GMark begins with the announcement, “This is the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ [the son of God].” Then we are introduced to John the Baptist in vv. 2-8. GMatt begins with a genealogy and birth narrative, but as soon as Jesus unique origins have been established the narrator introduces John (3:1ff.). GLuke does something similar to both GMark and GMatt. GLuke is quick to introduce John (1:5ff.), but he does it by intertwining Jesus’ birth narrative with John’s.
In the Synoptic Gospels John makes an appearance quite early. This is true of the Fourth Gospel as well. In GJohn, as we have it now, John is mentioned as early as v. 6. While I haven’t read much about this topic yet, I have heard that some scholars have proposed that the Johannine Prologue as we have it now is an editorial polishing, much like GJohn 21 where the ending seems to be extended (John 20:31 does sound like an ending) to explain a rumor that the Beloved Disciple (BD) would not die. Since he had passed the editor(s) had to clarify that Jesus had not said that the BD would not die, but that if he were to live until the Parousia it would not be something with which Peter should concern himself.
If the Prologue is part of a “finalized” version, then how might it have read at an earlier stage? (Again, I am echoing a proposal that I’ve heard set forth, but which I haven’t studied for myself yet. I think I heard it during a presentation from my co-blogger JohnDave Medina during the AAR/SBL NW Regional Meeting a few years ago). What if the earlier beginning of GJohn paralleled GMark by beginning with an introduction of John the Baptist? This is how it may have read:
| John 1:6-13, 19-34 (NASB)__________6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light. 9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
19 This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” 20 And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.” 21 They asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” And he *said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.” 22 Then they said to him, “Who are you, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?” 23 He said, “I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as Isaiah the prophet said. 24 Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. 25 They asked him, and said to him, “Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” 26 John answered them saying, “I baptize in water, but among you stands One whom you do not know. 27 “It is He who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.” 28 These things took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. 29 The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 “This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’ 31“I did not recognize Him, but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water.” 32 John testified saying, “I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him. 33 “I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’ 34 “I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.”
|
(SBL GNT) _________6 Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ, ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης· 7 οὗτος ἦλθεν εἰς μαρτυρίαν, ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός, ἵνα πάντες πιστεύσωσιν διʼ αὐτοῦ. 8 οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖνος τὸ φῶς, ἀλλʼ ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός. 9 ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον.10 Ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν, καὶ ὁ κόσμος διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω. 11 εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθεν, καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον. 12 ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, 13 οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς ἀλλʼ ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν.
19 Καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ Ἰωάννου ὅτε ἀπέστειλαν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐξ Ἱεροσολύμων ἱερεῖς καὶ Λευίτας ἵνα ἐρωτήσωσιν αὐτόν· Σὺ τίς εἶ; 20 καὶ ὡμολόγησεν καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσατο, καὶ ὡμολόγησεν ὅτι Ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ὁ χριστός. 21 καὶ ἠρώτησαν αὐτόν· Τί οὖν; σὺ Ἠλίας εἶ; καὶ λέγει· Οὐκ εἰμί. Ὁ προφήτης εἶ σύ; καὶ ἀπεκρίθη· Οὔ. 22 εἶπαν οὖν αὐτῷ· Τίς εἶ; ἵνα ἀπόκρισιν δῶμεν τοῖς πέμψασιν ἡμᾶς· τί λέγεις περὶ σεαυτοῦ; 23 ἔφη· Ἐγὼ φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ· Εὐθύνατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, καθὼς εἶπεν Ἠσαΐας ὁ προφήτης. 24 Καὶ ἀπεσταλμένοι ἦσαν ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων. 25 καὶ ἠρώτησαν αὐτὸν καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ· Τί οὖν βαπτίζεις εἰ σὺ οὐκ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς οὐδὲ Ἠλίας οὐδὲ ὁ προφήτης; 26 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰωάννης λέγων· Ἐγὼ βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι· μέσος ὑμῶν ἕστηκεν ὃν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε, 27 ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἄξιος ἵνα λύσω αὐτοῦ τὸν ἱμάντα τοῦ ὑποδήματος. 28 ταῦτα ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ἐγένετο πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, ὅπου ἦν ὁ Ἰωάννης βαπτίζων. 29 Τῇ ἐπαύριον βλέπει τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐρχόμενον πρὸς αὐτόν, καὶ λέγει· Ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου. 30 οὗτός ἐστιν ὑπὲρ οὗ ἐγὼ εἶπον· Ὀπίσω μου ἔρχεται ἀνὴρ ὃς ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν· 31 κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν, ἀλλʼ ἵνα φανερωθῇ τῷ Ἰσραὴλ διὰ τοῦτο ἦλθον ἐγὼ ἐν ὕδατι βαπτίζων. 32 καὶ ἐμαρτύρησεν Ἰωάννης λέγων ὅτι Τεθέαμαι τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον ὡς περιστερὰν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἔμεινεν ἐπʼ αὐτόν· 33 κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν, ἀλλʼ ὁ πέμψας με βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν· Ἐφʼ ὃν ἂν ἴδῃς τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον καὶ μένον ἐπʼ αὐτόν, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ· 34 κἀγὼ ἑώρακα, καὶ μεμαρτύρηκα ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ θεοῦ
