The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel: An Introduction to John

Chapter 7: The Origin and Character of the Johannine Riddles

157 7 The origin and character of the johannine Riddles a Guide to interpretation W e return now to the Johannine riddles and how to address them. The two previous chapters showed how composition theories and analyses of the Johannine tradition and its situation have sought to provide ways forward . In the light of John’s dialogical autonomy, we have here an independent tradition that developed alongside Mark and the other Gospels but is not dependent on them. Further, some of the contacts, in oral stages of the traditions and otherwise, may have been dialogical—and even corrective—instead of simply repeating the same thing. In history as well as theology and literature, points reflecting contact are often made by means of contrast rather than imitation. Furthermore, some of John’s distinctive presentations of Jesus imply a historical opinion, not simply a theological insight. While we now have a closed canon, with a fitting selection of four authorized Gospel narratives, we must remember that first-century engagements with these traditions were variable and in flux. Differing forms of material may also have been circulating, so even our best work in the twenty-first century must remain modest in its claims. Nonetheless, this chapter briefly outlines three sets of factors contributing to the tensions underlying the Johannine riddles. This discussion may not solve every issue, but an outline at least is offered as a means of making sense of John’s enduring perplexities in terms of its theological, historical, and literary riddles. Here I 158 The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel encourage the reader to take a look again at chapters 2–4 of this book, considering how each set of John’s riddles might be approached from the perspective of one or more of these interpretive keys. Of course, secondary factors could also be mentioned ,1 but this discussion will limit itself to primary factors underlying each of the Johannine riddles. The connections between these factors and the riddles of the Fourth Gospel will be developed further in Part 3, as they inform one’s interpretation of John’s presentations of both the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. This chapter will involve some repetition, as earlier discussions of riddles and approaches will here be integrated and explored in relation to each other. The Origin and Character of John’s Theological Tensions ■ As I argue in The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, there are four primary sources of John’s theological tensions,2 and these factors are best approached in terms of how they influenced those tensions. While the church fathers sought to interpret John’s theological tensions in terms of essence and categories of being, modern scholars have sought to understand those tensions as expressions of more mundane realities. What would the history of Christian theology look like if we sought to understand John’s theological content in terms of its epistemological origins and character? That is, rather than seeing John’s theological tensions as the results of ontological thinking alone, what if we saw them as having their roots in such mundane origins as the Evangelist’s patterns of thinking and the changing situation in which his material was delivered? On one hand, the basics of Christian theology might remain the same; but then again, we might come to a fuller grasp of what the biblical texts are saying and, perhaps more importantly, what they are not. Box 7.1: Origins of John’s theological Riddles The dialectical thinking of the Evangelist ■ . The texture of the Gospel indicates that the Evangelist was a first-order thinker, characterized by a cognitive dialogue between earlier experiences and perceptions and later ones. His is a both-and approach to theology rather than an either-or stance; he thinks dialogically rather than monologically. As a first-century dialectical theologian, his thought is characterized by a highly theologized memory of Jesus and his ministry. The Prophet-like-Moses agency schema ■ . Rooted in Deuteronomy 18:15-22, the Evangelist presents Jesus as fulfilling the promise that God would raise up a prophet like Moses from amidst the brethren of Israel. Jesus would not speak of his own agenda but only what God told him to say; therefore, the Sender and his Agent are one and the same. To reject or receive the Agent is to reject or receive the Sender, for the former is in all ways like the latter. The prophetic agent is proven authentic in his commission because his word...