The Sitz Im Leben of The Johannine Brea

Digital Commons @ George Fox University
Faculty Publications - College of Christian Studies College of Christian Studies
1997
The Sitz im Leben of the Johannine Bread of Life

Discourse and its Evolving Context
Paul N. Anderson
George Fox University, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/ccs

Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought,
Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons
Recommended Citation
Anderson, Paul N., "The Sitz im Leben of the Johannine Bread of Life Discourse and its Evolving Context" (1997). Faculty Publications
- College of Christian Studies. Paper 105.
http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/ccs/105
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Christian Studies at Digital Commons @ George Fox University. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications - College of Christian Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ George Fox
University. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Τhe Sitz im Leben of the Johannine Bread of
Life Discourse and its Evolving Context
Paul Ν. Anderson
John 6 may well be called "the Grand Central Station of Johannine critical
issues." Ιη ηο other place does the same confluence of historical, literary,
and theological debates come to the fore as they relate to the Gospel of
John. From comparison/contrasts with Synoptic corollaries-to inferences
of narrative and discourse sources-to redaction analyses-to christology,
semeiology and sacramentology debates-to text disruption and
reaπangement theories-to form-critίcal midrashic analysis-to reader
response approaches Gust to mention some of the obvious critical issues),
John 6 has time and again provided the locus argumentί for scholars
wishing to make a definitive contribution to Johannine studies.
What one also finds when doing a "field test" in John 6 is that one
hypothesis will affect and be affected by other kinds of hypotheses. For
instance, one's view of the evangelist's christology will affect one' s
assessment o f the literary orίgin of the signs material (νν. 1 -24), "Ι am"
sayings (νν. 35ff.) and the so-called "eucharistic ίnterpolation" (νν. 5 l c-58)
in John 6. Indeed, the most far-reaching and enduring approaches to
Johannine interpretation are ones that address several of these key issues
effectively, and there are few better contexts within which to test them
critically than John 6. 1
One approach which takes into consideration a variety of these issues is
a form-critical analysis of the "Bread of Life D iscourse" in John 6. The
recent works of Ρ. Borgen, R. Ε. Brown, Β. Lindars and others2 have
ι Exceptions in terms of John and Synoptic comparison/contrasts would of course include

the Passion narrative, the Temple-cleansing and various Synoptic-like allusions in John; but
none of these sections has a combination of miracle stories, 'Ί ΑΜ" sayings, apparent
redactional interpolations, homilies and misunderstanding dialogues all within the same
context. Likewise, other discourses and signs narratives in John are worthy of investigation,
but their paraJlels in the Synoptics are not as clear as those found ίη John 6. For these and
other reasons one can understand why there has been such an intense interest in John 6-for
instance, why the SNTS "Johannine L iterature Seminar" has spent three years now discussing
John 6, as well as why there has been such a large volume of recent articles and monographs
produced οη John 6 (see Bibliography 11, "John VI" in Paul Ν. Anderson, The Christology of
the Fourth Gospel; lts Unit and Disunit in the Light ofJohn 6, WUNT ΙΙ 78 (Ttibingen: J. C .
Β . Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996).
2 Ρ. Borgen, Bread From Heaven [Leiden: Ε. J. Brill, 1 965), believes John 6:3 1 -5 8
constitutes a unitive homiletical exploration of the Christian meaning of the manna motif in
Exodus 1 6:4. R. Ε. Brown, The Gospel According ιο John Vol. 1 (Garden City: Doubleday,
1 966), believes the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 actually reflects two delivered homilies
within Johannine Christianity-vv. 35-50, which are sapiential, and νν. 5 1 -58 which are a
later eucharistic doublet. Β. Lindars, The Gospel σf John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1 972),
follows Brown's division of verses, but he argues that the entire section had been tormed and
2 PAUL Ν. ANDERSON
demonstrated that the Johannine Bread of Life Discourse is indeed a written

record of early Christian homily (or homilies) expanding οη the meaning of
the feeding for later audiences. One's analysis of its dialogues and
discourses witl thus lend valuable insights into the dialectical situation of
the Johannine audience. Ιη other words, if the Sitz im Leben and literary
form of the material witι hi n this chapter is assessed correctly, something of
its origin, meaning and implications of its content may be more adequately
infeπed.
The thesis of this study is that because the Johannine Bread of Life
Discourse reflects an exhortative homiletical unit, connecting the ministry
of Jesus with ongoing crises affecting the Johannine community of faith, an
investigation into the rhetorical thrust of its message will illumine-and be
i1lumined by'-{}ne's understanding of the Johannine situation and its
evolving context. More specifically, as the central exhortative thrust of the
discourse is "Work not for food that is death-producing, but for the food
that is fife-producing--etemally, which the Son of Man shall give you" (ν.
27), the misunderstanding dialogues between Jesus and four groups of
discussants actually betray four distinctive crises within the history of
Johannine Christianity. These crises are also suggested by the Johannine
Epistles, the writings of Ignatίus and other historical markers in the
contemporary s:ituation. Before. launc.hing into such an exploration,
however, one's fιndings regarding cr:itical literary, historical and theoJogical
issues shoωd be stated.
Α. F!NDINGS AS BEGINNlNGS
While space will not allow a fuH discussion of the critical issues mentioned
above in the first p<ιragraph,J cαndensed ones are offered as preliminary
conclusions, whence further investigations have their departures. Ιη that
used prevί.ously wίthin the Johannine eucharistic setting and that it is used sapientially by tl1e
evangelist οο the Gospe!-wήting leνel. Wl1atever theαιy of composition one espouses, two
levels of history accoπφany the interpretation of John 6: first, the level of the events
then1selves (and the ir trarιsmi. ssion through traditi.onal aoo other means); and second. the level
of the contemporary audience to whom the message was orίginally addressed. T11e latter level
ofhistory is the main focus of this study.
3 These can be reviewed more fuίly in the afσrernerιtioned book (Anderson, Christology).
ιη it the judgment is made that whi!e Johannine smdίes have indeed advanced significantly
over the ίast half-cent;ιry, studies whicJiι do F!Ot come to fu.hl grips with Bultn1ann's ιnagisterial
contribυtί.on (R. Bultmann, The Gospel of Johrι, traι:ιs. by G. R. Beasley-Mιιrray, R. W. Ν.
H.oare and J. Κ. Riches [Philadelphia: Westrninster Press, 197 1 )) often fail t.o understand the
rationale aιτd the theologϊcar irnplicatiσns of his provocative-though at times
unc.onvmc�judgments, ίο their peril. For this reason, four of my ten chapters dea!
specificalίy with Bulimamι's treatmem of Jolm 6: "The Stylistic Unity and Disunity .of John
6" (Cl1A); "The Relationsrnp Between Sign aιιd Discourse in John 6" (Ch.5); "Tl1e
Έucl1aristic Interpol.ation'" (Ch.6); and "The Diafectica[ Cbaracter of John 6" (Ch.7). Wl1ile
these fiπdings εaηποt be argued here ίη detaίt, they must he summarized lest the informed
reader he irιclined tσ disallow the grouιιds upon which new constructs are built.
ΤΗΕ SITZ ΙΜ LEBEN 3
sense, crίtical findings become the sources of new analytica1 beginnings.

These findings are as follows:
Ι. The styJe ofJohn 6 ίs basίcαlly unitive..

Upon reviewing Bultmann's literary criteria for distinguishing the semeίa
source, when those measures of style4 are applied throughout John 6, they
faiJ the test of statistical significance. Nearly two thirds of aH the sentences
in John 6 begin with the main verb (within 3% poi.nts of the iηfeπed semeίa
source). All the rest ofthe sentences in John 6 except two begFn with simple
connections such as δε and συν. And, every tirne μαθηταί occurs ίη John 6
it is accornpanied by αύτου. Bultmann has indeed identified the style of the
Johannine narrative as representiπg ''Sernitisiπg Greek," but so is all of
John 6, as is the rest ofthe Gospef as weH.5
Regarding the style o f the Offenbarungsreden source and the supposed
contribution of the redactor in John 6, Buftrnann confesses that the foπner
is written in "Hellenized Aramaic" and is indistinguishable from the style of
the evangelist, while the latter has obviously imitated the style of the
evangelist.6 Precisely how "Semitising Greek" may be antiseptically
4 Bultmzmrι's view, of eoorse, is that the style ot' the semeίa source is "clearly
dis.tingώs� fiom the laπgιιage ofthe Evarιgelist αι ofthe discσurse-source. . . " (The Gospel
ofJohn, p. 1 1 3). Says Bultmann aboot John 6:
StylistίcaJly the souτce slrows the sarne characteristics as Ιhe sectiσπs which we
have already attributed to the σημεϊαι-sοοrce. The styl e is a "Seιnitisiπg"
Greek,. but it does oot seem possible to discern in the story a traΙtSitioπ from a
liteιary Semίtic source. The passage }s characterised by the p!aciπg σf the verb
at the beginnίng ofthe sentence; aiso by the laek (in vv. 7, 8, ΙΟ where Κ pl
have διο) or very simp!e fσrm of connection lιe:mteen the sentences (& and ούν).
Ποιήσατε (in Greek 'll<e would. expect κελεύσαu ... άναιπεσεUι ν. 1 0
correspoπds to tl1e Sernitic causatίve (see Rev.. ί3.Β and Schl.). The constaπtly
repeated αύτου is ησt Greek (it corresponds to the Seιηitic suffix} atler the
different forms οfμαθηταί vv. 3, 8, 1 2, !6 . . . (p. 2 1 r, fl. ! ).
� Bu!tmann coπfesses elsewhere that the styfe of the evangelist is afso "Semitisiπg," as is
to a lesser degree that of the OffinbarnngsΠ?den (p. 204, n. l ).

6 "The editoF efearly models himself on the Evaπgeiist's teehπίque; but it is easy to see
that �t is a11 imitation. "(Bultmaπn, p. 235, η. 4; see also p. 243, π. 4)

!11 order tσ ideπti.fY the preseπce of Offenbarungsreden ιnaterial in Jol1n 6 and its "correct"
(origiπal) order, Bultmaπn identifies strophic/metric couplets that dea! with revelatioπ themes
aml reaι;ranges them ίηtσ an acceptable ρrogressiσπ (see ArnfersoιΊ, Cnrisctalσgy, Table 5). J n
doing sσ , however, he oιnits vv. 261>, 29b, 32, 37a, 38-40, 46, 5\1f., 53-58, anίl 6 3 etc. Οπe
wonders why . .One also questioπs the statistical likelihood that tlιe earlier editioπ of John 6
could have beeπ disordered ten times (arbeit for �external" reasons) precisely between
senteπces of uπeven !eπgth (with a mean average of 80 characters per senteπce) withiπ the
middle of a book. Tbe statistical probability of such an occurreπce is 1 :80 to the 1 Otl1 power;
or sli ghtly less tnaπ l: 1 Ο quίntillios!
Bllitmann's detection of the style and contri bιιtioo of the evangelist ίs convincing,
however (see Andersoπ, Chrίstalogy, Table 6: "Bultmaππ's Identificatiσn of the Evaπgelist's
'Coππecιive Prose' iπ John 6"). The question is whe·ther tbese facts are at atl suggestive of
multipte sourεes. Synchronic aπd diachronίc s.cbolairs a!ike aH bel ieve that tl1e evaπgelist
4 PAUL Ν. ANDERSON
distinguished from 'Ήellenized Aramaic" is difficult to understand, Iet

alone to do. One may just as easily, and certainly with greater statistical
success, amass typical Iinguistic and stylistic characteristics of Johannine
action narrative as well as typical Iinguistic and stylistic characteristics of
Johannine theological discourse, and upon applying such "criteria"
throughout the Gospel discover that the former correlates significantly with
John's semeia accounts and that the latter correlates significantly with the "Ι
am" (and other) sayings of Jesus in John. The question is whether this
would be at all suggestive of stylistic disunity within John, enough to infer
anything about the presence of more than one basic literary source in John. 1
2. 'Άporίas " are not necessarίly indίcatίve ofedίtorίal seams ίn John 6.