|
A transition occurs at 1:35 as John gives way to Jesus. If this reconstruction is accurate then the editors would have added a section of Logos Christology to the beginning, interweaving the story of John with a Christology that exalts Jesus’ status beyond earlier version. This would be the addition:
| John 1:1-5, 14-18 (NASB) __________1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’ ” 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. | (SBL GNT) __________1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. 2 οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. 3 πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν 4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων· 5 καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν. 14 Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας· 15 (Ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κέκραγεν λέγων· Οὗτος ἦν ὃν εἶπον· Ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν·) 16 ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν, καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος· 17 ὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωϋσέως ἐδόθη, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο. 18 θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. |
Now, vv. 4-5 fit quite nicely into v. 6, so it is possible that the whole Prologue was compiled together at one point, but it is also possible that the editor(s) made sure to create a bridge between their Logos Christology passage and the earlier beginning of GJohn with which they were integrating this material.
Why does this interest me? Because if accurate what we have is an earlier version of GJohn that, like GMark, begins with a narrative about John, but at some later point the editor(s) decided that the differentiation between Jesus and John had to be intensified. Even if there is an earlier version there is no doubt that it juxtaposed Jesus and John by limiting John to the role of witness (where is his baptismal activity for which he is so well-known in the Synoptics and in Josephus’ passing mention of John in Ant. 18.5.2.?) and quickly transitioning John’s disciples to Jesus in 1:35-37. Yet, even with this juxtaposition in place, the contrast had to be intensified.
What do you think of this proposal? Does the Prologue make more sense as a later editorial addition? If so, why did the Johannine Community need to further clarify Jesus’ greatness over against that of John’s?
the archives near Emmaus 
Interesting yes, but if the prologue is part of a “finalized” version, then however it was read at an earlier stage is presumably recoverable from the text using standard exegetical methods. That said, there would still have to be sufficient convincing evidence that the prologue was indeed an editorial edition, which I don’t believe exists at this point (without denying that it seems that way – appearances do not constitute proof).
The more interesting question would be ‘what would cause such a prologue to be prpended?’ Given your interest in John the Baptist, this question leads to questions about whether or not the early church recognized the need for an ‘Isaiah figure’ to precede Christ. Where there debates about this?
One possible reason to prepend such a prologue, would be to provide proof that ‘this particular Messiah’ Christ had indeed been preceded by an Isaiah figure (a well-known precondition to recognizing some figure as the true Messiah).
Although you’re looking into the historicity of John the Baptist, the right place took look for whether or not there were debates about John’s role as Isaiah might be studies about the dialogue/debate between gnosticism/early Christianity.
There may be other possible reasons for prepending such a prologue but they aren’t as obvious.
Admittedly, what I am trying to do here is form criticism in a sense. I’m wondering what you mean when you say we should be able to derive our evidence using “standard exegetical methods”. Would you mind sharing an example of a passage where you see these methods helping us understand the evolution of a text and what methods would you recommend?
I don’t have an opinion on how we arrived at the current “John” text.
However, IF it was edited to add stronger language between Christ and Baptist, it would have been because John was a super prolific religious figure in 1st century Israel, maybe way more than Jesus ever was( from the “Jewish follower count” is my point).
He’s still worshipped today by some Arabs, that alone shows us how prolific of a figure John was.
I should have added that Josephus documented way more about Baptist than Jesus, so this seems to me more evidence that 1st century Jews were way more enamored with Baptist than The Lord.
I’m not proficient at form criticism (or entirely convinced of its utility), so I’m likely the wrong person to provide such an example. Sorry.
@Patrick: Both good points. I think you speak of the Mandaeism as regards those who venerate John. I do think John made quite a splash, maybe more so than Jesus, which is why people like Josephus give John more attention (though, ironically, as it has been said: without the Evangelists he would have become merely a footnote in books on Josephus).
@Andrew: No worries.
I am no scholar, so take my opnion with a grain of salt (though I do read them and have a silly dream about being one).
