutig- keit character of the unconscious, unbe- lieving witness portrayed in it. Thus with reference to Pilate and the superscription ( 19: 19-22 ) , Hunnius says: "This title, composed by Pilate to dishonor Jesus, was so regulated by the overruling God that it redounded to the highest and everlasting glory of Christ." 82 On Caiaphas' proposal to kill Jesus ( 11 :49-52), Hunnius writes: "The words of Caiaphas have a double meaning {duplicem sensum). One sense is that of Caiaphas himself, namely that Jesus be put to death for the peace and quiet of the Jewish nation. . . . But the other sense is that which the Holy Spirit intended, namely that Christ alone should die to save the people of the whole world, lest the 80 Hun~ius, Commentdrius . . . , fols. 63r to 67r. / 81 To be distinguished sharply. from Zwei- derctigkeit (ambiguity), as Oscar Cullmann cor- rectly points out. 82 "Hic titulus in ignominiam Iesu A Pilato scriptus i Deo gubernante sic temperabatur, aut [sic: ut] ad summam ac sempiternam Christi gloriam vergeret" (ibid., fo1.408r). entire human race perish in eternal death." 83 Hunnius' concern with the historicity of the Johannine account is shown by his efforts to solve the apparent discrepancy between the Synoptic and Johannine chron. ologies of the Passion week. In comment- ing on 13: 1, he asserts that Jesus and His disciples ate the Last Supper as a Passover meal,s4 and he reconciles this with 18:28 and 19:31 by stating that the (main) Passover meal (with the lamb) did not take place until after Jesus' cruci&ion,B5 and that the Jews wished to remove the body From the cross "because OF the com- ing high Sabbath, on which they custom- arily began the Passover celebration." 86 In other words, Hunnius regards the uu- cifixion as occurring on Friday, 14 Nisan, and the official Passover as beginning that evening with the onset of the Sabbath (15 Nisan); at the same time he holds that in some genuine sense the Last Supper was a Passover meal. a3 Ibid., fol. 293v. Hunnius makes this point very strongly; see the entire discussion, fols. 293v, 294r. 84 Ibid., fols. 320v, 321r. Hunnius writes: "Ante fesmm, id est, sub {= just before] eam ipsam vesperam, qua & Pascha comedit cum discipulis, & abrogatis veteris Testamenti sacris typicis, Sacramenturn novi Testamenti Coenam Domini instituit." On resolving the problem involved in the phrase "before the feast of the Passover," cf. R. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel According to St. john (London: Tyndale Press, 1960). pp. 153, 154. 85 Ibid., fols. 395v, 396r. 86 Ibid., fol. 414r. Strack and Billerbeck note that "if this Sabbath was 15 Nisan, as the Fourth Gospel supposes, then it could be called 'high' since it was simultaneously the first festi- val day of the Passover" (Kommen;ar zzum Nercen Testament arcs Talmrcd rd ~idrasch, 11 [Miinchen, 19241, 581 ) . THE FOURTH GOSPEL YESTERDAY AND TODAY 213 This harmonization accords beautifully with Jaubert's recent researches,8? and it may even be possible that Hunnius also was thinking in terms of two calendars, since (as we shall see forthwith) he em- ploys analogous reasoning in the "third hour-sixth hour" problem ( 19: 14). Be that as it may, Hunnius' attempt certainly demonstrates a praiseworthy concern for the historiciry of the key events in our Lord's earthly ministry; for him (unlike Melanchthon) the historical element in the Fourth Gospel could not be subordinated to the doctrinal. Hunnius attempts to resolve the appar- ent contradiction between John 19: 14 ("about the sixth hour" Jesus is sentenced to be crucified) and Mark 15 : 25 (He goes to the cross at "the third hour") by arguing that the Jews divided the day both into twelve hours and into four quarters (the latter consisting of the period from dawn to the third hour; the period from the third to the sixth hour; the period from the sixth to the ninth hour; and the period from the ninth hour to sunset) -as is indicated by the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, ~ati. 20:l-16. Since the whole period from the third to the sixth hour was cus- 87 Jauben (op. cit.) effectively argues that the Last Supper was eaten as a Passover meal (but without the lamb) on Tuesday evening, in accord with the Jubilees-Qumran calendar; that the arrest took place that evening; that on Wednesday, 12 Nisan, Jesus was brought before the Sanhedrin; that on Thursday morning the Sanhedrin, following the Mishnaic rules, pro- mulgated their