Lest it be concluded that the stylistic unity of John 6 "proves" anything
about the evangelist' s use or non-use of sources, Bultmann has been quick
to point out that contextual and theological kinds of evidence also
corroborate his diachronic judgments.s This being the case, Bultmann
believes that contextual oddities ίη transition may reflect "editorial seams"
suggesting the evangelist has taken over a source and added to it his own
contribution.9 The two primary examples of this ίη John 6 are Jesus' abrupt
eιηployed a l1istoricizing style of narration and that l1e added interpretive asides throughout
the story line. This kind of data, however, belabors the obvious. Jol1n was organized by a
narrator of miracle stories, discourses, and events which have special theological implications
for a late first-century audience. That much is clear; alien origins ofthe 1ηaterial is not.
7 T11is is not to say that diachronic scholars who have sought to improve 011 Bultmann 's
work have always followed such procedures (Although, see V. S. Poythress, "Testing for
Johannine Authorship by Examining the Use of Conjunctions," Westminster Journal of
Theo/ogy 46 (1984), 350-69, for a compelling demonstration that tl1e organizing of stylistic
data categories by recent Johannine source critics since Bultmann tends to be ιηοre
demonstrative of typical Johannine narrative versus typical Johannine discourse and
narratological connectives-not exactly significant source-critical data!). Nor is it to claim
tl1at John did not use sources (Although, see the most extensive evaluation of" the Semeia
source hypothesis yet in Gilbert van Belle's The Signs Source ίn the Fourth Gospel;
Hίstorίcal Survey and Crίtίcal Evaluatίon of the &meίa Hypothesίs [Leuven: Leuven
University Press, 1 994], who after considering nearly everything written 011 the ιηοst plausible
source thought to underlie Jol111, comes to a negative conclusion, pp. 376f".). lt is to say that
convincing stylistic evidence f"or written, non-Johannine sources underlying the Fourth
Gospel is still lacking, and those who believe in tl1em must do so οη some basis other than
empirical data (possibly working backwards from the rejection/acceptance of" implications).
Το de-Johannifjι a gospel narrative in order to re-Marcanize it, despite arranging it into an
albeit clever sequence with other cropped units, does not a semeίa source make.
8 D. Moody Smitl1 articulates well this interplay between stylistic, contextual and
ideological evidence in B ultιηann's diaclπonic constructs, The Composίtίon and Order ofthe
Fourth Gospel (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1 964), pp. 9ff., as does R. Fortna, The
Gospel of Signs (Cambridge: Caιηbridge University Press, 1 970), pp. 1 5-22.
9 Fortna believes these are tl1e most objective of tJ1e tl1ree "criteria" for inferring alien
sources in John (The Gospel of Sίgns, pp. 19ff.), but not all "aporias" in John are equally
problematic. For instance, while the abrupt ending of ch. 1 4, tl1e apparent tirst conclusion of
tl1e Gospel at 20:3 1 (witl1 its reformulation at 21 :24f.) and the seeming continιιity between the
ΤΗΕ S11Z ΙΜ LEBEN 5
answer to the crowd ίη ν. 26 and the redundant request of the crowd for
another sign ίη νν. 30f.10 What Bultmann has missed is the unitive motif of
testίng throughout this section and the entire chapter, and also the
evangelist's employment of local and sustained irony in narrating the
events. Indeed, the function of irony is to disturb and dis-locate the focus of
the reader in order to re-locate his or her attention along another path.
Throughout νν. 6- 1 5 and νν. 25-40 the crowd is tested as to whether it wίll
see beyond the bread which Jesus gives to tbe "Bread" which Jesus is. Ιη ν.
26 Jesus discems their real question (whίch would have been obvious to the
first-century audίence ): "When did you arrive . . . and when 's lunch?" Jesus
ίs portrayed as understanding full well their hidden question, which is still
with them ίη their fai lure to understand the kind of food Jesus really offers
(obvίated by theίr mίsunderstanding comments: νν. 28, 30f., 34; and
declared explicitly by the narrator: νν. 1 4f., 36). John 6 :25-30 does not
betray insoluble aporias requiring a diachronic rescue; rather, the passage
reflects the evangelist's use of sustained irony in depicting the failure of the
crowd to pass the test of bread versus "Bread."
3 . The "eucharίstίc ίnterpolatίon" in John 6 is neither.

The primary theological tension ίη John 6, calling for consideration of νν.
5 l c-58 being the redactor's interpolation, is the fact that the purely
christocentric soteriology of the evangelist is absolutely incompatible wίth
instrumentalistic sacramentology, and worse yet, with pagan theophagy. On
this point, Bultmann deserves a fresh audience. Recent tendencies to soften
Bultmann' s penetrating insight here fail to take seriously the profound
radicality of Johannine spirituality. Bultmann is absolutely correct to
challenge the notion that a saving, pistic response to God's revelation in
Jesus can ever be measured or effected οη external levels alone. 1 1 It can
events in chs.5 and 7 do call for a diachronic theory of composition, many of the aporias cited
by Bultmann and others are not always as problematic as the sharp relief into which they are
cast.
ιο In response to the question, "Rabbi, when did you get here?" Jesus responds, 'Ύou seek
ιne not because you saw the signs, but because you ate the loaves and were satisfied." And, it
seems odd tl1at the same crowd that had just witnessed a sign the day before now poses the
request, "What sign will you do then, that we may see and believe you? What will you do?"
Bultmann's method of identitying these "seams," however, is self-contradictory. Between
verses 25 and 26 the transition is too rough to assume a unitive source, while between verses
28f and 30f. the connection is too smooth (implying the crowd understood Jesus' exhortation
in ν. 27). Either way, Bultmann is happy to solve these "aporias" by offering a diachronic
solution (pp. 21 8-24).
ι Ι See Anderson, Chrίstology, Bibliography lll, "The Sacraments in John;" and the
excursus, "What is Meant by 'Sacrament'?" Α growing tendency is to assume that while the
member of the Johannine audience is expected to "come to" and believe fully in Jesus, the
way t11is is to be exercised is through cultic participation in the eucharist (see !>. Borgen,
Breadfrom Heaven [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1 965], ad. loc.; G. Burge, The Anointed Comnιunity
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1 987], pp. 1 7 8-89; D. Rensberger, Johannine Faίth and Liberatίng
6 PAUL Ν. ANDERSON
only be appropriated existentially by an authentic "yes" to the divine

initiative, eschatologically spoken though the Word made flesh. Ιη that
sense, the incarnation scandali:res not only the religion of "the Jews," but a\I
religious constructs of hurnan origin (including developing Christian, and
certainly Jewish or He1lenistic, expressions), and the Johannine Christian ίs
called to attend the present leadership of the resurrected Lord which is
effected through the comforting/convicting/guiding work of the Parakletos.
Το insist upon any externaiization of such inward trust (ritual or otherwise),
other than the command to love, is to fail to understand the core of
Johannine sGteriology, which is so radiC<llly christocentric. Thus, if νν. 51 c-
58 really advocated the indispensability of the eucharist for salvation, they
would have to be deerned an interpolation. The fact, however, is that they
do not.
There is a broad difference between saying one must participate ίη a
eucharistic rite in order to receive etemal life and usίng eucharίstίc ίmagery
to appeal for solίdarίty wίth Jesus and hίs communίty ίn the face of
persecutίon. John 6:5lc is not an introouctory sentence, but a concluding
clause. The bread which Jesus wil! offer finally is his sarx, given for the life
of the world. This is a blunt reference to the cross, and it bespeaks the
paradoxical cost of discipleship for .Jesus' followers. Το hope to share with
Christ in his resurrection is to be willing to participate in his suffering and
death. Νο wonder the discipies were scandali:red (ν. 60)! They are
portrayed as understanding full well what it rneans to "ingest" the flesh and
blood of Jesus: the willingness to go to the cross. This Buttmann has
recognized clearly, as he inc ludes νν. 60-71 in the .section entitted "The
Way of the Cross" (pp. 443-45 i}. He wrongly, however, places it after John
Community lPhi1ade1phia: We�minster Press, 1988], pp. 64�86; and L. Schenke, Die
111underbare Brotvermehrung {Wϋrzburg, 19831). Such a νiew, how.ever, has several problems
to it whicl1 make it unacceptable:
a.) It is anachronistic. While Jol1annine Christianity ιηust have had some sort of
tellowship meal (within which the feeding narrative and Bread of Life discourses were
probably recounted), this is not to say that it had become a symbolic ritual meaί such as is
reflected in the tnιnsiti.oo between ! Cm. 10 mid Η, even by the time ofthe writing ofilob.n 6.
b.) The tGtal !:ack of sacramental ordinaπoes and institutionalization of sacramaits in
John suggests α criJical νίe111 ofrisίng institutίonalίι;m within tb!: late first-century church οο
the part of the evangelist. He may have to1erated some sacramental innovation, but he
believed the essence of faith was radically christocentric-an affωnt to the insίrumentality of
all religious practice-pre\iminarily heJpful though it might be to tl1e beHever. 11s origin is
.
human, not divine, and thus can never repdace an abiding respGnse of f.aith w the div. i ne
initiative. On this matter, Bultmann is correct.
c.) For the evangelist, the fina1 sac�ament ϊs the incarnatϊon, and tl1e sacramenit<t1 topos
where the human/divine enoounter happens most ful1y is the gathered rommul'!jty of faith.
This is the sacramental reality in which tme believers (m the time ofthe writing of John 6) are
called to particίpate, and toward the facili.tating of which eucharistic imagery is co-opted. But
in the face of escalating Roman hostility under Domitian in Asia Minor, such allegianc.es
undoubtedly inνolved embracing the cross. That was the difficu!t and scandalizing message
for the Johannine audkmc.e romemporary with the fmal pr.oduct\oo of Jobn 6.
ΤΗΕ SJTZ ΙΜ LEBEN 7
1 2 : 3 6 and fails to see it as the direct implication of John 6:5 l c-5 8. Viewed
from this perspective, the passage is powerfully unitive, having the
provocative sort of message th at would have challenged the contemporary
audience with absolute clarity.
While Bultrnann is also wron g to assuine that νν. 5 1 c-58 ret1ect the
influence of theophagίc Mystery Re\igions (also wron gly c\aimed to be
represented b y Ignatius' "medicine of immortality" motif), his a Husion to
the Ignatian situaHon indeed sheds 1ight οη the Johannine. Both Ignatius
and the Foorth Evangelist are chaHenged to keep theίr Cbris.tian
comιnunities together in the face of Roman persecutioo. Ιη doing so,
Ignatius raises the value of adhering to the singular bishop (and thus to
Christ), while the Fourth Evangel.ist raises the vaJue of adhering to the
community of faith (and thus to Christ). Neither, however, advocates
sacramental instrumentalism m; such, or pagan theophagic τeligi on . 1 2 Thus,
the main theological objection to tbe .chapter' s disunity fails to oonvince, as
well.
4. John 6 must be considered α basically unίtίνe composίtίon, and it was

probably added to α later editίon of the Gospel 's composίtion.
Of the theories of compositio n analyzed, the nιost attraetίve is that of Β.
Lindars.13 The most convincing justification of the need for reordering the
chapters into a 4, 6, 5, 7 sequence is not the ωnnection ofwater (ch. 4) to
bread (ch. 6-the iiνing bread!Hνing water sequence between 6:27-58 .and
7:37-39 works perfectly weH), but the fact that the Jerusalem debate witb
1 2 The emphasis oflgnatius' φάρμακον ά.θαvασίας (Eph. 20:2) is not upoo the salvific
onty one toaf
effect of ingesting the eucharistic 1oaf, but upon the salutary result of breaking
(instead of brcaking off' .and hoJd1ng sectarian eu!ric meals). Tl1e final goa1 Όf each is
communal unity-tbe iooi:spensability of solidarity with Christ and 11is community in tl1e face
of suffering-n.ot the indiφensabiJi.ty of a eucharistic riiual, proper. The failure to notice this
tl1eological and ecclesio1ogical distincιion has been an unnecessary source of division and
pain within the churcl1 and beyond.
13 See Aι,dersoo, Christology, Ch 2 'Ά Surνey of Reeent Commentaries.� Β. 1λndars'
. ,
commentary, The Gθspe{ <Jj John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), pp. 46-54, ·is most
attractive because it �esses mOS1 of tbe 'gCDUiooly p.rσ:l>leιnatic aporias in JoJιn within a
fairly straigbJ:foιward and believable history of text eomposition. Rirther than resorting to
speculative displ"acement/reaπangement moves, Lindars addresses many of the same
problems with a thοοηι of multip1e (at ieast two� editiωτs. Qui!te crediMy, Lifldars sclects sueh
units as John i :1-18; ch.6 (Lazarus materimΊ 1i:1-4<3; !2:9-i i); chs.15-17 and eh.2l, as well
as a few comments by the redactor (tne eye-witness and Beklved DiscipJe motifs, for inst:anoe)
and suggests that tbese comprise "supp1ementary materiaΓ that has been added (not
necessarily aH at orιce) tΌ an earlier rerιdition of the Gcιspel.. The inteφretive impHcatioo for
the present .smdy is that !be � s.iι:uation addre.ssed by the ewangelist :at the time .of fiaa11y
composing mh11 6 ιmιy hawe bee·lil ooi:nmenswcate with the .situation τepresenteά by the
rhetorical coocems implied by tbe other suρplementary materiaJ. The debate with tbe
Synagogue has probabΊy cooJed, and the community is now facing a docetizing threat in the
face of Roman harassment and persecutioη, as weil as tbe intramural tbreat σf risiηg
institutio!liliism within the mainstream church. Tbese wiH be exρlored later..
8 PAUL Ν. ANDERSON
the Jews over the Sabbath ίη 5:16-47 appears to continue ίη 7:15-52 and
seems inteπupted by the Galilean naπative. lf the original sequence was
something like chs. 4, 5 and 7, there would have been ηο geographical flip
flop (between Jerusalem and Galilee), and John 6 may be understood as
having been inserted where it is as a means of following the ending of ch. 5,
"If you would have believed Moses you would have believed me; for
Moses wrote ofme."14 The implication is that given the stylistic, contextual
and theological unity of John 6, it may rightly be considered a basic unity
which was added to an earlier edition ofthe Gospel.
5. John 6 represents α tradίtίon parallel to, and yet ίndependentfrom, Mark

