^{page 336 note 1} ‘Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament’, begründet Meyer, von H. A. W., 2. Abt., 15. Aufl.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1957. Bultmann's interest in the source problem of John antedates the publication of his commentary by at least two decades. He first analysed the prologue in ‘Der religionsgeschichtliche Hintergrund des Prologs zum Johannes-Evangelium’Google Scholar, Eucharisterion, Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments [Festschrift, H. Gunkel], ed. Schmidt, H. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1923), pt. II, pp. 3–26. Later he made a source-critical study of I John and discovered there a discourse source similar to the one he subsequently traced through the gospel (‘Analyse des ersten Johannesbriefes7rsquo;, Festgabe für Adolf Jülicher zum 70. Geburtstag [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1927], pp. 138–58). In another early study, ‘Die Bedeutung der neuerschlossenen mandäischen und manichäischen Quellen für das Verständnis des Johannesevangelium’, Z.N.W. XXIV (1925), 100–46, he did important background work for the development of his discourse source theoryGoogle Scholar. For a description of earlier investigations and theories see Howard, W. F., The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interprétation (rev. ed. by Barrett, C. K.; London: Epworth Press, 1955), pp. 61 ff.Google Scholar; also Bousset, W., ‘Ist das vierte Evangelium eine literarische Einheit?’, Th.R. XII (1909), 1 ff., 39 ffGoogle Scholar. There is also a good review of three recent decades of Johannine research: Haenchen, E., ‘Aus der Literatur zum Johannesevangelium, 1929–56’, Th.R., n.s. XXIII (1955), 295–335.Google ScholarKümmel's, W. G. excellent survey and assessment of the literature since 1940 in his revision of the Feine-Behm Einleitung in das New Testament (12. Aufl.; Heidelberg: Quelle and Meyer, 1963), esp. pp. 135–49, unfortunately appeared too late to be taken into account in this article.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 1} The problem of redaction, as well as that of the dislocation and rearrangement of the text, involves the stages of development following the completion of what Bultmann regards as the original gospel, and we shall not deal with it here. The source theory provides Bultmann's answer to the question of how the gospel was originally composed.

In a doctoral dissertation presented to the Graduate Faculty of Yale University I have attempted to make a much more extensive examination of Bultmann's work. This study should be published later this year by Yale University Press. The citation of some literature omitted here because of limitations of space will be included in it.

^{page 337 note 2} Ibid. p. 4, n. 5.

^{page 337 note 3} Ibid. p. 93.

^{page 337 note 4} Ibid. p. 78.

^{page 337 note 5} Ibid. pp. 489 ff.

^{page 337 note 6} Ibid. p. 76.

^{page 338 note 1} The stylistic characteristics which Bultmann attributes to the evangelist include Semitisms of one sort or another, the epexegetical ινα-clause, the ού(κ)…άλλά construction, emphatic ηκεινος, and other such traits often regarded as typical of the gospel as a whole. In contexts where the Offenbarungsreden appear, the evangelist's prosaic style is said to distinguish his hand from the source material. Moreover, according to Bultmann, the evangelist's theological perspective often differs from that of his sources, and this fact is helpful to the perceptive source critic.

^{page 338 note 2} Jeremias, J., ‘Johanneische Literarkritik’, Th.Bl. XX (1941), 33–46, esp. 39–43Google Scholar; Dibelius, M., ‘Ein neuer Kommentar zum Johannes-Evangelium’, Th.L. LXVII (1942), 257–63; Ph.-H. Menoud, L'Évangile de Jean d'aprés les recherches récentes (‘Cahiers théologiques de actualité protestante’, 3, 2nd ed.; Neuchatel: Delachaux and Niestlé, 1947), pp. 12–26.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 3} Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), p. 121, n. 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barrett, C. K., The Gospel According to St John (London: S.P.C.K., 1956). The importance of Bultmann's commentary, especially his source theory, was recognized by B. S. Easton, who reviewed the commentary and produced an English translation of the Offenbarungsreden source (J.B.L. XLV [1946], 73–81, 143–56).Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 4} Ruckstuhl, , Die literarische Einheit des Johannesevangeliums, Der gegenwärtige Stand der einschlägigen Forschungen (‘Studia Friburgensia’, n.s. 3; Freiburg in der Schweiz; Paulusverlag, 1951), pp. 20–134, 180–219, 267 ff.; B. Noack, Zur johanneischen Tradition, Beiträge zur Kritik an der literarkritischen Analyse des vierten Evangeliums (‘Publications de la Société des Sciences et des Lettres d'Aarhus’, Serie de Theologie, 3; København: Rosenkilde og Bagger, 1954), pp. 9–42.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 5} Ruckstuhl, , p. 39. He refers to Bultmann's article in Die christliche Welt, XLI (1927), 502–11.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 1} Ruckstuhl, , p. 62, n. 2. For example, the resumptive ούτος orέκείνος (αύτς) occurs six times in material which Bultmann otherwise assigns to the Offenbarungsreden.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 2} Ibid. pp. 104–6.