verdict, and took Jesus to Pilate, who referred Him to Herod Antipas (Thursday afternoon) ; that on Friday, 14 Nisan, Jesus was returned to Pilate and summarily crucified; and that on Friday afternoon the Passover lambs were sacrificed in the Temple, thus usher- ing in the official Passover meal that evening (15 Nisan, the Sabbath) for those who fol- lowed the lunar calendar. tomarily called the third hour, Mark, in speaking of the third hour as the time of the crucifixion, is referring to the quarter of the day between the third and sixth hours. And John informs us precisely that the third hour had almpst passed, for he tells us that Jesus was crucified about the sixth hour, i. e., about noon.88 This is the same type of harmonization that one finds in the master exegete of the Reformation, John Calvin;89 and an an- alogous method, involving two schemes of time reckoning, has been persuasively argued by the modern Johannine expert Westc0tt.8~ Here again, one may not agree 88 Hunnius, Commenta~ius . . . , fol. 404v. 89 Calvin writes: "This [the alleged contra- diction] may be easily explained. It is plain enough from other passages that the day was at that time divided into four parts, as the night also contained four watches; in consequence of which, the Evangelists sometimes allot not more than four hours to each day, and extend each hour to three, and, at the same time, reckon the space of an hour, which was drawing to a close, as belonging to the next part. According to this calculation, John relates that Christ was con- demned about the sixth hour, because the time of the day was drawing towards the sixth how, or towards the second pan of the day. Hence we infer that Christ was crucified at or about the sixth how; for, as the Evangelist afterwards mentions (v.20), the pkce was near to the city. The da~kness began between the sixth and ninth hour, and lasted till the ninth hour, at which time Christ died" (Commentary on the Gospel According to John, trans. William Prin- gle, reprinted, I1 [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerd- mans, 19561, 224). 90 B. F. Westcott (The Gospel According to St. John; the Greek Text with Introduction and Notes, reprint ed. [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerd- mans, 19541) reasons on the basis of the Martyrdom of Pol~ca~p that our present-day mid- night-to-noon, noon-to-midnight hour-reckoning system was in use in Asia Minor when the Fourth Gospel was written, and that John is therefore saying that Pilate sentenced Jesus at about 6 A.M. Consistency is thus established with Mark, who, following the Jewish system, , .. . . 214 THE FOURTH GOSPEL YESTERDAY AND TODAY with the specifics of Hunnius' answer, but respect should be accorded him for per- ceiving that the historical details of Mes- siah's earthly life are not unimportant as compared with His "theology"; indeed, as Hunnius well recognized, at the heart of the Johannine theology is the affirmation that the Word became flesh. In many respects Lagrange appears as a Hunnius redivivil~. It is true that in the last section of the introduction to his com- mentary he lays grear stress on the concept of unity and on the verse so popular today in ecumenical discussion, "that they may be one" (17:22), and he makes the in- evitable Romanist connection with the need for a united Christendom under a single papal shepherd?' But in practice he tacitly admits that unity is not the fourth evangelist's central theme, for he makes no attempt to relate each event in the Gospel to Moreover, he flatly states that "we do not have to conjecture about the author's purpose; it is written at the end of the book (20: 30-31) ." O3 His comments on these verses evidence his sensitivity to the testificatory and evan- gelical aims of the Fourth Gospel and to their focus on the Christ Himself: The author's purpose was not to recount all the signs Jesus did; the qpsia are not miracles which simply astonish or console or lift a burden, but which at the same time point out something; they have been performed before all the people and the Christ has publicly set forth their lesson. If John then says here that the signs have been done before the disciples, the point is that they alone have understood that lesson and are charged with transmitting it to others. . . . . The evangelist made a selection, stressing what was most ap- propriate for engendering and nourishing faith. The present x~ateinlxs (N, B, 8) is much better