Louvain Studies 32 (2007) 23-48 doi: 10.2143/LS.32.1.2032350 © 2007 by Louvain Studies, all rights reserved The Return of John to Jesus Research Gilbert Van Belle Abstract. — This article questions whether the Fourth Gospel, critically evaluated, can be considered in investigating the historical Jesus. After providing a review of recent (I) and 19th century research (II) on the historical reliability of the Fourth Gospel, the question of literary unity and the dependence of the John on the Synop- tics is proposed (III). According to the present author, the language and style of the Fourth Gospel is so homogenous and the craftsmanship of the evangelist is so creative that it is impossible to distinguish alternative sources or traditions apart from the Synoptics. The possibility of historical tradition in the Fourth Gospel can neither be denied nor proved. In the second edition of John among the Gospels (2001) D. M. Smith has included a noteworthy chapter entitled, “John, an Independent Gos- pel.”1 In this chapter he makes a critical observation on the renewed use of the Gospel of John in the recent search for the historical Jesus: “Only recently, … there may be a perceptible turning of the tide as the Gospel of John, critically evaluated, is once again considered in investigating the historical Jesus.”2 In this paper we wish, fi rst, to review whether there is a renewed consideration of the Gospel of John in the search for the his- torical Jesus. Thereupon, the contemporary approach is compared to Johan- nine research in the nineteenth century. In the third and concluding part, we consider the question of the Gospel’s literary unity and its consequences for the search for the historical Jesus. 1. Dwight Moody Smith, John among the Gospels (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2001) 195-241. Large portions of the section in this chapter entitled “The Setting and Presentation of Jesus’ Ministry and of His relationships” are drawn from his article “Historical Issues and the Problem of John and the Synoptics,” From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honor of Marinus de Jonge, ed. Martinus C. de Boer, Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series, 84 (Sheffi eld: JSOT, 1993) 252-267. On D. M. Smith’s studies on “John and the Synoptics,” see Frans Neirynck, “The Question of John and the Synoptics: D. Moody Smith 1992-1999,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 76 (2000) 122-132; = id., Evangelica III (see below, n. 12), 616-628. 2. Ibid., 202. 11252-08_LouvainStud_02.indd252-08_LouvainStud_02.indd 2233 001-09-20081-09-2008 16:14:3616:14:36 24 GILBERT VAN BELLE I. The Historical Reliability of the Fourth Gospel The question about “the historical reliability of John’s Gospel” has naturally everything to do with the authenticity, the integrity and the sources of the Fourth Gospel. Furthermore, the question extends to the Synoptic Gospels, because the similarities and the dissimilarities between John and the Synoptics is “the real heart of the problem.” 1. The Infl uence of P. Gardner-Smith At the start of the twentieth century the general position held by exegetes was that the Gospel of John was dependent on the Synoptic Gospels.3 The tide turned in 1938 with the publication of P. Gardner- Smith’s book, Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels.4 The author argues, on the grounds of an analysis of the similarities and dissimilarities between John and the Synoptics that an independent, non-Synoptic oral tradition lays at the origin of John’s Gospel. A similar view was taken over and developed by, amongst others, R. Bultmann (1941), E. R. Good- enough (1945), B. Noack (1954), J. A. T. Robinson (1959), E. Haen- chen (1959) and C. H. Dodd (1953, 1963).5 According to J. Blinzler 3. For historical surveys on “John and the Synoptics,” see Timotheus Sigge, Das Johannesevangelium und die Synoptiker: Eine Untersuchung seiner Selbständigkeit und der gegenseitigen Beziehungen, Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, 16/2-3 (Münster: Aschen- dorff, 1935); Hans Windisch, Johannes und die Synoptiker: Wollte der vierte Evangelist die älteren Evangelien ergänzen oder ersetzen?, Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 12 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1926); Joseph Blinzler, Johannes und die Synoptiker, Stuttgarter Bibel- studien, 5 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1965). See also, the articles of Frans Neirynck and the doctoral dissertations of his students, Gabriel Selong and Johan Konings (see below, n. 12); Smith, John among the Gospels; Jörg Frey, “Das vierte Evangelium auf dem Hintergrund der älteren Evangelientradition: Zum Problem: Johannes und die Synoptiker,” Johannes-Evangelium – Mitte oder Rand des Kanons? Neue Standortbestim- mungen, ed. Thomas Söding, Quaestiones Disputatae, 203 (Freiburg/Basel/Vienna: Herder, 2003) 60-118; Michael Labahn & Manfred Lang, “Johannes und die Synop- tiker: Positionen und Impulse seit 1990,” Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Das vierte Evangelium in religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive, Wissenschaftliche Unter- suchungen zum Neuen Testament, 175 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 443-558. 