^{page 339 note 3} Ibid. pp. 43–54.

Ruckstuhl contrasts the divergent rhythmic patterns found in i. I f; iii.8; iii. 12; viii. 50; viii. 54a; xii. 47f; xv. 2; V. 21; xv. 4a; xv. 5; v. 39f.; viii. 12; xi. 9f.; xii. 49f. I John i. 6f.-all of which Bultmann assigns to the Offenbarungsreden. Remarkable differences are indeed apparent. As Käsemann and Jeremias had already pointed out, Bultmann is not able to trace the distinct rhythmic pattern of the prologue through the speeches of the Offenbarungsreden. Ruckstuhl also refers to some eighty doublets in the style of the Offenbarungsreden which Bultmann assigns to the evangelist. As examples of these he cites iv. 32, 38; viii. 47; ix. 41; xiii. 20 (p. 48). While I agree that it is difficult to draw a sharp line between the style of the evangelist and that of the Offenbarungsreden, the examples which Ruckstuhl adduces from the material assigned to the evangelist are not well chosen. xiii. 20 is a synoptic variant which occurs in very similar form in Matt. x. 40 and Luke x. 16. Bultmann actually assigns viii. 47a to the Offenbarungsreden rather than to the evangelist (Johannes, p. 245, n. 4) and suggests that a tradition may lie behind iv. 38 (p. 147, n. 4). iv. 32 is too brief to be very impressive. Although ix. 41 may be regarded as the evangelist's application of the Offenbarungswort of ix. 39, it is the most clearcut instance of the style of the source in the evangelist's compositions.

^{page 339 note 4} Ruckstuhl, , pp. 98–104.Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 1} Ruckstuhl, , pp. 180–219, esp. 212–16. Cf. E. Schweizer, Ego Eimi…Die religionsgeschichtliche Herkunft und theologische Bedeutung der johanneischen Bildreden, zugleich ein Beitrag zur Quellenfrage des vierten Evangeliums (‘Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments’, ed. R. Bultmann, n.s. 38, entire ser. 56; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1939), pp. 103–5.Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 2} Among the criteria gathered by Schweizer and Ruckstuhl are the ίνα epexegeticum, ού…άλλ' ίνα, έκείνος (cf. n. 1, p. 338 above), ούν historicum, ττε ούν, καθώς…και, etc.—stylistic characteristics which also figure in Bultmann's source analysis. Ruckstuhl does not, however, confine himself to the characteristics which Bultmann uses.

^{page 340 note 3} Schweizer, , pp. 108 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 4} ‘Logos-Hymnus und johanneischer Prolog’, Bibl. Zeit. I (1957), 69–109.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 1} Schnackenburg's source is found in vv. 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 16 (Ibid. pp. 81, 85 ff.). Bultmann's includes at least parts of vv. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16.

^{page 341 note 2} Noack, , pp. 18–34.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 3} Ibid. pp. 31 ff.

^{page 341 note 4} Ibid. pp. 112–14.

^{page 341 note 5} Ibid. p. 124.

^{page 342 note 1} Noack, , pp. 71–89.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 2} Coincidentally with the publication of Noack's book, and quite independently of it, C. Goodwin published an article in which he made a similar investigation of the Johannine Old Testament quotations and arrived at essentially the same conclusions (‘How Did John Treat His Sources?’ J.B.L. LXXIII [1954], 61–75). According to Goodwin, John quoted the Old Testament from memory, and therefore probably would not have scrupulously copied other sources. If this is the case, the possibility of recovering such sources as he may have drawn upon is rather slim.

^{page 342 note 3} ‘Zur johanneischen Tradition’, Th.L. LXXX (1955), 521–6.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 4} Die Reden des Johannesevangeliums und der Stil der gnostischen Offenbarungsreden (‘Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments’, ed. R. Bultmann, n.s. 50, entire ser. 68; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1956). In addition, note Bultmann's review of C. H. Dodd's book, ‘The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel’, N.T.S. 1 (1954–5), 77–91; also his article, ‘Johannesevangelium’, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. K. Galling, et al. (3rd ed. rev.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1957- ), III (1959), 840–50.