suited than the aorist xtatsli. ~TE to indicate progress rather than gen- esis of faith. John addresses those who already believe, but who need to believe to a greater extent, as has so often been indicated even by the aorist directed to those who were already disciples (cf. 1 :50; 2:11, 22; 4:50, 53; 13:19; 14:29). The object of faith is the belief that Jesus is the Christ, that is to say, the Messiah promised by the Scriptures, and that He is at the same time the Son of God, in the particular sense always affirmed by the evangelist, i. e., truly God, as Thomas has just confessed.94 One might object to Lagrange's preoc- cupation with those who are already dis- ciples (cf. his unity theme mentioned above), but he does not fail to see the wider audience of unbelievers and the need for reaching them with the Christian mes- sage, viz., the message about Christ. states that the crucifixion itself began at 9 A.M. It be noted that Lagrange has inter- ("the third hour"). preted the crqyeia Christ~centrically;~ the 91 Lagrange, Bvangile selon Sain: Jean, pp. dxxxiv, clxxxv. 94 Ibid., p. 519. -.. 95 Cf. ibid., p. 60 (discussion of the miracle 02 In point bf fact it is difficult to find the at -In John the a,,lleiov is used in its unity concept presented explicitly in the Fourth proper sense of sign; it is a miracle super- Gospel except in the high-priestly prayer, John 17. naturally pointing in a special way ro the per- son of Jesus (c'est un miracle contenant une LaLvange, Ihtngde ~ejon Saint lean, indication surnaturelle spkcialement sur la per- p. k. sonne de Jisus) ." THE FOURTH GOSPEL YESTERDAY AND TODAY 215 same is true of his treatment of the pro- logue and of such a typical dialogue as the Nicodemus incident. In the contrast be- tween Nicodemus' salutation, "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God" ( 3:2 ) , and Jesus' rebuke, "Art thou the teacher of Israel and knowest not these things?" (3: lo), Lagrange sees "incon- testablement une pointe d'ironie," O6 for Jesus shows Himself to be the only One who can reveal heavenly thing^?^ More- over, with reference to 3:13, John was "not able to forget the first page of his Gospel. The Son of man is thus the Word in- carnate, in the reality of His human nature, which does not prevent Him from still being in heaven as the Word." O8 As for the prologue itself, Lagrange sees it as "a most solemn preface which sketches in a few words the person of Jesus Christ and the nature of His mission." O0 The prologue has a "conclusion historique," ex- pressed in 1: 16-18. The material relating to John the Baptist must not be viewed as the work of a redactor, as Loisy claims; and Bultmann's conjecture that the entire prologue, except for verses 6-8 and 15 06 Ibid., p. 78. Hunnius is also aware of the relation between 3 :2 and 3: 10 - see his Com- mentarius . . . , fol. 62r. Unhappily, neither interpreter brings out the full ironic force of the anarthrous 6~6riaxaho~ in 3:2 vs. the ar- ticular 6 6~6rioxaho~ in 3: 10; the AV, it will be noted, completely misses the point by translating the same word "teacher" in 3:2 and "master" in 3: 10, and by using the indefinite article in the second instance. 07 Lagrange, Buangile selon Saint Jean, p. 80. 08 Ibid., p. 81. 00 Ibid., p. 1. Lagrange's frequent emphasis on "la Dersonne de TCsus-Christ" reminds one (17), were borrowed from a baptismal text in praise of the Baptist need not be regarded seriously. Actually the Baptist's testimony is integral to the prologue, for "the splendor of the light lie., from the Word] produces its effectton John, who reflects back its rays. . . . If one considers the prologue as a poem, the two references to John can figure as antistrophes which allow the thought to reecho." In the light of the strong testificatory character of Lagrange's general treatment, it is disappointing to find him weak in the recognition of unconscious testimony to Christ in the Fourth Gospel. He fails entirely to grasp the high irony of Pilate's superscription, and instead devotes himself to somewhat irrelevant obiter dicta (e. g., "Palestine still today has three official lan- guages, English, Arabic, and Hebrew"! ) .loo He sees the double meaning in Caiaphas' words in 11:49-52, but the powerful wit- ness to Christ is obscured by Lagrange's painstaking discussion of such questionable arguments as whether Caiaphas needed a special anointing of the Spirit to say what he did, and whether Urim and Thum- mim were involved! lol Here one encounters examples illustrat- ing the chief failing of the commentary: a tendency to lose thematic perspective through preoccupation with antiquarian and philological details. As has been pre- viously noted, Lagrange's detailed mastery of Semitics greatly enhances the value of his commentary; but it is well to see that its strength is not totally unrelated to its weakness. Lagrange was particularly concerned of the personalistic concern of a number of contemporary Roman Catholic loo Lagrange, Buangile Jean, scholars, particularly in Europe; see my Chy- P' 490' traeus on Sacrifice, pp. 120, 12 1, note 281. 