6 and8.
While C . Κ. Barrett and Τ. Brodieιs (among others) believe that John drew
at least from Mark, and perhaps from other gospel traditions, the majority
of scholars have been more and more impressed with the radical
independence of John's tradition. Stemming from the 1938 contribution of
Ρ. Gardner-Smith (Saίnt John and the Synoptίc Gospels; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press), a majority of scholars have been been coming
to what D. Moody Smith feels is an impressive agreement regarding John 's
14 This is certainly Lindars' view (1972, pp. 234ff.), and Professor Borgen has illuminated
the connectedness between John 5 and 6 all the more clearly by showing the ways sucl1
tl1emes as Jesus' works, the Father and the Scriptures bear witness to Jesιιs in John 6 (SNTS
paper, 1 992, "T11e Works, tl1e Fatl1er, and the Scriptures Bear Witness; The111es frοιη Jol1n
5 :36-40 being illιιstrated in John 6"). One is not certain, however, that the clear connections
between John 5 :36-40 and John 6 imply that any of John 6 was composed as a conscioιιs
development of those theιηes. They certainly are found in 1ηucl1 of John's otl1er ιηaterial as
well. The least one must admit is that John 6 follows John 5 extremely well, and if it were
added later, either as an excursus related to John 5 :46f. or as a narratological following of the
second healing miracle (6:2), coιηplex rearrangement theories become unwarranted, as well as
unlikely.
15 Professor Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd edition (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1 978), pp. 42-54, acknowledges that he represents an older position among
Gospel critics, agreeing, for instance with Β. Η. Streeter that the similarities between John and
Mark make it easier to suppose John's familiarity with Mark t11a11 11011-faιηiliarity (p. 42). 111
doi11g so, Barrett outli11es te11 sequential similarities of events betwee11 John a11d Mark (p. 43),
at least twelve verbal similarities (pp. 44f.), a11d several other similarities of detail and
theological perspective (pp. 45-54).
Τ. Brodie's new book, The Quest for the Origin of John 's Gospel (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1993), unhesitatingly explores con11ections betwee11 Joh11 and the Synoptics
(especially Mark), the Pentateucl1, and Ephesians, assuming that nearly all similarities iιηply
Johannine dependence on other sources. lndeed, tl1e Fourtl1 Evangelist probably was an
encyclopedic type of a writer (pp. 30ff.), but some connections Brodie over-accentuates, and
he fails to account for the possibility that some of the intluence may have tlowed the other
way as well. Given the higl1 degree of orality versus scripturality of first-century Christian
traditions, one wonders whether any of John 's sources were used as written ones and read by
tl1e evangelist before his writing, other than some scripture citations, of course.
ΤΗΕ SΙΤΖ ΙΜ LEBEN 9
being parallel to--yet independent from-the Synoptics.16 Even Bu\tmann,

for ίnstance, was forced to infer a Passion source underlying John 1 8-20
(whi\e at the same time admitting that it did not differ from the contribution
of the evangelist stylistίcally, contextually or theologically, pp. 632ff.)
simply because John's Passion naπative was so strikingly independent from
those of the Synoptics. The independence of John 6 from Mark 6 and 8 is
even more compelling.
One of the astounding things discovered when analyzing the paralle\s
between John 6 and Mark 6 and 8 is that we really do have three
independent accounts (although in Mark 6 and 8 the interpreted significance
of the feeding is similar-Jesus has power over nature to perform miracles
if he chooses) representing individuated traditions with their own
independent histories. Whereas Ρ. Gardner-Smith discussed four maj or
differences between John 6 and Mark 6, one can actually identify at least 24
sίmilarίtίes and differences between John 6 and Mark 6, and 21 sίmίlaritίes
and differences between John 6 and Mark 8 . 17 Despite having some
connectedness to Marcan detail, there is never a time among forty-five
similarities that John aligns with the Marcan tradition verbatim for more
than a word or two at a time, and every single convergence is also
significantly different! The implications of this fact are hard to overstate.
While some connection must have existed between Marcan and Johannine
16 ! η his book, John Among the Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1 992), D. Moody Smith
identifies an impressive movement from tl1e view that John was dependent upon the
Synoptics (esp. Mark) earlier ίη the century, and that following the work of Ρ. Gardner
Smith the independence of John rose to the fore as the prominent view. However, within the
last decade or two, tl1e tendency has shifted once more toward a Synoptic-dependent view of
John, and this movement l1as undoιιbtedly been inflιιenced significantly by the 1 990 Leuven
Colloquium οη the study of John and the Synoptics (the essays have been compiled ίη John
and the Synoptίcs, ed. by Α. Denaιιx [Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1 992]). Building 011
the earlier work of F. Neirynck, Μ. Sabbe, and otl1ers, one detects a clear resurgence of the
view that John either used the Synoptic tradition or at least had some contact with it. After
considering the thirty-eight articles in that volume, however, one remains unconvinced that
Jol1n had access to and/or ιιsed any of the written Synoptic Gospels. T11ere are no identical
contacts between John and the Synoptics, and none that are explained better οη the basis of
written dependence than οη the basis of contact during the oral stages ofthe traditions. ! η tl1at
sense, Gardner-Smith's hypothesis should be modified somewhat by accentuating tl1e contacts
between an independent Johannine tradition and the oral stages of the Synoptic ones, but it
does not appear to be overturned.
17 See Anderson, Chrίstology, Tables 7 and 8. What is significant is that while these lists
account for nearly all the connections between John 6 and the Marcan tradition (to which
Jol111 is indeed closest in terms of inclusion and detail), in Ο out of 45 cases is John's tradition
ever identical to Mark's. This is highly signiJ1cant, not only as it relates to John's
composition, but as it relates to the historical development and character of gospel traditions,
themselves. Could it be that there was never a tin1e ίη whicl1 t11ere was one, singular rendition
of Jesus' ministry, but that from the early traditional stages there may have been differing
views of the signi11cance and implications of Jesus' ambigι1oιιs words and deeds? T11is is
especially sιιggested by a detailed co1ηpariso11/contrast between tl1e sea-crossing narratives in
John and Mark (see Anderson, Chrίstology, Cl1.8, "Not an Attesting Miracle . . . Βι1t a
'Testing' Sign: Αη Exegesis of Jol1n 6: 1 -24").
10 PAUL Ν. ANDERSON
traditions, these must have occuπed during the oral stages of their
development, as such details as the plentiful grass, two hundred denarii,
twenty-five or thirty furlongs, δύο bψάpια, etc. would likely h.ave been the
sort of detail remembered from an oral rendering. ft is also highly
sίgnificant that when one considers Matthew's and Luke's redactions of
Mark 6 and &, the kind of detail they leave out is precise1y the sort of detail
most prolific in Mark and John. Non-symbolic, graphίc and illustratίve
detail (Luke and Matthew often omit names of people and Hlustrative
detail) and theologίca/ asίdes are precίsefy the sort of things Luke and
Matthew omit from their written source, Mark. John, οη the other hand, has
even more of this sort of materia) than Mark does (the littre boy, the testing
rnotif, etc.), and it is indeed odd that Bu!tmann, Fortna and others believe
the Fourth Evangelist has added this detail in order to "historicize" the
narrative when the two closest examples in terms of genre (Matthew and
Luke-if one believes that John used a narratίve source ιίke Mark and a
discourse source like Q) demonstrate the opposίte pattern of redacting a
written source. Νο. Mark's and John's distinctiνe characteristics reflect
their proximity to the oral stages of the gospel traditions, not the written,
and their similarities/differences with each other reflect a:n "interfluential"
reίationship quite possibly occuπing during the oraί stages of both
traditions.1 a
The resuίt of the aboνe findings is that Jobn 6 shouid indeed be treated
as a bas;ic unity, added to the Gospel some time durίng the late &Ο' s or early
90's, although its oral and written stages of composition must have
extended oνer a generat.ion or more. John's tradition is ίndependent from
13 lt carmσt be claimed, for instanee, that Jolm only drew from the Marcan or pre-Marcan
σmΙ tradίtion. The cooverse rnay just as easHy !Jave hιψpened, and it is impQss.ibk to know
which preaεher(s) influenced the otheψ). Ce:rtainly Luke shows sig11S of fotlowing John's
lead in departing from Mark and Q (in at least two oozen instances this happe11S), as does Q
(infrequently, but clearly-John 3:35 ίη Matt.I 1:27 and Lukel0:22, for exampfe). Consider,
for mstance, that facts that lfke John artd contira Mark, Luke has (}Πly one feeding and sea
crossing, the coofession of Peter follows the feeding of t!Je 5,ααJ and irιcludes ilie Johannine
.
tou theoo, the righi ear of the servant is severed, the less !ikely jeet of J�sl!S are :mointed by
the woman-not his head (as ίη Mark and Matthew), peop1e with th e 11ames of Lazarus, Mary
and Martha play significant rofes ϊη both gospe!s, and such themes as the Hofy Spirit and
specia! concen1s for Samaritans and. woιnen appear conspiεuoos:ly close ίn Luke and John
against Mark :md Matthew (see An.dersoo, Christaragy, Appenmx VlH, "The Papias
Tradition, lohn's Aut00rship :md Luke/Aεts" for further detail). Sεlmlars haνe; routinely
explained such simi!arities on ilie basis that John drew from Luke α a pre-Lucan tradition.
This, however, does not accornτt for the facts that precisety where Luke dίνerges from Mark,
IJe converges with rohn, and w!Jere Luke arιd rolm cooνerg e John does not go on and include
otherwi:se distiΙJCtive Lucan mateιia1 by :md [arge. There is οο suitahle way to explain these
faεts except to inquiιe whetheτ Luke may haνe at times prefeπed John's tradition to the
Mwεan Has Luke l :2 got anything to do with the Johannine tradition in it5 oral stages? lf so,
..
it would create tumultuous questίons regarding one of the "safest" of critical assumptions:
ιhat tlre Foortb Gospel reflects a !ate<-and only lat.e-interpretation of t\1e signitίcance of
Jesus' ministιy.
ΤΗΕ S!TZ !Μ LEBEN
the Synoptics in tlιeir written forms but prσbably had contact with the pre
Marcan oral tradition. Luke seems sympathetic to the Johannine rendition
of events, nearty at ways against Mark, and this fact is provocative. John's
later material shQWS affinit ies with the Μ tradition in that they both address
similar issues: tensio ns with local Jewish CQmmunities and conce rns about
church governance, for instance, but they deal with them in very different
ways. At tiιnes JΌhn even seems interested in coπecting the prevalent view
οη matters ecc!esiologica1, sacramental and basileiological. These dialogues
will be explo red Jater, but for now, the above findings serve as a foundation
upon which to construct an effectiνe form a na lysis of the Johannine Bread
-
of Life Discourse.
Β. ΜΑΝΝΑ AS Α "RHETORICAL TRUMP'' ΙΝ ANCIENT JUOAISM ΑΝΟ JOHN
One agrees with Professor Painter19 that Professor Borgen's monograph οη

the "Bread from Heaven" motif ίη ancient Jewish literature (1965) is the
most signific.ant work οη John 6 so far. Major problems with the work,
however, are that not oniy has it faited to identify the correct homiletical
structure of John 6, it has also failed to notice that there are actually tW<J
"homiletical patterns" when the manna theme is employed in ancient Jewish
literature. At least eight times ίη anci ent Jewish titerature we have record of
manna being used as the Proem text, b ut this is the minority of the cases,
and they nearly all occur to gether in Exodus Rabbah 25: 1-&, where Exodus
16:4 is developed midrashically in eight brief essays. !η these midrashim
alone (and possibiy Tractate Vayassa ΠΙ-ΙV and a few other midrashim) do
we find the manna motif interpreted from the front and developed
exegetically. In virtually a\l the other references to manna ίη ancient Jewish
literature, manna serves as a .secondary text-a rhetorical trump card
played after declaring one's thesis and identifying desirable and undesirable
responses to it.20
19 See Painter's response to Borgen's critique (1 992) ot' 11is work, "Quest, Rejection and
Commendation ίη John 6: Α Response to Peder Borgen" (SNTS Johan11i11e writings Seminar,
Madrid, 1 992).
20 This ίs the case ίη Philo, Leg. all. 111 1 62; Fug. 1 37; Mut. 259; Congr. 1 58-1 74; Mos. Ι
1 96-205; Mos. 11258-274; ίη Midrash Rabbah, Genesis XLVIII: I O; Ll:2; LXVI:3; Exodus
V:9; XXIV:3; ΧΧΧΙΙΙ:8; XXXVIII:4; XLI:l; Deuteronomy Χ:4; and Exodus Mekilta, Tractate
Beshalla 1:20 1 . The rhetorical use ot' manna is also tound pervasively throughout the
canonical corpus in such passages as Nun1bers 1 1 :6-9; 2 1 : 5 ; Deuteronomy 8:3, 16; Josl1ιia
5 : 1 2; Psalm 78:23-25; 1 05 :40; 1 Corintl1ia11s 1 0:3; Revelation 2: 1 7; and John 6:3 1 (see
Anderson, Christology, Ch.3, η. 1 0).
l. The rhetorίcal use ofmanna pattern ίn Phίlo and John
While Borgen believes he has identified a "homiletical pattern" at work in

Philo and John,21 he sidesteps the fact that none of these passages (except
Exodus Rabbah, etc.) begίns with Exodus 1 6:4 as the Proem text to be
exegeted. Ιη each case other texts are being interpreted, or other points are
being made, and the manna motif is brought in to bolster another argument
or interpretation. This makes it highly doubtful that John 6:32ff. was ever
cast ίη the form of an exegetical exploration ίη the classical text-centered
manner.22 The form of typical manna rhetoric in ancient Jewish midrashim,
Philo, Psalm 78 and in John is as follows:2J
Table #1, "The Rhetorical Use of Manna Pattern in Ancient Jewish