^{page 343 note 1} Becker's thesis involves a very controversial aspect of Bultmann's treatment of John-and indeed, the entire development of New Testament theology-namely, his understanding of its relation to Gnosticism. Becker, like Bultmann and others, believes that although most of the extant Gnostic documents assumed their present form after the emergence of Christianity, Gnosticism itself, including the Gnostic doctrine or myth of the redeemer, is a pre-Christian phenomenon. The revelation discourses of John are the product of such a pre-Christian Gnosticism. Although scholars such as F. C. Burkitt, R. P. Casey, and C. H. Dodd, to mention only a few, have rejected the theory of a pre-Christian Gnosticism, it is still widely held and there is yet no real consensus on the Gnostic problem. Thus the theory of the evangelist's use of a collection of such revelation discourses may not be rejected out of hand on the grounds that no pre-Christian Gnosticism, and specifically no Gnostic redeemer myth, ever existed. Fortunately, discussion of the question of the sources of John does not have to await the final solution of the Gnostic problem. While the refutation of the theory of a pre-Christian Gnosticism might preclude the kind of source which Bultmann proposes, it would not necessarily eliminate altogether the possibility of a discourse source. At the same time, not even the conclusive proof of a Gnostic redeemer myth, of a characteristic revelation discourse style, or of the existence of such a style in John would necessarily mean that the evangelist used a discourse source in the composition of his gospel.

^{page 343 note 2} ‘Rudolf Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes’, Verkündigung und Forschung, Theologischer Jahresbericht, III (1942–1946), 182–201.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 1} ‘Ketzer und Zeuge, Zum johanneischen Verfasserproblem’, Z.T.K. XLVIII (1951), esp. p. 306, n. 2; also ‘Neutestamentliche Fragen von Heute’, Z.T.K. LIV (1957), 15f.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 2} ‘Aufbau und Anliegen des johanneischen Prologs’, Libertas Christiana, Friedrich Delekat zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. E. Wolf and W. Matthias (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1957), pp. 75–99.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 3} Ibid. p. 85 ff.

^{page 344 note 4} Ibid. p. 78; cf. V.F. III (1942–6), 188. In fairness to Bultmann it should be noted that in the most recent comprehensive investigation of the problem of Aramaisms in the New Testament Matthew Black concludes that Aramaic sources or traditions probably underlie the prologue, the Baptist sayings in ch. 3, and, most important, many of the sayings of Jesus (An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts [2nd ed. rev.; Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1954], pp. 207–9). While this confirms the plausibility of Bultmann's speech source proposal, it does not go very far toward demonstrating the validity of the Offenbarungsreden theory in the form in which he presents it.

^{page 345 note 1} Libertas Christiana, pp. 90–4.

^{page 345 note 2} Z.T.K. LIV (1957), 15 f.: ‘Bultmann's Deutung, mit der ich mich hier allein befasse, steht und fällt mit der Theorie, daß der Evangelist eine heidnische Quelle von Offenbarungsreden benutzt, überarbeitet und kommentiert habe und Bich gleichzeitig einer Zeichenquelle bediene, um mit Wundern die Gabe und den Anspruch des Offenbarers zu illustrieren. Nur so kann Bultmann sowohl das unbestreitbar im Evangelium vorliegende mythologische Gut wie den krassen Mirakelglauben vom Evangelisten distanzieren. Nur so kann er daran festhalten, daß die Fleischwerdung des Wortes das Theme des Evangeliums sei, im Sinne Kierkegaards die Fleischwerdung das Inkognito des Offenbarers wahren und mit diesem Inkognito das Ärgernis der Welt erregen lassen.’Google Scholar

^{page 345 note 3} Cf. also Haenchen, E., ‘Der Vater, der mich gesandt hat’, N.T.S. ix (1962–1963), 208–16.Google Scholar