101 Ibid., pp. 315,316. 216 THE FOURTH GOSPEL YESTERDAY AND TODAY with the facticity of the Johannine narra- tive. He had no patience with the critical- psychological method of Goguel, which claimed to prove the purely human char- acter of the religion of Jesus but actually presupposed it.lo2 Loisy's modernist-alle- gorical interpretation of the Fourth Gospel comes under heavy criticism throughout Lagrange's commentary.lo3 Renan's criti- cism of the Johannine discourses, and his famous assertion that "because the Gospels relate miracles they are legends" come un- der heavy fire in Lagrange's book dealing with Renan's Life of Jesur.lo4 Lagrange's position on the historicity of the Fourth Gospel has been well summarized by VCnard : P. Lagrange does not dispute the symboli- cal character John gives to his accounts, but he insists on their probability. "Solidly fixed on the ground," anchored in a geo- graphical, historical, well-determined chronological framework which can be checked, they are anything but transposi- tions of an idea under the guise of history. . . . The theologian, then, meaning by this the author of the fourth gospel, has not swallowed up the witness, either in the discourses he records, or in the facts which he relates.lo6 It should not be surprising, consequently, that Lagrange defends the historicity of 102 See Lagrange's review of Goguel's Life of Jesus, in Revue biblique, XLI (1932), 598 to 614. 10s Cf. Lagrange, Monsieur Loisy et le modemisme (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1932). 104 see?, Christ and Renan: A Com- mentdry on rnest Renan's 'The Life of Jesw," trans. Maisie Ward (New York: Benziger, 1928), p. 54. 106 VCnard, in Pkre Lagrange and the Scrip- tures, trans. Richard T. Murphy (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co., 1946), pp. 80,81. the Lazarus episode and the possibility of harmonizing the Passion chronologies. He argues the facticity of the raising of Laz- arus on the ground that the story is not purely "theological" -for along with the picture of the divine Christ appear the most touching human details (e. g., "Jesus wept," ll:35) lo6-and on the ground that the story has a position of "bold re- lief" in the structure of the Fourth Gos- He recognizes that to John the Lazarus event provided the backdrop for Christ's own resurrection, for he suggests that the Synoptic writers, in their regard for catechumens, may have omitted the raising of Lazarus for fear that attention would be distracted from the "great and decisive" miracle of Christ's resurrection.1°8 The Passion chronology problems are handled by Lagrange much as Hunnius deals with them. He considers the Fourth Gospel to provide a more precise chronol- ogy than the Synoptics, but this does not mean that the Synoptics are in error: John "wished to correct the inexact affirmations which would erroneously have been able to be derived from their text." log Thus Lagrange maintains the validity of the 14 Nisan crucifixion and 15 Nisan Passover, but holds that in some genuine sense the Last Supper must have been a Passover meal; "it does not seem to us impossible," he writes, "that a given group celebrated the Passover on the eve of the official 108 Lagrange, Bvangile selon Saint Jean, p. 312. 107 Ibid., p. 294. 10s Ibid., pp. 310,311. 