Literature"
Α.) Μαίn poίnt or text. Α point of argument, exhortation or text to be

developed is stated by an author, who calls for a particular action οη
behalf of his or her audience.
21 While he categorizes various references to the ΠΊanna ΠΊοtίf as "exegetical paraphrase,"

the hoΠΊiletical pattern identified by Borgen in Philo (Mut.253-63 ; Leg. a/l. ΠΙ 1 62-68) and in
John 6, "consists of the following points: ( 1 ) The Old TestaΠΊent quotation. (2) T11e
interpretation. (3) The objection to the interpretation. (4) Point (2), the interpretation, freely
repeated and questioned. (5) The answer which can conclude with a reference to point (2), the
interpretation. " (Breadfrom Heaven, p. 85).
See, however, Τ. Μ. Conley, Philo 's Rhetoric: Studies in Style, Composition and
Exegesis (Berkeley: Center for HerΠΊeneutical Studies, 1 987), pp. 56-67, for an unconvinced
appraisal, and D. Τ. Runia's "Secondary Texts ίη Philo's Quaestiones," in Both Literal and
A llegorical; Studies in Philo ofAlexandria's Questions and Ans1vers on Genesis and Exodus,
ed. D. Μ. Hay (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1 99 1 ), pp. 47-80. Runia's tliree observations are that
!) Philo characteristically invokes lemmata (secondary texts) to illuΠΊinate a priΠΊary lenιma
text, and vice-versa; 2) Philo often ΠΊονes frοΠΊ one to the other siΠΊply οη verbal cues versus
theΠΊatic interests; and 3) Philo's exegetical explorations develop a "1ηain directive idea"
rather than a "tight-knit structural coherence" (p. 48). While Borgen ίs fully aware that Philo
never exegetes Εχ. 1 6:4 as a ΡrοeΠΊ or lemma text directly, ΠΊΥ contention is that ΠΊanna ίη
Philo appears to always de1ηonstrate the veracity of another point or interpretation.
22 Β. Malina, The Palestinian Manna Tradition (Leiden: Ε. J. Brill, 1 968), correctly
identifies the rl1etorical evolution of the ΠΊanna ΠΊΟ!ίf ίη ancient lsrael, "This developΠΊent
beco1ηes frοΠΊ the prosaic aetiological account of the ηaΠΊe 'ΠΊanna,' an account amplified ίη
Num. 1 1 :6, 7-9, and then used as a springboard for homiletic ends. ln this process the manna
takes οη admirable traits, ending up as heavenly food, tl1e food of angels, rained down by God
upon lsrael to test and teacl1 the desert generation. " (p. 4 1 ) Nonetheless, he errs ίη viewing
John 6:3 1 ff. (with Borgen) as being a "Christian ΠΊidrash οη the manna tradition, a meditation
οη this tradition ίη the light of Jesus." (p. 1 06) Rather, the section is ΠΊοre accurately α
rejlection upon the significance of Jesus' works and 1vords-in the light of tl1e manna
tradition-which it supersedes (see Anderson, Christo/ogy, Ch. 3, η. 1 0). These are two very
different understandings.
23 Α modification of Anderson, Christology, Table 1, "The Rl1etorical Use of Manna
Pattern ίη Ancient Jewish Literature." For a clear identification of this pattern ίη Philo, see
Anderson, Christology, Appendix VII, "Philo's Use ofManna as a Secondary Text."
Β.) Development of main point using dualistίc either/or categories. This

point (meaning ofthe text) is discussed, usually posing two options: one
favorable and the other unfavorable.
C.) Jntroduction of manna as α rhetorical trump (secondary proof-text).

The manna motif is introduced and associated with the main point being
made by the writer, "proving" its superiority (heavenly origin).
D.) Continued development and implicatίons. The discussion continues,

and alternative responses to the author's exhortation are associated with
earthly bread (or the "flesh"-sarx-of quail), in contrast to heavenly
"bread," which is clearly superior in terms of origin and effect. The
secondary text is at times introduced here (D), or in the discussion (at
Β), as well as at the more common secondary-text location (C).
Ε.) Reiteration of main point. The original appeal (Α) or text is

reiterated, often with some reference to the life-producing effect of
manna and/or the death-producing effect of earthly (inferior) bread.
One finds this rhetorical use of manna as the secondary text used
throughout the midrashic passages cited by Borgen, and even ίη the
Philonic texts upon which he constructs his "homiletical pattern" and which
he believes are the closest in form to John 6. Another debatable move made
by B orgen is to identify John 6:3 1 as a citation of Exodus 1 6 :4 rather than
Psalm 78:24f. The former passage suits his text-exegesis theory of
Johannine m idrash better (Psalm 78 is not developed midrashically in
ancient Jewish l iterature, while Exodus 1 6 is.), but the language and
rhetorical function of John 6:3 1 are closer to the latter passage than the
former, despite the formal differences between a narrative and exhortative
psalm and the literary form of John 6.24
24 Certainly, άρτον ί::κ του ούρανου έδωκεv αύτο'iς φαγϊiv (John 6:3 1 b) is closer
to και έ βρεξεv αύτοίς μαvvα φαγείν, κα\. άρτον ούραvου έδωκεv αύτοίς
(Ps.78:24, LXX Β) than it is tο 'ιδου ί::γώ \Jω ύμίv άρτους ί:: κ του ούραvου (Εχ. 1 6:4
LXX Β), even with ούτος b άρτος, ον έδωκεν κύριος ύμ'iν φαγε'iν (Εχ. 1 6 : 1 5 LXX Β)
considered alongside it (see Ε. D. Freed, O/d Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John
[Leiden: Ε. J. Brill, 1 965], pp. 1 1 - 1 6). More significant than tl1e semantic similarities,
however, is the rhetorical affinity between John 6:27-58 and Psalm 78. Like Psalm 78:24f.,
the use of manna in John 6 is elevated ("bread from heaven") and used rhetorically to further
another argument.
2. The rhetorίcal use ofmanrιa pattern ίn Psalm 78.

Consider, for instance, the fonηaI structure of the rhetorίcal use of manna
pattern in Psalm 78:25
Table #2, "The Rhetorical Use ofManna Pattern in Psalm 78"
Α.) Μαίn poίnt of exhortatίon: Put your trust in God, oh my people,

and do not be Iike your forefathers (or members of the Northern
Kingdom)-a stubborn and rebellious generation. (vv. Ι , 7f.)
Β.) Development ο/poίnt usίng e ίtherlor categorίes: God did 1ηany

miracles inviting their trust (vv. Ι 1- Ι 6), but the sons of Ephraim
continued to sin, putting God to the test,. demanding the food they
craved. (vv. 9f., 1 7 20) Therefore, God's wrath broke out and he sent
-
fire, but they still did not trust. (v. 2 l f.)
C.) lntroductίon of manna as α rhetorίcal trump: God even opened

the doors of heaven and rained down manna for people to eat, and he
gave them the "grain of heaven." Mortals ate the "bread of angels"-as
much as they desired. He also rained down flesh (flying birds as thick
as sand οη the shore), satisfying al1 their cravings, but despite all this,
they went οη sinning. Even as the flesh was between their teeth God's
anger rose up against them, putting to death even the strongest of them,
and yet they stil1 put God to the test. (vv. 23-4 1 )
D.) Contίnued development and ίmplίcatίons: God did miraculous

signs in Egypt (vv. 42-5 1 ) and delivered them from the oppressor (vv.
52-55), but they still put God to the test. (v. 56) Therefore, God was
angered. He consumed their young men with fire, put their priests to
death by the sword, and rejected the tribe of Ephraim, choosing Judah
instead.
Ε.) Reίteratίon ο/ main poίnt (Α) : Therefore, God chose David his
servant (and his monarchy) to be a shepherd to his people and to Iead
them with skillful hands. Implied exhortation (and threat?): be thankful
for God's provision though the Davidic monarchy (pay your taxes,
perform your civic duties cheerfuJly, live righteously, etc.) and do not
be ungrateful as were your "grumbling" forefathers in the wilderness,
who craved something more. You saw what happened to the Northern
Kingdom . . . wil1 you be next? (vv. 68-72)
25 This table is adapted from Anderson, Chrίstology, Table 16, same title.
This is precisely the s<1me rhetorical use of manna pattern used in John
6, but Borgen's thesis must be amended in o.ne more way. The proponent of
the manna motif is portrayed as beίng neitlιer Jesus nor the narrator, but the
unbelίevίng crowd. It ίs they who seek to tempt Jesus into producing more
loaves, usίηg Palestinian manna rhetoric to bolster their appeal! Ιη that
sense, the functίon of the Psalm 78:24f. quotation is far less like the
exposίtory midrashίc form of such passages: as Exodus Rabbah 25: 1 -8, and
far more like Satan' s use of scriptu:re as a proof-text ίη the Matthean
temptation naπative. (Matt. 4: 1 - 1 1 ) Here the Matthean rendition is closer
than the Lucan (Luke 4: 1 - 1 2) to the Palestinian proof-text rhetoric of the
Johannine crowd. Α.) The request for bread is uttered (Matt. 4:3). Β.) Jesus
refuses, citing scripture (Deut.. 8 :3-the Deuteronomic appli.cation of the
manna motif to the superiority of the Torah) to focus upon the core hunger
(need) of humanity, which is spiritual rather than physical (Matt. 4 :4). C.)
Satan tempts Jesus further, citing scripture (Ps. 9 1 : 1 1 f.) and promising that
he will be rescued supernaturally (Matt. 4:5f.). D.) Jesus cites scripture back
(Deut. 6: 1 6), warning him not to put the Lord God to the test (Matt. 4 :7).
Ε.) Satan gets to the overall point and promises Jesus wealth and power if
he will bow down and worship him (Matt. 4 : 8). Jesus refuses and passes the
time of testing successfully, fully prepared now to begin his ministry. This
stylized dialogue is entirely parallel in function to the crowd's request and
dialogue with Jesus in John 6. Here we see clearly the crowd 's use of
manna as a "rhetorical trump."
3. The crowd 's use of n1anna as α "rhetorίcal trump " ίn John 6.

While the Q temptation naπative couches the purification of Jesus' ιnission
as his being tested (and becoming prepared?) before his public ministry
begins, John uses the crowd's "tempting" of Jesus ironically. It is actually
they (as well as the Jews and the disciples) who are tested, and
unfortunately they fail the test. The evangelist's employιnent of Palestinian
manna rhetoric here is entirely in order, either as a narratological tool or as
a stylized transmission of an actual debate that may have occuπed during
the ministry of Jesus.26 The form of the crowd's request is as follows:
Table #3, "The Use ofManna as a ' Rhetorical Trump' by the Crowd ίη
John 6"
Α.) Μαίn point of the crowd 's request: 'Ήοw long have you been
here?" (John 6:25; actually inquiring, 'Άηd just how long will ίt be
26 Ιη Mark 8 : 1 1 - 1 3 and Matthew 1 6: 1 -4 Jewish leaders request another sign trom l1eaven
after the feeding, and this is followed by the disciples' debate over loaves given the dearth of
bread in tl1e boat, leading to Jesus' interpretation otΊhe feeding (Mark 8 : 1 4-2 1 ; Matt. 1 6:5-
1 2). Οη the basis multiple attestation, tl1e likelil1ood of an actual discussion seeιηs plausible.
Tabie #3 here is adapted from Anderson, Chrίstology, Table 1 7, same title.
16 PAUL Ν . ANDERSON
until we receive another feeding?). The ironic character of this odd

question is implied by their failure to understand Jesus' mission (ν. 1 4),
disclosed by Jesus' knowing response (ν. 26), and declared by the
evangelist ironically (νν. 32ff.) and explicitly by means of Jesus'
assessment of their views (ν. 36).
Β.) Development of poίnt usίng eίther/or categorίes: (Ιη response to

Jesus' exhortation to work not for death-producing bread, but the life
producing food which the Son of Man shall give, ν. 27) The crowd
asks, "What must we do to do (work?) the works of God (and thus
receive the life-producing as opposed to death-producing food, v. 2 8)?"
The negotiating implication here is: "We are willing to do our part."
C.) lntroductίon ofmanna as α rhetorίcal trump (and repetition ofmain

point, Α): "Then what sign will you show us that we ιηay see and
believe you? . . Ourfathers ate manna in the desert." (ν. 3 0f.) Clearly
.
the gauntlet is thrown down. They are willing to do their part . . . is

Jesus willing to do his? If he is really sent by God (v. 29-like Moses
in Deut. 1 8: 1 5-22), can he match the manna-producing wonders of oJd?
D.) Contίnued development and ίts ίmplίcatίons: The crowd then

marshalls scriptural support for their manna-rhetoric, 'Άs it is written,
Ήe gave them breadfrom heaven to eat. "' (ν. 3 1) By now, the request
has become a threat-'Ίf you are indeed sent by God (as the prophet
like Moses, who says and does nothing on his own behalf and only
what the Father instructs him), let's see some heavenly provision of
food." Two implίcations follow: 1 .) 'Ίf you are as great as Moses, feed
us in the wilderness once more." 2.) "If so, we will believe in you; if
you can't, why should we?"
Ε.) Reίteratίon of maίn poίnt: "Therefore, they said to him (regarding

the bread which comes down from heaven, D), 'Lord, give us this
bread all the time."' (ν. 34) The fact that this is portrayed as an ironic
misunderstanding is declared by Jesus in ν. 36. The crowd is still after
their main interest: another feeding (main point Α, above).
This pattern is identical to the most typical use of manna in ancient