I can see some of the reasons one would hypothesize the prologue as a later edit, especially with John 21 being the way it is. However, I’m skeptical of any certainty in being able to identify this with certainty, the extent of such edits, and therefore the motivation behind them if that is what they are. One problem I see is that the themes and terms in the prologue seem introduce themes and terms that run throught the gospel – as we might expect a prologue to do. This would lead me to a few possible solutions:
– the prologue is original
– the prologue was expertly engineered to suit the rest of the book thematically and with its vocabulary so that possibly it was the author’s own hand or someone close to him and there is likely no edit it meaning.
– that many other portions of John were edited along with the new prologue so that now it becomes virtually impossible to identify what was original and what was edited in (or out).
I know, though, that many have sought to see these layers in John (the new ECC commentary) but perhaps the lack of consensus (as far as a I know) should be cautionary for us.
casey
@Casey: Actually, those are really good insights. What would be some sections of the Fourth Gospel that you find reiterate the message of the Prologue? If we could look at those it might help us because we could ask whether or not they seem to be editorial comments or part of the natural flow of the Gospel.
OK, so here is a quick and dirty analysis of the themes/concepts in the prologue and where they are found in the rest of the gospel. I think the themes are often interrelated, especially the theme of pre-existent/divine Son and the theme of Jesus as the unique revealer of the God and his glory based on his unique unified relationship with God. While its true (I think) that ‘logos’ is not used of Jesus again in the gospel it is soaked in the theme of pre-existence and/or divinity – which I understand to be the key point of the ‘logos’ verses in the prologue. doing this analysis made me think that perhaps the material that explicitly places John lower than Jesus would be a more likely candidate for a later edit than most of the Prologue itself – but I am no scholar. This is obviously a lot more than can be tackled in a comments section but I couldn’t do it just half way.
vv1-3, 14 pre-existent and/or divine Jesus
• 3:13, 31; 5:16-18, 23; 6:32-33, 41-43, 57, 62; 7:27-30; 8:23, 42, 54-59; 10:30; 11:27; 13:3; 14:9-11; 16:13-15, 28; 17:5*; 20:28
vv4-5, 9 Jesus as life and light
• 3:15, 19-21, 36; 5:24-29; 6:27-58; 8:12*, 24, 51; 9:5; 10:28; 11:9-10, 25-26; 12:35-36, 46, 50; 14:6; 20:31
vv6-8, 15 John (merely) testified of him
• 1:19-34; 3:22-30; 4:1; 5:33-36; 10:40-42
v10-11 rejected by the world and his own (Jews)
• 3:19-21; 5:37-47; 6:64-66; 8:38-47; 11:45-57; 12:37-43; 15:18-16:4, 8; 17:14
vv12-13 children of God/born of God
• 3:1-12; 12:36?; 20:17?
vv14, 18 Jesus uniquely and personally reveals God and his glory
• 5:19-29, 30-44; 7:16-18, 27-30; 8:26-29, 38, 42; 11:4, 40-44; 12:28, 44-50; 13:20, 31-32; 14:6-11, 13; 17:1-5, 25-26
v17 new Moses/greater than Moses
• 3:14; 5:45-47; 6:30-36, 48-51; 7:19-24?; 13:34?
@Casey: Somehow I overlooked this response. Sorry it has been a few days now! This is helpful. I’m going to browse through these references. At first glance, this does seem to indicate that the prologue as a whole connects quite well to the rest of the chapter. My proposal is primarily concerned with whether vv. 1-5 and 14-18 do and many of these references are connected to those vv.
@Brian – I hope it is truly helpful in some way. I had a lot of fun putting those references together. We’ve been teaching through John in my Sunday morning class the last few months so all of this is very fresh in my mind – I just quickly read through the Gospel noting every time I saw echoes, elaborations, examples or restatements of the themes from the prologue. I’d be interested in what you confirm or have a different opinion on – but I won’t be mad if you don’t get around to commenting in this thread anymore.
I think it is generally understood that it was added, as was the epilogue. Check John Shelby Spong’s excellent book, The Fourth Gospel, Tales of a Jewish Mystic and Urban von Wahlde The Gospel and Letters of John a 3 Vol commentary. John is a mystical text, which means it juxtaposes subjective,poetic language to take the reader vertically and then very literal narrative to direct us historically. It does this throughout the text – uses literary devices and Jewish symbolism to move us to larger (spiritual) transcendent perspectives. The Christ as Word is a concept that predates Jesus. Logos or the Hebrew, Dabar means organizing priniciple of the universe or creative expression and has been a philosophical concept since Heraclitus or before….(Heraclitus 500 bc). Like order and choas…its important to read John as a mystical/symbolic text to get the full benefit. Its important to read all the Gospels from the spiritual perspective, actually. It is the spiritual/mystical that allows the literal to have meaning.