109 "I1 a . . . voulu wrriger les affirmations inexactes qu'on aurait pu tirer h tort de leur texte" (ibid., p. oorvii) . THE FOURTH GOSPEL YESTERDAY AND TODAY 217 day." 11° Considering the fact that La- grange did not have the benefit of Jau- bert's researches, this tentative solution must be regarded with admiration. In the matter of the "third hour" vs. the "sixth hour" (Mark 15:25 and John 19: 14), Lagrange holds that "John wished to designate the time more precisely. He at- tached a great importance to that moment because it marks the end of Judaism, which condemned itself in condemning Jesus. In this entire passage the pursuit of historical accuracy is too patent for us to settle on a symbolic explanation, e. g., noon as the midpoint of history." *I1 As for Mark, Lagrange writes in his commentary on that book: "He seems to have conceived a time-scheme which skips in three-hour intervals: morning ( 15: I), the third hour, the sixth hour (15:33), and the ninth hour (15:34). Conse- quently, there is good reason to take these numbers as approximate and to think that John is nearer to reality. Mark, who makes things move rapidly, could thus speak of the third hour as the time of the crucifix- ion." 112 Again the parallel with Hunnius' harmonization is very close. Barrett It has been pointed out earlier that Bar- ren's commentary is noted for its "cau- tious," "careful," "mediating," "middle-of- the-road" approach, and that it is regarded as a valuable reference work because of this characteristic. Here we shall look at the other side of the same coin- the dis- 110 Ibid., p. 471; cf. also pp. 319, 350, 469 f., 497 f., 504. 111 Ibid., p. 487. 112 Lagrange, Buangile selon Saint Mmc, 4th ed. (Paris: Gabalda, 1947 ) , p. 429. advantages which result from Barrett's "wariness." A. Viard suggests the problem when he asks, "Perhaps Barrett is at times too prudent, too reasonable?" 113 C. Ken- neth Sansbury touches the nerve of this issue with the following witty remark: "Sometimes even a Cambri+e man may find Mr. Barrett's Cambridge caution a lit- tle excessive-there is something to be said for the Oxford willingness to take a plunge, if only because it provides an- other Oxford man with an occasion for writing another book to point out how wrong the plunge was!" '14 In a work of reference the "unwillingness to take a plunge" may have real value, but in a commentary attempting to catch the spirit of a Biblical book which, from its opening sentence to its concluding event, takes the greatest plunge of all- by as- serting that the divine Word actually be- came flesh - mediating caution (we might call it nedemganocentrism!) can do more harm than good. Barrett's discussion of the purpose of the Fourth Gospel provides a concrete il- lustration of the weakness of his approach. He begins by quoting 20:31, but then, instead of proceeding directly to its testifi- catory and evangelical-apologetic foci, cen- tering on the Christ, he offers the follow- ing equivocating statement which (per- haps in line with his Methodist orienta- tion) suggests that man's faith rather than the source and object of faith is the major 113 Reuw des sciences fihilo~ophi~ues e.t tbkologiques, XL ( 1956), 146. 114 Cbusch Qwrtmy Review, CLVII (1956), 18. 116 Coined from ~68~ dyav ("nothing too much"), the Greek expression for the Golden Mean. . . .~ 218 THE FOURTH GOSPEL YESTERDAY AND TODAY concern of the fourth evangelist. "It is not always observed that this verse, important as it is, raises more questions than it an- swers, and provides no more than a starting point for a discussion of the purpose of the gospel; for merely to say that John was written in the interests of faith is to say nothing at all, beyond that it is a Christian book, which is hardly in dispute." Bar- rett then goes on to make the amazing assertions: "It would be a mistake to press too far the question of the purpose of the gospel. . . . It is easy, when we read the gospel, to believe that John, though doubt- less aware of the necessity of strengthen- ing Christians and converting the heathen, wrote primarily to satisfy himself. His gospel must be written: it was no concern of his whether it was also read." In spite of the utility of the material Barrett thereupon supplies with reference to the Johannine problems of eschatology, gnosticism, and authority, it would seem that the quoted statements tell us far more about the commentator himself than about the author of 20: 31 -a verse which the evangelist certainly regarded as the une- quivocal climax rather than a vague "start- ing point" in his Gospel. The same lack of decisive Christocen- tricity is manifested in Barrett's treatment of the prologue, the oqpeia, and the ex- emplary Nicodemus dialogue. Instead of seeing the prologue as a witness to God's incarnational victory over the ignorance and unbelief of sinful man, Barrett misses the ironic paradox of apparent, penultimate defeat and pltimate, actual victory which is so characteristic of the Biblical "tragic i 118 Barrett, The Gospel According, to Saint John, p. 114. 