Jewish literature, which is to use manna as a secondary text-a "rhetorical
trump," and it illustrates the extended use of irony throughout John 6,
further implying its unity. Against Borgen's view that John 6:3 1 represents
the Proem text of the homiletical pattern he describes, one actually finds
quite a different pattern. Rather than coπecting the sincere exegesis of the
crowd in vv. 32ff., the evangelist portrays Jesus as opposing their distortion
of the scriptures by using them as a proof-text and failing to comprehend
the overall truth to which they point. Ι η their wielding o f scriptural

knowledge (John 5 :39; 6:3 1 ), using it for their own ends (John 5 :44 and
6 :27), they neither are indwelt by the Father's "word" (John 5 : 3 8 and 6:45),
nor are they willing to "come to" Jesus in order to receive life (John 5:40
and 6:44). Therefore, rather than vv. 3 1 -58 being a unitive Christian
midrashic development of Exodus 1 6:4 in the light of Jesus' ministry, the
"Proem text" to be developed "midrashically" is the works and words of
Jesus (vv. 1 -25); and unenlightened manna rhetoric must first be overturned
in the testing of the crowd, the Jews, the disciples and Peter. Thus, the
manna motifplays a secondary role to the overall theme of testing, which is
the pervasive and unifying motif of John 6.
c. REVELATION AND RHETORIC Ι Ν JOHN: τwο DIALOGICAL M ODES

OF ΤΗΕ JOHANNINE NARRATIVE
John' s narrative has two basic dialogical modes: revelation and rhetoric.
The former engages the reader in the divine-human dialogue, calling for a
believing response to God's saving initiative in Christ Jesus. The signs
naπatives, the witness motif, Jesus' 'Ί Am" sayings (and most of the other
discourses and naπative) drive home this basic message: God's saving
initiative in Jesus invites a believing, human response. Even the purpose of
the Fourth Gospel itself is articulated in such terms (John 20:30f.). As S.
Schneiders says:
The central concern of the Fourth Gospel is the saving revelation which
takes place in Jesus. This revelation, however, must be understood as a
dialogical process of Jesus' self-manifestation as the one being
continuously sent by the Father (7: 1 6- 1 8) who is thereby encountered in
Jesus ( 1 0:30; 1 4:9- 1 1 ) and the response of belief οη the part of the
disciple ( 1 7: 8).21
The Johannine narrative also serves a rhetorical function, and nowhere

ίs this rhetorical mode as extended and effective as in the Johannine
m isunderstanding dialogue. The purpose of this narrative form is to engage
the reader in an imaginary dialogue with Jesus, whereby false and shallow
notions of faith are identified and corrected by Jesus, thus exposing error
and realigning the belief of the reader in more adequate directions.
According to the Russian form-critic, Mikhail Bakhtin, misunderstanding in
the novel-or any narrative-a/ways serves a rhetorical function:
27 S. Μ. Schneiders, "Women ίη the Fourth Gospel and the Role of Women in tl1e
Contemporary Church," Biblical Theological Bulletin 1 2 ( 1982), 39.
The device Qf'Not understanding'-deiibemte οο. the part of th e author,

simpleminded and naive on the part of the protagon ist-always takes on
great organizing potential when an exposure of vulgar conventionality is
involved. Conventions thus exposed-in everyday life, mores, politics,
art and so on-are usuaHy portrayed from the point of view of a man
who neitber participates in nor understands them . 211
1 . The reveiational scenario/discourse as declaratίon of the dίvίne ίnίtίαtίνe

The overall structure o f the Johannine narrative moves along in a forward
moving spiraί, com.bi ning cyc!ica1-reperitive themes w.ith linear progressi ve-
developments. This forward-moving spira! is dialectical on several ievels.

Most superficially, we see dramatized dialogues betweerι Jesus and his
discussants. Then, we read of opposing themes and moti'fS, placed in
juxtaposing tension within the text-obviously a sign of a dialectical (rather
than a dogmatic) thinker, seeking to engage his reader in a literary di al ogue .
Next, we 1nay infer something of the dialectical s ituation in which the

evangelist was writing; but fmally and most ρrofo und ly, we see in John,
articulated more clearly than in any canonical composition, a thorough
going d evelo pme nt of the human-divine dialectic wherein humanity is
called to an existential, believing response tu God's e schatologica l saving ,
initiative in Christ Jesus. Most scenarios and teaching s depict some aspect
of God 's saνing initiative, accomρanied by an iHustration of, o r an
invitation to, believing responsiveness to the divine initiative. This
comprises the revelational structure of p!ot progression in John. God or
God's agent initiates the potentially-saving dialogue with humanity, and the
adequacy of human response produces a result in terms of Jight and life or
darkness and death. This cycle of divine ίnitiative and human response may
be portrayed graphically as follows:29
28 Μ. Bakhtin, "Forms of Time and Chronotope ίη the Noνel" in The Dialogic

fnιagίnation, edited by Μ. Holquist (Austin, Texas, 1 98 1 ), p. 1 64. Johannine use of'
misunderstanding, of course, is closer to Bakhtin's analysis of the classical Greek biograpl1y
than the modern noνel. See also my paper presented ίη the New Testament and Rhetoric
Section ofthe National SBL Meetings in Chicago, 1 994, "Mikhail Bakhtin and the Correctiνe
Rhetoric ofthe Johannine Misu11dersta11di11g Dialogιιe."
29 Not only does the Joha1111ine revelation scenario/discourse describe the sequence of
divine initiative-human response (νν. 6, 27, 29, 32f., 35, 37-40, 44-5 1 , 53-58, 63-65), but
the narrative also models such α sequence where the human-divine dialectic is the main
emphasis of the evangelist (νν. 5, 1 0- 1 3, 1 9-2 1 , 67). For a schematic outline ot' how the
revelational pattern is j uxtaposed with the rhetorical pattern ίη John 6, see Anderson,
Christology, Table 9: "Divine lnitiative Versus Human I nitiative ίη tl1e Narration of John 6."
Table #4, "Divine Initiative and the Revelational Scenario/Discourse in

John"
Revelational sequence of Result explained in life/death

narrative progression; ___...
producing/originating ways
God or God's agent

(Jesus, Moses, John the -......_
Baptist, Scriptures, etc.) \.
as source of Divine Initiative
�
t
Huιnan response to the
t
Saving/revealing action taken
divine initiative in terms of by God or God's agent (the
believing/not believing, coming Father sends the Son,
to/rejecting Jesus, perceiving Jesus' words/works reveal,
works as semeia rather than Moses wrote, the light shines
as nature wonders alone, etc. ίη the darkness, the Baptist and the
Father witness about Jesus, etc.).
\ Human actants and objects of
/
the divine initiative (disciples,
the crowd, "the world," "the
Jews," "his own," etc.)
This dialectical structure is identical within the narration of Jesus' signs

and discourses in John. Both further the kerygmatic interest of the
evangelist's understanding of Jesus' mission, and there is ηο evidence for
(or advantage to) assuming that narrative sign and interpretive discourse
were ever divorced within the Johannine tradition. They both bespeak the
human-divine dialectic and call for a believing response to the divine
initiative revealed eschatologically in Christ Jesus.
2. The rhetorίcalfunctίon ofthe Johannine mίsunderstanding dialogue

Οη the other hand, where the initiative passes to the discussant and others
take the initiative, they often betray a misunderstanding-or a kind of
shallow conventionality-and the function of this form will always be
corrective and rhetorίcal. Certainly, Professor Painter's outline of the
anatomy of the Johannine quest story is helpful here, especially as he
outlines the rhetorical function of the objections.3o As in the structure of the

revelational mode of naπative progression, the rhetorical is characterized
by its own distinctive pattern:
Table #5, "The Shift to Human Initiative and the Rhetorical Thrust of the
Johannine Misunderstanding Dialogue"31
God or God's agent ..._

/ .,..- (esp. Jesus) "'
";.
Jesus corrects (exposes) Jesus' discussants come to
the misunderstanding and him with a question, exclamation
illumines the discussant as or challenge reflecting their
to the authentic character of non-comprehension of a
spiritual reality. spiritual insight or reality.
� Human actants (the crowd, t
Rhetorίcal sequence of the Jews, the disciples-in /'
narrative progression:/ other settings, individuals)
--+
(preparation ofsetting) Result: Jesus (often) launches
into an elaborative revelation
discourse, emphasizing the
priority of the divine initiative
and one's believing response.
What we have ίη John 6 is a shifting back and forth between

revelational and rhetorical modes of naπative progression marked clearly
by the changes of initiative. Interestingly, when the sequence of initiative
changes, so does the rhetorical function in most cases.
30 John Painter's insight is especially helpful where he states, "These difficulties or

objections are important because it is by means of them that the story teller may wish to
cl1ange the audience's attitudes." ("Quest, Rejection and Commendation in John 6: Α
Response to Peder Borgen" 1 992 SNTS Johannine Literature Seminar, p. 1 ) . See also
Painter's The Quest for the Messίah: The Hίstory, Lίterature and Theology of the Johannίne
Communίty, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1 993), pp. 33-135, 252-86. Again, to bolster this
insight with Bakhtin's judgment, "Stupidity (incomprehension) in the novel is always
polemical: it interacts dialogically with an intelligence (a lofty pseudo intelligence) with
which it polemicizes and whose mask it tears away." (Μ. Bakhtin, "Discourse in the Novel"
in his The Dialogίcal Imaginatίon [Austin, Texas, 1 9 8 1 ], p. 403). While Bakhtin applies this
insight to the mimicking function of the misunderstanding protagonist ίη the modern novel, it
works even better where the protagonist's partners ίn dialogue fai\ to understand-a common
rhetorical feature of classical Greek biographical narrative.
31 Modified from Anderson, Chrίstology, Table 19: 'Ήuman Initiative and the Rhetorical
Misunderstanding Dialogue in John. " See also my 1 994 paper mentioned above in note 28.
Table #6, "Transitions Between Revelational and Rhetorical

Modes ίη John 6"
Revelatίonal Mode (dίνίne ίnίtίαtίνe)

�
.Jlf'
........,.,., (Result: Jesus '-.. / � (Result: boat
.,..
� God, through -..... flees their designs -... God, though �nds safely.) �
� his agent, Jesus ')ιι οη his future.) his agent, Jesus '-......
t � t �
They misun- ... meets the existential They respond ... appears to the
derstand and needs of the crowd by believingly and disciples theo-
seek to make means of a wondrous are willing to phanically (ego
him a king. feeding. take him into eimί Εχ.3 : 1 4).
� + the boat. ;/
""-. the crowd k" 8ι- -. the disciples Κ"'
( νν. 1 - 1 3/14f.) (change in primary ( νν. 1 6-20/21 )
objects of reve\ation)
Reversal ofSequence to Rhetorίcal Mode (human ίnίtίαtίνe)
Jesus responds, Jesus responds, Jesus responds,

' ' i ' + '
"Work not for ... comes "The work . . .requests 'Ίt was ..."tempts"
the food which in search of God is to clarification, not Moses Jesus to
perishes, but for of Jesus, believe in "What must who gave produce
the food which hoping the one he we do to but my more
Jasts for ever, for more has sent." do the works Father bread
which the Son bread. � of God?" gives." using
of Man shall t � Jewish
give." �1 \
manna
� t J ��
rhetoric
� !
s. 78:24f.)
J!
-.The crowd (and
-..... � The crowd
boats from Tiberias)
� The t:Wr
(νν. 22-25/26f.) (νν. 28/29) (νν. 30f./32f.)
Jcsus rcsponds, Jesus responds,

(first discoursc) (sccond discoursc)
�
'Ί am thc Brcad of . . . (still misundcr-
\ t
"Νο one can come "Is this not
'
Lifc. Hc who bc- standing, clarificd in to me unless the Mary and
licvcs ίη mc shall ν. 36) requests iro- Father draws him." Joseph's son
never go hungry. nically, "Sir (Lord), (Cites Isa.54 : 13) whom we
. . . And Ι shall raise give us this bread "The bread Ι shall know? How can
him up οη the last always!" give is my flesh." he now say Ί
day."
t • came from
/ heaven'?"
/ \
-+ ___., The crowd (change ίη -+ -+ The Jews grumble,
--'*
-... --+ discussants) ��
(νν. 34/35-40) (νν. 4 l f./43 -5 1 )
Jesus responds, ίιt" Jesus responds, �

,.c (third discourse) � (revisiting the main theme ίη ν. 27)
"Unless you eat the 'Ήοw can this "Does this offend you? . . . "This is surc
flesh of the Son of man give us The Spirit is life-producing, a hard word!
Man and drink his his flesh to the flesh profits nothing. .. . Who can go
blood you have ηο eat?" The words Ι have spoken along with ίt?"
life ίη you . . . . He to you arc spirit and life. . . .
t
�
who eats this bread Νο one can come to me un-
ι
w i l l live eternally." less enabled the Father."
� �
! �
The Jcws now fought
(setting: thc Syna-
gogue in Capernaum; \ J.
The disciplcs also
among themselvcs, saying, change of discussant) ....grumblcd
.._ and said,
....... --+
/" --+ ----+ ____,. ...... � �
(νν. 52/53-58) (v. 5 9) (ν. 60/6 1 -65)
Reversal ofSequence to Revelatίonal Mode (dίvine ίnίtίαtίνe)

-* _..
__...
/ Jesus once more
� t ___.,. scizes the initiative �
and asks thc twelve,
t t
t "Lord, to whom 'Ύοu don 't
wish to go
(Negative response shall we go? You
to Jcsus' hard say- (alonc) have the too, do you?"
ing: "From this time οη words of eternal ..
many of his disciples life." � j/"
slid back and walked � S imon Petcr responds,
with him ηο longer.") ( οη behalf of the twelve)
(ν . 66) (ν ν . 67/68)
Reversal ofSequence to Rhetorίcal Mode (human ίnίtiatίve-ίmplίed by

Jesus ' response)
J esus rej ects his

κ thaumaturgic ιηessiology,
• (Mark 1 :24; Luke 4 :34) """'
\t '
'Ήave Ι not chosen "We believe and
you, the twelve, and yet know that you are
one of you is a devil?" the Holy One of God ! "
)ι
J(
Redactor's clarification: 'Ήe
�
� Simon Peter contin �s, (must have) meant Judas, son
� ofSίmon . . wl10 was about to
.
betray him, also one of the