^{page 346 note 1} Niewalda, P., Sakramentssymbolik im, Johannesevangelium? Eine exegetisch-historische Studie (Limburg: Lahn Verlag, 1958), p. 2; J. A. T. Robinson, ‘The New Look on the Fourth Gospel’, Studia Evangelica (Papers Presented to the International Congress on ‘The Four Gospels in 1957’ Held at Christ Church, Oxford, 1957, ed. K. Aland, et al.; Berlin, Akademie-Verlag, 1959), p. 341; F: M. Braun, Jean le Théologien et son évangile dans l'église ancienne (Études bibliques; Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, J. Gabalda et Cie., 1959), pp. 11f.; P. Parker, ‘Two Editions of John’, J.B.L. LXXV (1956), 304; S. Mendner, ‘Johanneische Literarkritik’, Th.Z. VIII (1952), 422; E. Haenchen, ‘Johanneische Probleme’, Z.T.K. LVI (1959), p. 53, n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 347 note 1} Die Entstehungsgeschichte des vierten Evangeliums(Zollikon: Evangelischer Verlag, 1958).Google Scholar

^{page 347 note 2} Cf. Robinson, J. M., ‘Recent Research in the Fourth Gospel’, J.B.L. LXXVIII (1959), pp. 242 ff.Google Scholar; Barrett, C. K., ‘Die Entstehungsgeschichte des vierten Evangeliums’, Th.L. LXXXIV (1959), 828 f.Google Scholar

^{page 347 note 3} ‘Die Erweckung des Lazarus’, Th.Z. XV (1959), 23–39.Google Scholar

^{page 347 note 4} Untersuchungen zur Menschensohn-Christologie im Johannesevangelium, Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Methodengeschichte der Auslegung des 4. Evangeliums (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1957).

^{page 348 note 1} Komposition und Herkunft der johanneischen Reden (‘Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament’, ed. K. H. Rengstorf and L. Rost, 5th ser. I, entire ser. 81; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1960).

^{page 348 note 2} ‘The Relation of the Prologue to the Gospel of St John’, N.T.S. IX (1962–1963), 120.Google Scholar

^{page 349 note 1} ‘Johanneische Probleme’, Z.T.K. LVI (1959), 19–54. Wilkens, in his turn, has now objected to Haenchen's contention that the Johannine narrative material comes from a literary source which can be shown to be later than the synoptics (‘Evangelist und Tradition im Johannesevangelium’, Th.Z. XVI (1960), 81–90). Wilkens insists that although the Evangelist used tradition he so thoroughly assimilated it as to preclude an analysis like Haenchen's, which proceeds by distinguishing exactly between non Johannine source and Johannine embellishment.Google Scholar

^{page 349 note 2} Gardner-Smith, P., Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938)Google Scholar; Goodenough, E. R., ‘John a Primitive Gospel’, J.B.L. LXIV (1945), 145–82, esp. pp. 150–60, 169f.Google Scholar

^{page 349 note 3} The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 419.

^{page 349 note 4} Barrett, St John, p. 34. John A. Bailey has also very recently maintained that John knew Luke (as well as Mark), but he does not believe the amount of actual dependence was very great (The Traditions Common to the Gospels of Luke and John [‘Supplements to Novum Testamentum’, VII; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1963]).

^{page 349 note 5} Hoskyns, , The Fourth Gospel, ed. Davey, F. N. (2nd ed. rev.; London: Faber and Faber, 1947), p. 82.Google Scholar

^{page 349 note 6} Ziener, G. (‘Johannesevangelium und urchristliche Passafeier’, Bibl. Zeit. II [1958], 263–74) thinks the narrative source of John is a Jewish Passover haggada which also underlies Wisd. x. I-XIX. 22, and R. H. Smith believes the Johannine narratives are a typological development of Exod. ii. 23-xii. 51 (‘Exodus Typology in the Fourth Gospel’, J.B.L.LXXXI [1962], 329–42).Google Scholar

^{page 350 note 1} Schnackenburg, , ‘Die “situationsgelösten” Redestücke in Joh. 3’, Z.N.W. XLIX (1958), 88–99: Barrett, St John, p. 17.Google Scholar