117 Ibid., pp. 114, 115. vision"; llB he describes the Johannine ac- count of incarnation as "a coming which was an almost unmitigated failure. Even those who were most privileged did not believe when they saw the light; though John is careful to note and allow for the few who heard, believed, and received, and so constituted the Church, whose spokes- man he was." In discussing the Johannine oqpeia, Bar- rett correctly notes that "the miracles of this gospel are a function of its Christol- ogy" lZ0 and that even though the death and resurrection are not so designated in the Gospel, they are "the supreme oqpsiov" and in them alone "sign and its meaning coincide." lZ1 But he appreciably weakens the Johannine thrust by making the signs relative to faith rather than objective testi- monies to the Messiahship and divine Son- ship of Jesus: "to those who do believe, the miracles are signs which feed their faith; to those who do not, signs may be multi- plied indefinitely without producing faith ( 12 : 37 ) ." lZ2 But the doubting Thomas incident at the climax of the Gospel belies this inter- pretation, for Thomas is compelled by the objective "supreme qpeiov" of the risen Christ; and even 12:37, taken in context, 118 Cf. Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier, "Biblical Faith and the Idea of Tragedy," in The Tragic Vision arid the Christkn Faith, ed. Nathan Scott (New York: Association Press, 1957), pp. 23 to 55. 118 Barrett, The Gospel According to Saiat John, p. 125. 120 Ibid., p. 62. 121 Ibid., p. 65. 122 Ibid., p. 64. Cf. Bultmann's assertion that the Johannine miracles "are ambiguous signs whose meaning can only be found in faith (Theology of the New Tesument, 11, 60). explains unbelief not in terms of a sup- posedly ambiguous character of the qpsia, but as a result of the blinding and harden- ing action of the sovereign God ( 12: 38-41, concluding with the Christocentric verse: "These things said Esaias, when he saw His glory, and spake of Him"). At the outset of his analysis of the Nico- demus incident, Batrett recognizes that as the discourse proceeds Nicodemus "is quickly forgotten"; one expects that this insight will lead to a focusing of attention on Christ Himself, who is the source of the "new birth/birth from above." But such a personalistic Christocentrism does not appear; rather, says Barrett, "we are made to hear not a conversation between two persons but the dialogue of Church and Synagogue." lZ3 It is noteworthy also that Barrett completely misses the irony in the contrast between 6~6doxaho~ ( 3: 2) and d 6~6&cmahog (3: 10) 12* - a contrast which especially heightens the distinction between Nicodemus (who should have known the highest spiritual truths but did not) and Jesus, who could reveal the true nature of spiritual life because He alone "came down from heaven." This unaware- ness of irony, however, does not extend throughout the commentary; Barrett clearly brings out the ironically unconscious testi- mony of Caiaphas (11 :49-52) and of Pi- late ( 19: 19-22) But unhappily he seems to view such irony as no more than a "consummate dramatic touch of the evan- gelist's"; 126 that much it is, of course, but the central function of the evangelist's I23 Barrett, p. 169. 124 Ibid., pp. 171.176. 126 Ibid., pp. 337,457. 126 Ibid., p. 457; see also p. 454. ironic technique is to affirm God's victory in Christ, to which aU men must testify, whether they consciously believe in Him or not. In the matter of the facticity of the Fourth Gospel one finds qrrett at his weakest. It would seem from his assertions on the Johannine conception of authority that Barrett would stanchly maintain the specific accuracy of the apostolic testimony in the Gospel: [John] 21:24 . . . emphasizes the im- portance of the testimony of a veracious eyewitness, and adds "we know that his witness is true" - the Church sets its seal upon the veracity of its spokesman. The Church itself is thus the heir of the apos- tles and of their authority. It is clear that if this statement were left unqualified a door would be left open to a worse anarchy than that of gnosticism; but it is not left unqualified. The Church is the Church - the authoritative, apostolic Church-so far as it rests upon the word of the apostles ( 17:20) .Iz7 But in evaluating the ostensive "word of the apostles," Barrett in fact manifests "skepticism and minimism . . . in the question of the historical authority (not general, but particular) of the Fourth GOS- pel." 128 Thus Barrett suggests that the Lazarus story may be a "miracle" which developed out of a parable, or a narrative which John drew "from tradition, where of course it may already have been modi- fied." lze J. N. Sanders, in his review of Barrett's commentary, very properly questions the 127 Ibid., p. 119. 