(νν. 69f./7 1 ) twelve." (similar gloss, 1 4 :22)
Casting the narrative of John 6 in this kind of schema illustrates the

theological and reader-response interests of the evangelίst.32 They are
interwoven into a cyclical-repetitive and a linear-progressive pattern of
dialectical narrative, which not only proclaims the divine initiative but
models it as well. And, it not only portrays Jesus' correcting his discussants
but functions t.1 engage the reader in a saving dialogue with Jesus by
assuming him or her into the role of the misunderstanding discussant. It is
this Iatter point that has been under-developed by reader-response
analysts.33 As interesting as many of these studies are, they become most
32 J. D. Crossan, "It Is Written: Structuralist Analysis of John 6" in Semeia 26 ( 1 983), 3-

2 1 , asks "What would one see if one took Jol1n 6 as a unity and officially omitted any
l1istorical ι1uestioning ofthe text? WJ1at woιιld happen if one atteιnpted by looking at ho1v tl1e
text means to see 1vhat tl1e text ιηeans?" (p. 3). While Crossan leaves l1istorical/critical
discussions out here and simply analyzes the structure of John 6 as it stands, seeking to assess
how its earliest audiences may have responded to its content, tl1e above summary of
historical/criticaJ findings suggests tl1at this approach is warranted, John 6 represents a literary
unity which combines signs and discourses in such a way as to "exegete" tl1e meaning of
Jesus' works and words for later audiences in the Johannine situation. As the final writing of
John 6 probably did not occur until the 80's or 90's, one may also learn something of the
history of Johannine Christianity by observing how the "nourishment" which Jesus offers is
progressively contrasted to other types of "bread."
33 On one hand, the works of D. Wead, The Lίterary Devices ίn John 's Gospe/ (Basel,
1 970); R. Α. Cιιlpepper, The Anatomy ofthe Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1 9 83); Ρ.
Duke, Jrony ίn the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: John Κηοχ, 1 985); J. Staley, The Prίnt 's First Kiss
(Missoula: Scholars Press, 1 987); G. O'Day, Revelation in the Fourth Gospel (PhiladelpJ1ia:
Fortress, 1 986), and others do the guild a great service in raising Johannine debates above
historical/criticaJ impasses and diachronic/synchronic brawls. They help ιιs look at tl1e text
afresh, witJ1 new eyes, and avail new possibilities for meaningful interpretation.
On the other hand, John was not written as a fictional drama (dramatic thoιιgh it be) nor as
a novel (novelistic thoιιgh it be). Neither is John an expressionistic or an impressionistic work
of art-sinψly to be appreciated for its form. Its genre is tl1at of a gospel narrative, and it
24 Ρ AUL Ν. ANDERSON
fully useful when the valuable insights learned about John' s dramatic
portrayal of the gospel are applied within its historical and socio-religious
context. Again, the thesis of this study is to suggest that this historical
context will be illuminated by means of considering the false notions of
spiritual reality, as represented by Jesus' discussants and his corrective
responses to them.
Another way of putting it is to say that because the literary form of John
6 is a unitive Christian homily, connecting Iater audiences with the
existential significance of the "Bread" which Jesus offers versus less
satisfying (death-producing) kinds of "bread," a sequence of acute crises
may be inferred from the way the narratίve progresses. As the
preacher/evangelist tells the story of Jesus' feeding and accompanyίng
events, their various earlier interpretatίons become the stuff of which Iater
exhortations are made. This is the basic Sitz ίm Leben of the Johannine
Bread of Life Discourses. From these exhortations (and at times rhetorical
correctives) one may infer specific crises within the evolving historical
context of the Johannine audience, and these crises are corroborated by
other passages in John, the Johannine Epistles, and the letters of lgnatius.
D. FOUR ACUTE CRISES FACED WITHIN JOHANNINE CHRISTIANITY AS

IMPLIED ΒΥ JOHN 6
If Bakhtin and Painter are indeed correct, that ίncomprehension in narrative

is always rhetorical (η.30), the failure of Jesus' discussants to understand
his deeds and words in John 6 must have been targeted at correcting
specific problems in the Johannine audience. Rather than simply telling the
story within an abstract setting, the evangelist has specific audiences in
mind, whose thinking and actions he desires to correct by means of
engaging them in an imaginary dialogue with Jesus. This rhetorical action
happens οη two levels beyond the eίnmalίg level ofthe events reported. The
first represents issues addressed during the oral narration of the events, as
purports real events and messages to be responded to by real people ίη real settings.
Therefore, historical/critical issues cannot wholly be left aside for interpretation-even forιn
analytical interpretation-to reach its fullest potential. Context always affects meaning. While
Ι am not convinced of his views οη authorship, Μ. Stibbe's attempt to combine literary
analysis with historical/critical interests seems a profitable way forward (Jσhn as Stσryteller
[Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1 992]; Jσhn [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1 993]; and Jσhn 's Gσspe/ [London and New York: Routlege, 1 994]; also see Stibbe's
collection, The Gospel oj John as Literature: An Anthology ο/ T1ventielh-Century
Perspectives [Leiden and New York: E.J. Brill, 1 993]). Consider also Margaret Davies,
Rhetoric and Rejerence in the Fourth Gσspe/, JSNTSS 69 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1 992), for
an interdisciplinary approach to literary analysis. Literary studies that will be the most far
reaching and enduring will probably be ones that address adequately the rnultiplicity of
Johannine issues, notjust a few.
represented by the way the narrative eventually becomes fixed. This Ievel
reflects specific, acute crises (both intramural and extramural) faced by the
Johannine community. Οη this level one may infer the preacher has specific
indίviduals and groups ίη mind, whose inadequate notions and actίons are
portrayed as beίng coπected by the Johannine Jesus as he naπates the story.
The second level is often more general, and it involves attempts to preserve
earlier traditions and to reach later audiences by means ofthe written, rather
than the spoken, word. Ιη these ways, those whose non-comprehending
views are coπected by the Johannine Jesus are specific ίndίvίduals and
groups, whose appreciations of the human-divine dialectic require
modification. But, these rhetorical devices are also unίversalίzίng. They
appeal to the 'Ίight" within every reader, against the ever-encroaching
ploys of darkness that so easily beset one's willingness to respond to the
divine initiative, tending to replace it wίth inauthentic trust ίη human
initiated strategies, which ironica\ly fail so miserably. John 6:25-70 reflects
the evangelist's addressing of four such crises and his christocentric
responses to them. As the key exhortative text for thίs section of ν. 27,
"Work not for death-producing food, but for the eternally life-producing
food, which the Son of Man shall give." We will see that each of the
ιnisunderstandings betrays a false notion of "food," which is enacted by a
particular group representing a perception to be corrected ίη the Johannine
audience by Jesus. Furthermore, with the change of discussant, one may
also detect a change in theme, which in turn implies a new epoch and
audience targeted by the evange\ist. At every turn, the Johannine Jesus
corrects these notions and directs the hearer/reader toward a
saving/believing acceptance of the "food" to be availed by the Son of Man.
While literarily synchronic, the narration of events ίs rhetorically
diachronic.
One more coιnment about how this dίalectical pattern works in John 6.
Each of these corrective dialogues has three central parts to ίt, often with
preparative hints before it and a revisίtίng of the theme after it. The three
central parts include: 1 .) an actίon or teachίng of Jesus, which may be
understood οη more than one level; 2.) a mίsunderstandίng statement,
questίon or actίon οη the part of a new individual or group; and 3 .) the
correctίve statement or dίscourse by Jesus, defining the true way to
perceίve or respond to the divine initiative and its implicatίons for
discipleship. Such an outline produces various sets of double meanίngs, as
part 3 ίη one dialogue becomes inevitably part 1-the source of
misunderstanding for the next.34 Put ίη outline form, the four
m ίsunderstanding dίalogues ίη John 6 are as follows:
34 This !1igh!y ίnterwoven c!1aracter of tl1e dίalectica! progression of the Johannine

narrative is furtl1er evidence of the chapter's unity. Muc!1 as Plato !1as constructed his Socratic
dίalogues ίn terms of extended l1ypothetical syllogisms, for the dual purposes of preservίng
t!1e teaching of !1ίs mentor and refutίng hίs own opponents, tl1e Fourth Evangelist constructs
Table #7, "Discussants, Themes and Audiences in the

Four Misunderstanding Dialogues in John 6"
Discussants Theme/ Jesus' Preceding Misunderstanding Jesus' Response

Issue W ords or W orks Action or or Discourse
Statement
the crowd physical the feeding of four statements You did not
bread the 5,000 requesting more signs . . . . "Ι a
bread am the Bread
of life."
the Jews the bread 'Ί am the Bread 'Ήοw can he . . . '"They shall
of the coming down say ' Ι have come all be taught
Torah from heaven." down from hea- by God ' . . .
.
ven '?. . . . gιve us H e w h o eats
his flesh to eat?" of this bread
shall live
eternally."
the disciples embra- "Unless you eat grumbling, "This is "The flesh
cing the my flesh and a hard saying! Who profits
cross drink my blood, can swallow it?" nothing . . .
you have η ο Jife." Ν ο o n e can
come to me
unJess the
Father
draws him."
his dialogues/discourses Jike a snowball, layer upon layer, drawing in specific notions to be
corrected by the ongoing voice of the risen Lord as needed within each epoch of the
cornrnunity's history. The audience probably would have heard rnuch of the whole unit,
together, rnany tirnes over rnany years, and we probably have relatively few interpolations
added to tl1e final written version. The one exception ίη John 6 rnay be νν. 1 6-2 1 , which
appears to be earlier (certainly rnore prirnitive and less developed) than even the Marcan
account. It could be tl1at the contents of John 6 were preached rnostly without the sea
crossing, and that it has been added by the evangelist to rnake tl1e written rendition rnore
cornplete. This need not, however, irnply John's dependence οη the Synoptics. Verse 7 1 , of
course, is a clarirying gloss, probably added by tl1e redactor as he inserted John 6 as a unit
between chs. 5 and 7.
Discussants Therne/ Jesus' Preceding Misunderstanding Jesus' Response