^{page 350 note 2} Bultmann believes that the discourses are grounded upon-and even take as their texts-the segments of the Offenbarungsreden; thus the Gnostic source becomes the seedbed for the Christian proclamation of the gospel. Cullmann, quite in opposition to Bultmann, thinks that the Gospel is largely a cult-oriented exposition ‘which treats the two sacraments as expressions of the whole worship life of the early community and correspondingly sets forth the relation between the Lord of the community present especially in the two sacraments and the life of Jesus' (Early Christian Worship, trans. A. S. Todd and J. B. Torrance [‘Studies in Biblical Theology’, no. 10; London: S.C.M. Press, 1953], p. 58). Bultmann has, of course, denied that the evangelist was interested in sacraments and has ascribed the references to them to the redactor. His former student, H. Köster, does not follow Bultmann exactly on this point, but maintains that the evangelist sometimes deliberately used sacramental language to emphasize the historicity of the Christ-event (cf. ‘Geschichte und Kultus im Johannesevangelium und bei Ignatius von Antiochen’, Z.T.K. LIV [1957], 56–69). Wilkens, on the other hand, adopts Cullmann's sacramental interpretation, but also emphasizes in a more general way the kerygmatic nature of the Gospel. While maintaining the early and ultimately apostolic origin of the gospel, he denies its historicity, claiming that it is rather preaching. The origin of this preaching is the spirit-inspired word of the authoritative witness speaking for the exalted Lord in the worshipping community (Wilkens, Enstehungsgeschichte, p. 169). Similarly, in a recent monograph on the Beloved Disciple, Alv Kragerud has argued that the gospel originated in a circle of Christian charismatic prophets and is intended to assert the authority of the spirit-inspired prophet, represented by the Beloved Disciple, over against the growing power of the institutional ministry, represented by Peter (Der Lieblingsjünger im Johannesevangelium, Ein exegetischer Versuch [Oslo: Osloer Universitätsverlag, 1959]). Of late Käsemann has suggested that he also thinks the roots of the Johannine preaching are to be sought in early Christian prophecy (‘Die Anfänge christlicher Theologie’, Z.T.K. LVII [1960], 176). But A. Guilding in her ingenious and erudite book treats the whole gospel as a kind of exposition of the Old Testament texts of an ancient Jewish lectionary system, especially the texts associated with the great feasts (The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship, A Study of the relation of St John's Gospel to the ancient Jewish lectionary system [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960]). For her the gospel is a Christian recapitulation of the Jewish system of worship. Another much more modest effort to relate John to Jewish worship is B. Gärtner's John 6 and the Jewish Passover, ‘Coniectanea Neotestamentica’, XVII (Gleerup and Kopenhagen: Munksgaard, 1959).

^{page 351 note 1} Johannes, pp. 4f., 14f. Cf. pp. 29, 76.

^{page 351 note 2} Z.N.W. xxiv (1925), 100–46. Note esp. pp. 142 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 351 note 3} In dealing even with recent exegetical investigations, we have not been able to make a comprehensive presentation. Other scholars who have recently dealt with the source problem include S. Mendner, whose basic position is set forth in ‘Johanneische Literarkritik’, Th.Z. VIII (1952), 418–34; S. Temple, ‘A Key to the Composition of the Fourth Gospel’, J.B.L. Lxxx (1961), 220–32, and ‘The Two Signs in the Fourth Gospel’, J.B.L. LXXXI (1962), 169–74; M. E. Boismard, ‘L'évolution du théme eschatologique dans les traditions johanniques’, R.B. LXVIII (1961) 507–25; H. M., Teeple, ‘Methodology in Source Analysis of the Fourth Gospel’, J.B.L. LXXXI (1962), 279–86. In the last couple of years two more extensive treatments of the problem of the sources and composition of the Fourth Gospel have appeared in Germany: K. A. Eckhardt, Der Tod des Johannes als Schlüssel zum Verständnis der johanneischen Schriften (‘Studien zur Rechts- und Religionsgeschichte’, III; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1961); W. Hartke, Vier urchristliche Partien und ihre Vereinigung zur apostolischen Kirche, vol. I: Johannes und die Synoptiker (‘Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Schriften der Sektion für Altertumswissenschaft’, 24; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1961). It is, of course, impossible to describe these books here. Both are impressive and erudite works which contain some valuable insights, but there is an element of what I can only call the fantastic in each of them. Suffice it to say that Eckhardt thinks that the original gospel was written by John the Son of Zebedee, the disciple whom Jesus loved and whom he raised from the dead (‘Lazarus’ is a later editorial fiction borrowed from Luke). His book was then revised by Ignatius of Antioch, and translated from Aramaic to Greek by John the Elder at the turn of the century. Interpolations were later added by Papias! Hartke distinguishes first a Grundschrift Z (not unlike Bultmann's semeia-source!). The subsequent editing of this document by V produced a proto-John which was never published. Then came the final reworking by H, who published the gospel in its present form. (The Johannine epistles are the work of only V and H, while H, alone is responsible for the Apocalypse.) Hartke goes to great trouble to separate these three layers in John and to identify the persons responsible for each, concluding that Z is John the Son of Zebedee, V is John Mark, and H is Judas Barsabbas!

Probably the best very recent bibliography is to be found in Kümmel's revision of the Feine-Behm Einleitung, pp. 126–9.