128 M. Zerwick, Verburn Dornini [Rome], XXXIV ( 1956), 50. 120 Barrett, p. 323. .~. ~. 220 THE FOURTH GOSPEL YESTERDAY AND TODAY consistency and validity of such an ap- proach: It is a nice question how far one can go in maintaining both that John asserted the primacy of history and that one can- not place any reliance on his historical details. In the Commentary, as each inci- dent comes up for consideration, Dr. Bar- rett gives the impression of such hesitancy in affirming anything to be historical that his brave words about John's concern for history in the Introduction ring a little hollow. . . . A general impression of in- conclusiveness remainsJ30 Predictably, Barrett gives possible explana- tions for the "third hour" (Mark 15:25) -"sixth hour" (John 19: 14) crucifixion problem, but does not commit himself to a s01ution.l~~ With reference to the date of the Passover in the Synoptics and in John, he flatly asserts: ere again is a real contradiction; it is impossible to reconcile the dates (for example by the hypothesis that in the time of Jesus two different modes of reckoning the Passover dates were in use); one must be preferred to the other." 132 Granted, Barrett's work was published prior to Jaubert's, and so he did not have the benefit of the latter's research, but it is noteworthy that Barrett absolutely closes the door to harmonization, rather than giving the benefit of doubt to the evangelists, as Hunnius and Lagrange do. Barrett prefers the "Marcan chronology," and says of John: "On his dating Jesus 130 New Testarnenr Studies, 111 (1956 to 1957), 75. Sanders illustrates his point with reference to Barrett's treatment of the Cana miracle (T? Gospel According to St. John, p. 157 ) , the Samaritan woman incident (ibid., p. 191 ) , and Jesus' trial before the high priest (ibid., p. 438). 131 Ibid., p. 454. 132 Ibid., p. 39. died on the cross at the moment when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the temple. This may not be good history; but it does seem to be Johannine theol- ogy." 133 TO this assertion, which shows better than any other how little Barrett understands the central message of John, that 6 16~05 ah~E EyQv~zo (1:14), D. M. Stanley properly retorts: "It is an essential consequence of the truth of the Incarna- tion that Christianity is de natura swa an historical religion. There can be no 'good theology' which may at the same time be dubbed 'bad history.' " 134 The foregoing study of two Reformation and two 20th-century commentaries on the Fourth Gospel has brought us to a surpris- ing conclusion. The high value placed today on impartiality and modernity sug- gested that the four commentators to be analyzed could be ranged axiologically thus: 1. Barrett - impartial, modern 2. Melanchthon - impartial, premodern 3. Lagrange - dogmatic, modern 4. Hunnius - dogmatic, pre-modern But in fact our detailed investigation of the commentaries leads to a reversal of value judgment and to a reversal of axio- logical order: 1. Hunnius - Christocentric 2. Lagrange - Christocentric (qualified) 3. Melanchthon - dogmacentric 4. Barrett - medenaganocentric 185 133 Ibid., p. 41. 154 Theological Studies, XVII (1956), 250. 135 It should be emphasized that we are not depreciating the value of Barrett's com- THE FOURTH GOSPEL YESTERDAY AND TODAY 22 1 Such a result offers three exegetical wam- suffer from the ill etfeas (as well as benefit ings: First, one should be wary of all at- from the unquestionable values) of mo- - tempts to prejudge a commentator on the dernity; W. H. Cooper has perspicaciously basis of ad horninem, a priori reasoning. observed that "items of literaiy and his- Second, a commentator's historical epoch torical criticism . . . fascinate and often should not be held against him and em- sidetrack the modern investigator" and ployed as a criterion of prejudgment. prevent him from getting to he heart of Third, a commentator's theological temper- Biblical teaching.137 arnent likewise is no proper basis for 1, the case of ~~~~i~~ it seems possible a priori negative evaluation of his work. to argue that his radical commitment to But how can we explain the peculiar the Scriptural Christ gave him the theolog- results of the present investigation? HOW ical stabilization necessary to create a clas- could Barrett and Melanchthon, rwo medi- sic commentary on John. Like Chester- ating commentators, achieve less satisfac- ton's fictional detective Father Brown, his - tory exegetical insights than the "opin- unshakable confidence in "heavenly things" ionated" theologians Hunnius and La- kept him from aberrational judgments in grange? And how could the orthodox con- "earthly things." 