Issue Words or Works Action or or Discourse
Staternent
Peter the be- 'Ύοu do not 'Ύοu are the "Have Ι not
trayal of wish to leave Holy One of chosen you,
Jesus too, do you?" God." the Twelve,
and one of
you is a
devil?''
The four crises alluded to within the Johannine audience include the
following: a.) the physical bread versus the revelational significance of
Jesus' ministry reflects an ongoing dialogue between the Johannine view of
Jesus' ministry and the prevalent view of mainstream Christianity as
represented by all three Synoptic Gospels. This dialogue may have
extended from the days of the pre-Marcan tradition through the influence of
the written Matthean Gospel (from the 50's or before through the early
90's) . b.) The "bread" of the Torah versus the Bread which Jesus gives and
is represents the acute dialogue between Johannine Christianity and the
local Synagogue over the source of divine authority precipitated by the
success of the Christian mission within Judaism. It was most acute within a
decade or two of the destruction of the Temple (from the mid 70's to the
m id 80's). c.) The challenge to Jesus' disciples to ίngest the flesh and blood
of Jesus (to partίcipate with him in embracing the cross, v. 5 1 c) would have
been felt most acutely during the persecution of Christians ίη Asia Μίηοr
(and elsewhere) by Domitian (from the mid 80's through the mid 90's).
During these years, as those who did not participate in public emperor-Iaud
were punished and sometimes executed, Gentile converts to the faίth would
have been most scandalized by the cost of their new-found religion. Ιη turn,
they adopted docetizing (Hellenic) views of Jesus' sufferings in order to
excuse their own attempts to retain their Christian identity without having
to suffer for it. d.) The juxtaposition of Peter and the Beloved Dίsciple
would have been targeted most acutely toward reversίng the
institutίonalizing tendencίes withίn the maίnstream churches ( esp.
Antiochine influence from the mid 80's through the late 90's). The
ambivalent portrayal of Peter in John must have been targeted against the
I ίkes of D iotrephes and his kin-those who abused ecclesial power and
were threatened by the the Johannine approach to christocracy, the means
by which the risen Lord Ieads the church. Α fuller discussion of these
evolving challenges follows below.
1 . Misunderstanding Jesus ' mίracles: John 6:25-40
Bultmann, Fortna and others are indeed correct to infer a pointed tension
between the evangelist's view of Jesus' miracles and their thaumaturgic
valuation within the rniddle/late first-century church. Their assessments of
the Fourth Evangelist's partner in dialogue, however, are far too lirnited and
tame. Rather than presume a backwater Jewish/Christian miracle tract for
which there is neither convincing empirical evidence nor compelling
theoretical advantage, John must be understood as intending to correct the
prevalent Christian view ofthe signifιcance of Jesus' miracles-as reflected
in the entίre Synoptic witness. Unlike the three other crises, the one
reflected most explicitly in John 6 :25ff. is not limited to a singular event or
epoch. Here Jesus is portrayed as overturning the glorious result of all five
Synoptic feeding accounts, and the Johannine dialogue with those
embracing the mainstream view of rniracles as "thaumas" may have
extended for decades, or even longer.Js
Ιη the three Synoptic accounts of the feeding of the 5,000 (Mark 6:42;
Matt. 1 4 :20; Luke 9 : 1 7) and in both accounts of the feeding of the 4,000
(Mark 8:8; Matt. 1 5 :3 7) the nearly identical words are used to describe the
felicitous result of the feeding: !::φαγοv κα'ι εχορτάσθησαv ("they ate . . .
and were satisfied"). And, in John 6:26 Jesus declares to the
m isunderstanding crowd: 'Ύou seek me not because you saw the signs, but
because you ate. . . and were satίsjied' (tφάyετε . . . κα'ι tχορτάσθητε).
This is a direct refutation of the prevalent Christian interpretation of the
feeding miracle. Put otherwise, the Johannine Jesus is here portrayed as
declaring that those who seek Jesus in hopes of more stomach-satisfying
bread have missed the whole point of the soul-reaching m iracle. Jesus was
not a thaurnaturge-Marcan, pre-Marcan, or otherwise.36 He came to reveal,
35 On the earliest end, given the fact that the Johannine and pre-Marcan oral traditίons
must have enjoyed an "interfluential" relationship, these dialogues could have been as early
as the 40's or 50's. On the latest end, the "publication" of Matthew must have caused some
renewed speculation about the role of the believer's faith as a faci\itator of miracles (as
Matthew embellishes this Marcan theme), so this discussion must have continued into the
90's. Wit\1in the dialogue/discourse section of John 6 alone, this debate forms something of
an inclusio between νν. 25-34 and 66-70.
36 The Fourth Evangelist need not, and probably did not, have access to written accounts
of the Synoptic feeding narratives in order to disagree with their outcomes. Judged by the fact
that both Marcan renditions of the feeding portray the identica/ sequence of all s ixteen events
(Mark 6:30-45; 8 : 1 -1 0. The crowd gathers, Jesus feels compassion, the disciples inquire about
food, Jesιιs inquires as to the number of loaves they l1ave, and the supply is reported [five
loaves and two fish; seven loaves]. Jesus then commands the crowd to sit on the ground, takes
tl1e loaνes, gives thanks, breaks the loaves and distributes them, doing the same with tl1e fιsh,
and the fel icitous result is described [they "ate and were satisfied"]. Jesιιs finally orders tl1e
disciples to gather the left-overs, the number of full baskets is tallied [twelve; seven], the
number of tl)e crowd is reported [5,000; 4,000], and Jesus heads off with his disciples in a
boat.), it appears that we have one basic set of events that has been reported in slightly
different ways. If written when received, it is doubtful that Mark-as-redactor would have
and even to incarnate, the human-divine saving and revealing dialogue, and
the physical effect of Jesus' miracles in John is always embellished in order
to magnify their revelational value. Semeiology always depletes ontology.
At this point, the difference between the Synoptic and the Johannine
views of the relation between miracles and faith is thrown into sharp relief.
In the Synoptics, miracles require faith. ln John, they lead to ίf.37 According
to John, Jesus never intended for all the lame to walk, for all the blind to
see, for all the dead to be raised, for all storms to be calmed, or for all the
hungry and thirsty to be physically satisfied. Ιη Mark 8 : 1 4-2 1 , though, the
disciples are chided by Jesus for not believing more fully that Jesus can do
such wonders any time he pleases. The purveyors of the Marcan tradition
changed the numbers ίη a text for symbolic or rhetorical reasons, and indeed, the same basic
sequence is also corroborated ίη John's independent account.
The Mark 8 rendition may reflect the way the feeding narrative was preached tl1roughout
tl1e seven churches in Asia Minor (Seven baskets matches tl1e seven elders appointed to watch
over Hellenistic churches ίη Acts 6: 1 -7; see also the seven churches and their candlesticks ίη
Rev. 2-3. Clearly the number twelve symbolized the twelve apostles, associated originally
with Jewish Christianity in Acts 1 . Was tl1e number 4,000 associated with another gathering
ίη the desert by anotl1er messianic prophet-"the Egyptian" ίη Acts 21 : 38?) , which by tl1e
time Mark began 11is editing process had already acquired an "explanation passage" (Mark
8: 1 4-2 1 ) reconciling it with tl1e difference ίη numbers ίη tl1e more widely known teeding of
tl1e 5,000 narrative as a dovetail forn1 of' integration? Οη this account, Robert Fowler's
extensive treatment of the Marcan f'eeding narratives (Loaves and Fishes: the Functίon of the
Feedίng Storίes ίn the Gospel of Mark, SBLDS 54 [Cl1ico: Scholars Press, 1 9 8 1 ]) does not
convince. Wl1ile Mark 8: 1 ff. does have some details in it tl1at are more primitive tl1a11 those ίη
Mark 6, tl1e "dovetail section" (Mark 8: 14-2 1 ) already has built into itself a justification for
being considered along witll the feeding ofthe 5,000. This unit seems to have been part of the
traditio11, not the Marcan redaction, and the fact that it justitίes itself suggests tl1e priority of
the other feeding narrative in Mark 6. Luke's redaction of Mark corroborates thi s judgme11t.
T11e significant tact is that in both accounts tl1e value of the feeding is remeιnbered
identically as a "wonder of satisfaction," and it is tl1is pre-Marcan (Petrine?) eιηphasis with
which the Fourth Evangelist disagrees. Then again, tl1is emphasis was not solely early, as tl1e
Matthean rendition repeats both Marcan accounts not long before John was final ized. Thus,
tl1e prevalent interpretation of the value of Jesus' miracles as thaumaturgic would l1ave been
rife within the oral (and/or written) traditions of the cl1urch for at least a l1alf ce11tury-a11d
relatively unchallenged (other than locally) until tl1e circulation of Jol1n.
37 For one of' the best treat111e11ts of this topic, see R. Kysar, "Seeing Js Believi11g
Jol1a11ni11e Concepts of Faith" ίη his John, the Maverίck Gospel, rev. ed. (Atlanta: Jo\111 Knox
Press, 1 993), pp. 78-96. See also Anderson, Christology, Chapter 7, "The Dialectical
Character of John 6;" and Ρ. Ν. Anderson, "The Cognitive Origins of Jol111's Unitive and
Disunitive Christology," Horizons ίn Biblical Theo/ogy, June, 1 995.
Jt is interesting to note tllat both traditions deal with the existential problem of wl1y
miracles do not happen ίη their interpretations of Jesus' works. The pre-Marcan tradition
(accentuated even more clearly in the Mattl1ean) explains the dearth of miracles as tl1e result
of the lack of human faith. "God did not fail; you did not believe fully enoug\1. Jf you woιιld
just have failh the size of α mustard seed... " the Synoptic explanation must have gone. Tl1e
Johannine tradition, per!1aps even from its ear!y to middle stages (altl1ough exact dates are
iιηpossible to establis!1), dealt with the relative dearth of ιηiracles by syιηbolizing Jesus'
miracles as revelatory semeia. ln that sense, they occupy a christological fιιnction within tl1e
Jol1annine kerygma as testimony to Jesus' being sent from the Father (Jol111 6:32Γ.; 1 1 :27,
etc.)-to be responded to accordingly.
30 PAUL N. ANDERSON
have obviously not reflected upon the existential significance of Jesus'

miracles in the same way the Fourth Evangelist has. For whatever reason,
he has found the mainstream thaumaturgic interpretation of Jesus' miracles
to be inadequate. Their import lay in the existentially nourishing conviction
that in the storms and deserts of life Jesus calms his disciples and provides
daily "bread" for those who trust and abide in him.
Οη the other hand, Jesus' miracles are heightened in John as nowhere
else in the New Testament. Jesus' ministry begins with a "luxury miracle"
(John 2: 1 - 1 1 ), and Lazarus has been in the tomb four days (ch. 1 1 ) before
being raised up. Furthermore, Jesus declares that his disciples would do
meίzona touton ("greater things than these," whatever that means; 1 4 : 1 2),
and prornises that whatever is asked in his name (John 1 4 : 1 3 f.) will be
done. These rnotifs suggest a tension between the hope that prayers will be
answered-with wonders still continuing to happen within the church-and
the experienced reality that suffering and death still continue, even for the
believer. John's semeiology is a function of the evangelist's approach to
theodicy, suggested also by the representation of pathos and grieving within
the gospel narrative. At the tomb of Lazarus, for instance, Lazarus' sisters,
Jesus, and even the Jews weep (John 1 1 :33-35); and both Martha and Mary
exclaim, "Lord, if you had been here, our brother would not have died! "
(John 1 1 :2 1 , 32) Whenever and however the crises underlying these
emotions may have happened (and they need not have been singular events
alone), the evangelist responds to them by existentializing the signs of
Jesus.38 'Άs wondrous as Jesus' signs must have been, blessed are those
who have not seen-and yet believe." (John 20:29) That, for the evangelist,
represents the essence of Christian maturity, and he apparently feels called
to challenge some of the less reflective approaches to the miraculous
ministry of Jesus. Neither are they adequate for faith, ίη his view, nor does a
Christianized form of thaumaturgy represent Jesus' own purpose for
performing his signs to begin with. For the Fourth Evangelist, Jesus' signs
are functions of his agency christology and basic elements of his kerygrna.
They confirm that Jesus has been sent from the Father (Deut. 1 8 : 1 5-22),
and that through receiving him God's saving initiative is responded to
efficaciously, in faith (John 6:35-40).
One more observation here. The narrative means by which the
evangelist structures this corrective is to couch ίt in the crowd's failure to
look beyond conventional messianic expectations to the authentic mission
38 At this point, tl1ere is l ittle functional difference between the present approacl1 and the
excellent essay by R. Fortna in his second mo11ograph ("Signs and Faitl1" in The Fourth
Gospel and its Predecessor [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1 988], pp. 235-50). Fortna develops the
existentializing way in which tl1e evangelist may have re-worked a hypothetical source that
was similar to Mark; the present approach does the same, assuming tl1e "partner in dialogue"
was the prevalent Christian interpretation of Jesus mirac\es-a prevailing mind set-as
represented in allfiνe gospel feeding accounts.
of Jesus. Just as the misunderstanding crowd wanted to sweep Jesus away

and make him a prophet-kίng like Moses (by force!), they have also
misunderstood the significance of the feeding. Ιη doing so, the evangelist
co-opts the hearer/reader (Jewίsh prospect, mainstream Chrίstίan, or
Johannine community member) into the role of the misunderstanding
crowd. While there ίs ample reason to connect the expectations of the
crowd in vv. 14f. with vv. 25-34 historically,39 the evangelist's narrative
connectίon is rhetorical. He portrays the m isunderstanding crowd as
seeking to coerce Jesus into producing more bread by means of using
typical Jewish manna rhetoric. They cite Ps. 78:24f. as their "proof-text" and
even chal1enge his messianic identity ίη hopes of gaining more bread. The
scenario is used ironical1y by the evangelist to show Jesus as "over
trumping" their highest trump card. By contrast to the crowd's manipulative
exegesis, Jesus exposits the priority of responding to God's present
eschatological activity if one truly hopes for redeιnption. Traditional stories
of God's saving work in the past prefigure God's saving work in the
present, but clinging to the former may cause one to miss the latter. The
evangelist here works by analogy in reaching his audience. Just as those
who wanted Jesus to produce more bread missed his central reason for
coming, those who go along with the prevalent Christian mind set that
Jesus' m iracles were primarily thaumaturgical-to be repeated if the
believer can only muster enough faith-will fail to be truly nourished
existential1y by the "Bread" offered by the Son of Man. His "food" is to do
the work of the Father, regardless of temporal outcomes. The original
39 W. Meeks, for instance, has demonstrated clearly that Mosaic Prophet-King

messiologies would have been prevalent in Galilee during tl1e first century CE (Tlιe Prophet
King [Leiden: Ε. J. Brill, 1 967]). Thus, Jol1n 6 : 1 4f. is not necessarily a Jol1anni11e fiction but
represents predictable responses to Jesus during his actual ministry-the sort of messiology
Jesus disowns most intensely in tl1e pre-Marcan messianic secret 1notif-and to which tl1e
likes of Theudas, "the Samaritan" and "the Egyptian" catered later. Certainly, the Jol1anni11e
rendition that Jesus fled (φεύγει, in some early mss.) the crowd because they wanted to
entlirone him by force is the earliest. It also seems 1nore historically reliable than the more
pietistic Marcan one: Jesus departed into the hills to pray (in agreement with Painter, Quest, p.
257-66), a theme which Luke also embellishes.
The way al 1 this connects with the request for more bread is that several ancient Jewish
documents connect the second Moses (the new Messiah) with once more raining down bread
from heaven. According to Midrash Rabbah (Eccles. 1 :9), for instance, 'Άs the first redeemer
caused manna to descend, as it is stated, 'Because 1 shall cause to raίn bread from heaven for
you (Εχ. 1 6 :4),' so will the latter redeemer cause manna to descend." Thίs connects tl1e
feedίng and requests for another feeding centrally wίth conventίonal Palestinian messianίc
hopes. At stake origίnally was not just another meal, but popular hopes for the dawnίng of the
New Age-the overthrow of the Romans and the exaltation of the Jewish nation. T11e
realίzation that such was not the polίtίcal agenda of Jesus 1nust have caused even some of hίs
orίginal discίples to "turn away and walk with hi1n no longer." (John 6:66) T11e evangelist
builds on those mίsunderstandings and defections ίn hίs addressing later crίses facίng the
Jol1a11nίne sίtuatίon.
hearers/readers of this first misunderstanding dialogue probably would have

experienced themselves addressed as follows:
- (Says Jesus) 'Ύοu seek me not because you perceived the signs, but
because you ate of the loaves and were satisfied." (ν. 26-Το experience
my miracles as wonders of satisfaction is to miss the whole point of why
they were done. Despite what you hear from the rest of the gospel narrators,
Ι never intended simply to fill people's stomachs. Ι came to lead them to a
believing response to God' s saving initiative, and the feeding of the 5,000
serves as a symbol of how this new relationship will supply your most basic
existential need, which is spiritual.)
- "For the (real) bread of God is the one who comes down from
heaven and gives life to the world." ( ν. 3 3-Yes, l know that the ιηanna
provision and the recent feeding were wondrous, but these are only
anticipators of the ultimate Bread given incarnationally for the life of the
world. People who eat physical bread grow hungry again. But those who
partake ofthis nourishment receive l ife that lasts forever.)
- "For Ι have come down not to do my own will, but the will of the
one who sent me. And this is the will of the one who sent me: that none of
those he has entrusted to me sha11 be lost, but that Ι shall raise them up οη
the last day." (ν. 38f.-What makes me most like Moses ίs not the
producing of wondrous bread, but the fact that Ι speak and do solely what
the Father has instructed [Deut. 1 8: 1 5- 1 8] . And this mission is to gather all
of those who have been entrusted to me-to care for them and to provide
them all they need to survive the ordeals of life. The final goal is to
facilitate their [your] faithfulness during difficult times ίη order that they
[you] may be raised up οη the last day. This ίs the will of the Father, and
this is what my mission is all about.)
2. The dίalogue wίth the Synagogue: John 6: 29-51