4. Percival Gardner-Smith, Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge, MA: University Press, 1938). On this book and its infl uence, see Joseph Verheyden, “P. Gard- ner-Smith and ‘The Turn of the Tide’,” John and the Synoptics, ed. Adelbert Denaux, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 101 (Louvain: University Press/Peeters, 1992) 423-452. 5. Rudolf Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes, Kritisch-exegetischer Kom- mentar, 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1941); English translation: The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. George Raymond Beasley-Murray (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971); Erwin R. Goodenough, “John a Primitive Gospel,” Journal of Biblical Literature 64 (1945) 145-182; Bent Noack, Zur johanneischen Tradition: Beiträge zur Kritik an der literarkritischen Analyse des vierten Evangeliums, Det laerde selskabs skrifter: Teologiske 11252-08_LouvainStud_02.indd252-08_LouvainStud_02.indd 2244 001-09-20081-09-2008 16:14:3616:14:36 THE RETURN OF JOHN TO JESUS RESEARCH 25 (1965),6 C. H. Dodd and R. Bultmann are the most prominent follow- ers of Gardner-Smith’s hypothesis. “Behind the Fourth Gospel,” Dodd writes, “lies an ancient tradition independent of the other gospels, and meriting serious consideration as a contribution to our knowledge of the historical facts concerning Jesus Christ.”7 According to Bultmann, the original gospel would have been composed mainly from three sources: the miracle stories have their origin in the sjme⁄a-Quelle, the Johannine discourses go back to the Offenbarungsreden, a pre-Christian gnostic source, and the suffering and resurrection narratives are traced to a passion source.8 In 1963, D. M. Smith noted on Gardner-Smith’s infl uence: “There is a growing consensus that John’s reliance upon, or use of the Synoptics is to be minimized, if not denied.”9 In the subsequent years it would appear that more authors rejected the direct dependence on the Synoptic Gospels. Particular reference could be made to the commentaries of R. E. Brown (1966, 1970), R. Schnackenburg (1965, 1971, 1975, 1984), L. Morris (1971), J. N. Sanders & B. A. Mastin (1968), B. Lindars skrifter, 3 (Copenhagen: Rosenkilde og Bagger, 1954); John 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. Kurt Aland, et al., Texte und Untersuchungen, 73; 5/18 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1959) 338-350; = id., Twelve New Testament Studies, Studies in Biblical Theology, 34 (London: SCM Press, 1962) 94-106; Ernst Haenchen, “Johanneische Probleme,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 56 (1959) 19-54; = id., Gott und Mensch, Gesammelte Aufsätze, 1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1965) 78-113; see also his commentary: Das Johannesevan- gelium: Ein Kommentar aus den nachgelassenen Manuskripten, ed. Ulrich Busse (Tübin- gen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980) (Preface by James M. Robinson); English translation: John 1/2: A Commentary on the Gospel of John, Chapters 1–6/7–21, trans. Robert W. Funk, ed. Robert W. Funk and Ulrich Busse, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1984); Charles H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: University Press, 1953); id., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: University Press, 1963). 6. Blinzler, Johannes und die Synoptiker, 22. 7. Dodd, Historical Tradition, 423-432: “Summary and Conclusion,” esp. p. 423. See also Interpretation, 444-453: “Appendix: Some Considerations upon the Historical Aspect of the Fourth Gospel.” 8. For references, see the key words in the index in Johannes, 557-563 (English translation: pp. 733-740): Literarkritik, Quellen: Offenbarungsreden, sjme⁄a-Quelle, andere Quellen, Redaktion des Evangelisten and kirchliche Redaktion. See also Bultmann’s article Johannesevangelium, in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart 3 (31959) 840- 850, and Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1948-1953; 21954; 31958; 41959); I cite the 5th edition, 1965, which is practically unchanged; English translation: Theology of the New Testament, trans. K. Grobel, 2 vols. (London: SCM Press, 1952, 1955). 9. Dwight Moody Smith, “John 12:12ff. and the Question of John’s Use of the Synoptics,” Journal of Biblical Literature 82 (1963) 58-64, esp. p. 59; = id., Johannine Christianity: Essays on Its Setting, Sources, and Theology (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1984) 97-105, esp.