138 For Hunnius the Jo- troversialist Hunnius possibly find the hannine proclamation of the Incarnation - heart of the Fourth Gospel? I suggest that the historical facticity of the Word - was the "impartiality" of Barrett and Melanch- not to be questioned but to be testified to; thon is a singularly inappropriate cast and in taking this position, he aligned him- of mind for interpreting such Biblical self completely with the fourth evangelist books as John's Gospel, for there one finds himself?39 If Menoud was correct when he absolute and unqualified commitment to 137 W. H. Cooper, "Martin Chemnia on a God who, beyond question, Justification; with Special Reference to His Use Himself in Jesus Christ. Thus a Barrett, of the Old Testament," pan 11, Northwestern who remains warily cautious, misses the seminar^ Bdetin, XXXV (January 1960), 8. essential teaching of the book; and a Me- lanchthon, whose media via approach is felt even by him to be experientially un- tends toward an exegetical instability which can result in hyperpreoc- cupation with a single doctrine. Moreover, Barrett (and to some extent Lagrange) mentary a a reference work (in this respect it is of paramount significance); we are saying. however, that it is less successful at penetrating to the heart of John's message than even Me- lanchthon's commentary with its preoccupation with Gospel and Law. 136 Cf. the revealing pecca fortiter advice which Luther found it necessary to give to Melanchthon. '38 Anthony Boucher writes of Father Brown: "It is not so much the crime as the appearance of the crime that is fantastic; and it is the credulity of modern man, 'emancipated' from religion and failing to comprehend the science which has 'replaced' it, which turns the commonplace into the fantastically miraculous. (See, for example, 'The Hammer of God,' in which Father Brown, who can discount the supernatural because he knows it exists, meets a 'miracle' and finds a simple and most literally down-to-earth explanation.)" (Anthony Boucher, Introduction to G. K. Chesterton's Ten Aduen- tures of Fdther Brown [New York: Dell Pub- lishing Co., Chapel Books, 19611, p. 11). 139 Maurice F. Wiles makes a point wonh pondering when he says: "There are some books of the Bible whose interpretation has been so completely revolutionised by modern criticd 222 THE FOURTH GOSPEL YESTERDAY AND TODAY wrote in 1958, "the works of the last ten lies in not standing where Hunnius stood. years have not solved the enigma which is The opening sentence of his commentary the Fourth Gospel," 140 perhaps the failure leaves no doubt concerning his starting methods that the exegesis of earlier centuries is unlikely to add much of value to our under- standing of them. There is probably no book of which this is less true than the Fourth Gos- pel. It is of such a namre that it seems to reveal its secrets not so much to the skilful probings of the analyst as to a certain intuitive sympathy of understanding. We need not, therefore, de- spair of finding amongst such early interpreters significant examples of a true insight into the meaning of the Gospel" (The Spiritual Go&: Tbe 1n;erpretation of the Pounh Gospel in the Early Church [Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 19601, p. 1 ) . 140 Philippe H. Menoud, "Les etudes johan- niques de Bultmann i Barrett," in L'bvaragile de point, and suggests the root strength of his approach: "Author Evangelicae huius his- toriae est Spiritus Sancrus." 141 Jeara: Etudes et probldme~, Recherches bibliques, No. 3 (Louvain: DesclCe de Brouwer, 1958), p. 30. 141 Hunnius, Commentariu~ . . . , fol. lr. For a faithful and sympathetic treatment of the doctrine of inspiration held by Hunnius and other major orthodox Lutheran theologians of the time, see Robert Preus, The Inspirdwn of Scripture . . . (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957). Waterloo, Ontario, Canada