Notice the over\apping of nuance and meaning between the different kinds
of "bread" in John 6. While the debate with the crowd explicit\y ends at ν.
40, the seeds of the dialogue with the Jews are already planted as early as ν.
29. Unlike the first crisis and its corrective implied by the debate of
physical bread versus heavenly Bread ίη John 6, however, the next three
crises are more specific in terms of epoch and group. Here we have three
sets of dialectical relationships between Johannine Christians and other
groups, each of which rises and falls in terms of intensity at sequential
though somewhat overlapping-times in the history of Johannine
Christianity.4o The first of these chronologically, and as presented in the
narrative, is the dialogue with leaders ofthe local Synagogue.
4Ο In this way, the Johannine Bread of Life Discourse serves the social function ot' calling
to present events in the past in such a way as to create wl1at W. Meeks describes as a
Few books have made more of an impression upon Johannine studίes

over the last quarter of a century than J. Louίs Martyn' s Hίstory and
Theology ίn the Fourth Gospe/.41 !η it, Martyn argues successfully that
behίnd the eίnmalίg (events reported) level of John's narrative is another
level of history-one contemporary with the situation of the evangelist and
his audίence-suggested by the way the events are narrated. Ιη a nutshell,
Martyn reconstructs a scenario which dίvides the history of Johannine
Chrίstianity ίηtο three periods. The Early Perίod (from the 60's to the 80's)
involved the successful conversion of Jews within a partίcular Synagogue
by means of an evangelist who used a signs gospel to convince Jews that
Jesus was the Messiah. Thus, the first Johannine Christians were actually
Christian Jews. The Middle Perίod (late 80's-early 90's) saw risίng
oppositίon to the Christianizing trend, which Ied to scriptural debates about
the authority of Moses and the Torah (versus Jesus), the devίsίng of the
Birkat ha-Minίm (a curse against "heretics"-specifically "Nazarenes," or
Christians), the expulsion of Christians from the Synagogue (they becoιηe
aposynagogos-a technical term for Synagogue excommunicatίon-found
ίη John 9 :22; see also 1 2 :42 and 1 6:2), and the setting up of local councils
of Jewίsh authorίties who persecuted (and even executed) some Christian
leaders as a disincentive to the movement's growth. Johannine Christians
undergo the transition from having been Chrίstian Jews to becomίng Jewish
Christians. The Late Perίod (inexact-the 90's and later?) saw the transition
ίηtο an autonomous community. !η doing so, broader Christίan relations
were sought, Gentiles were also evangelized, "Crypto Christians" who
stayed in the Synagogue (whίle maintaίning secret identity "for fear of the
Jews") were courted by Johannine Christians, and some Johannine
Chrίstians were courted back into the Synagogue by the Jews.42 Dialogues
then begin to accelerate with other Christian groups. According to Martyn,
the entirety of John should be read against thίs Jewίsh/Chrίstίan backdrop.
The way the story of Jesus is told in John bespeaks the history of the
Johannine Communίty.
"symbolic universe" ("The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism," JBL 91 ( 1 972], 44-
72; reprinted in J. Ashton, ed., The Interpretatίon of John [Pl1iladelphia: Fortress, and
London: SPCK, 1 986], pp. 1 4 1 -73). Says Meeks, "More precisely, there must have been a
continuing dialectic between the group's historical experience and the symbolic woΓld which
served both to explain that experience and to motivate and form the reaction of group
members to the experience." (Ashton, Interpretatίon, p. 1 4 5 )
41 First published i n 1 968, the book was revised and enlarged in 1 979 (Nashville:
Abingdon). !η his introduction to The Jnterpretatίon of John ( 1986), Ashton judges Martyn 's
book to be "probably the most important monograph οη the Gospel since Bultmann's
commentary." (p. 5) Given the outpouring of research into the socio-religious situation of tl1e
Jol1annine community over the last two decades or more, especially with reference to local
Jewish/Christian relations, Ashton was right.
42 See Martyn's "Glimpses into the History ofthe Johannine Community" (reprinted in his
The Gospel ofJohn ίn Christian History [New York: Paulist, 1 979]) for his clearest outline of
the Johannine Com1ηunity's 11istory (pp. 90- 1 2 1 ).
Ιη his massive commentary οη the Johannine Epistles and in his book,43

The Communίty of the Beloved Dίscίple, Martyn' s former colleague, R. Ε .
Brown, refined his scenario. Brown contributed possible explanations for
why the Jews became so hostile toward the Christians. He be1ieves that the
adding of Samaritan converts with a Mosaic christo1ogy influenced
Johannine christology toward a pre-existent one, and this caused Johannine
Christians to be called "di-theists" by their Jewish counterparts and thus
expelled as heretics. Brown a!so believes that the Johannine defense against
the Jewish community eventually !ed to an interna! schism whereby the
secessionists moved toward docetism (and eventually gnosticism), and the
rest of the Johannine Christians eventually 1ηerged with the Great Church.
While not all scholars agree with the outlines of Martyn's and Brown' s
historical sketches, most scholars have become increasingly convinced that
underlying John's rendition of the gospe! narrative l ie penetrating glimpses
of Jewish/Christian dialogues ίη the !ate first century CE.44 These sketches
are particularly enlightening when interpreting John 6.
According to Martyn,45 the manna debate ίn John 6:3 1 ff. is far more
than the reflection of an exegetica! debate. Disagreeing with Borgen,46
Martyn claims:
43 See R. Ε. Brown, The Epistles ofJohn (Garden City, Ν. Υ.: Doubleday, 1 982); and The
Communίty ofthe Beloved Dίsciple (New York: Paulist Press, 1 979).
44 Consider, for instance the critical views of S. Katz, 'Ίssues ίη the Separation of Judaisιn
and Christianity after 70 C.E.: Α Reconsideration," JBL 1 03 ( 1 984), 43-76; and R. Kiιnelman,
"Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late
Antiquity," ίη Je1vίsh and Christίan Self-Defιnition, Vol.2, ed. by Ε. Ρ . Sanders e t al.
(London: Fortress, l 98 1 ), pp. 226-44. Οη one hand, Christians and Jews enjoyed a great deal
of cooperation and mutual support. Οη the other hand, few developments began to threaten
Judaism from the inside as much as Christian claims to Jesus being the Messiah and Son of
God. This is spelled out very clearly ίη F. Manns' John and Jamnia: Ho1v the Break Occurred
Between Je1vs and Christians c. 80-100 A.D., E.t. by Μ. Duel and Μ. Riadi (Jerusalem:
Franciscan Printing Press, 1 988). Consider also the very creative and insightful book by D.
Rensberger, Johannίne Faίth and Liberating Communίty (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1 988),
which develops the historical and theological implications of the Jol1annine community's
understanding of Iiberation through Christ ίη the light of assumed oppression by the Iocal
Synagogue. Some of this would of course have applied to other sources of persecution, sucl1
as Roman oppression under Domitian. One is also taken by Ν. Petersen's The Gospel ο/
John & the Sociology of Lίght (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1 993), esp. pp. 80-
1 09, regarding John's anti-structuralism, which would not only have been Ievied against
Jewish pressures, but also eventually as a corrective to rising institutionalism in the late first
century Christian (esp. Antiochine) movement.
45 Martyn, The Gospel ofJohn ίn Chrίstian History, pp. 1 23-28.
46 See M artyn's "footnote essay" (ibid., p. 1 27, n. 1 88; and also his review of Borgen's
book in JBL 86 (\ 967), 44f.) where he argues that Borgen's view that John 6 reflects a
countering of Docetists is wrong. Martyn wants to connect John 6 (and the rest of John, for
that matter) almost exclusively with the Christian/Synagogue debates in the Johannine
dialectical situation but thereby weakens his own case, as ample evidence suggests at least
three or four partners in dialogue wit\1 the Johannine situation. In doing so, he chides Borgen
wrongly for assuming any sort of connection between the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine
Epistles-a connection that actually cJarifies (and delimits) the Jewish/Christian tensions
John i s not saying to the synagogue, "you misread the text. You should
read it, Ήe gives thern bread frorn heaven to eat. "' Rather, he is
emphatically saying:
1 . 'Ύou are wrong in your identification of the type. It was not Moses
but rather God who provided the manna." . . .
2. "The correspondence between type and antitype is fixed by God in his
sovereign freedom." . . .
3 . "The issue is not to be defined as an argurnent about an ancient text. It
is not a m idrashic issue. By arguing about texts you seek to evade the
present crisis. God is even now giving you the true bread from heaven,
and you cannot hide from him ίη typologica\ speculation or in any other
kind of m idrashic activity. You must decide now with regard to this
present gift of God." (pp. 1 27f.)
In these observations Martyn is correct, and lucidly so. The evangelist is

not simply performing a Jewish rnidrash οη the "correct" meaning of the
manna narrative. He shows Jesus declaring that a true exegesis of the
scriptures must Iead one beyond the scriptures to the one to whom they
point-the "True Bread" given now, in the eschatologica\ present, for the
enlivening of the world. Ιη doing so, Jesus overturns their manna rhetoric
and perhaps for the first time in the history of Jewish/Christian manna
midrash, he refers to heavenly rnanna as death-producing: " . . . your
forefathers ate and they died; the one eating this bread bread will live
eternally." (vv. 49f., 58) Thus, as Jesus' misunderstanding discussants shift
from the crowd to "the Jews," one infers a shifting of the issues being
corrected by the Johannine Jesus. Νο longer is the crisis one of physical
bread versus existential nourishrnent, but it becornes one of me1ηbers of
John's audience wishing to cling to the bread of the Torah versus the Bread
coming down from heaven in the eschatological present. Alluded to already
ίη Jesus' refutation of their proof-texting work in verses 32ff., the
rnisunderstanding question of the Jews in vv. 4 1 f. rnakes this question
explicit. Their grumbling (tγόγγυζον) is clearly reminiscent of the
unbelieving Israe\ites of Numbers 1 1 - 1 4 as they ask, ''Is this not Jesus, son
of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say Ί came
down from heaven?' "
The rhetorical target o f this question now becomes specific. It intends to
co-opt members of John' s audience who, amidst dialectical tensions with
the local Synagogue, may be questioning whether Jesus is indeed the
Messiah-the Prophet like Moses who says nothing οη his own, but only
Martyn advocates. The fact is that they confirm a Christian/Synagogue debate and a J ater,
docetic schism.
what the Father has instructed-thus, deserving to be treated ίη all ways

like the one who sent him. The rhetoric they get from the Synagogue
leaders must have been something like: "We are followers of Moses; after
all, Moses gave us heavenly manna . . ."; "We obey the Father and are
monotheists. Το worship Jesus is to reject the Father and to becoιne
ditheists-thus losing your hope for the blessing promised to the children of
Abraham"; "We are scrίptural. After all, ' Man shall not live by bread
alone,' but by the Torah-that written deposit of words proceeding from the
1nouth of God. (Deut. 8 :3) If you leave the Synagogue you will not only
forfeit your fellowship with the blessed faith, but you will be absented from
access to God's instruction. You will move from consolation to desolation.
Reject your Christian heresy, or die!"47 lndeed, by the time 1 John 2: 1 8-25
was written, Johannine Christians had apparently already been purged from
the Synagogue, and some of them had been courted back into the
Synagogue, perhaps by family and friends. The explanation for their
departure by the Elder obviates an antichristic schism involving defectors
who left only to return to the Jewish coιnmunity whence they came. The
outline of his appeal is as follows:
Table #8, "The First Antichristic Schism ( 1 John 2: 1 8-25)-Jewish

Christians Returning to the Synagogue"
- "Little children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that the
Antichrist is coming, even now, many Antichrists have arisen." (ν. 1 8) The
Elder explains the threat as the arrival of the eschaton. The predicted
Antichrist has come, and is even manifold, so beware! You too could be
misled.
- "They departed from us but were not a part of us-for if they had
really been a part of us they would have remained with us; but this just
exposes all of them as aliens" (ούκ ε'ισιv π<'χντες εξ ήμώv, ν. 1 9).
Obviously, the antichristic schism has occurred by now, and the Elder
"explains" this loss to his community as being attributable to the lack of
47 Many o f Martyn's observations do seem warranted, for instance: tl1at much o f John's
comιnunity had Jewish origins; that there was an actual purging wl1ereby tollowers of Christ
were singled out and expelled, becoming aposynagogos; that upon expulsion, the Johannine
community began to take in more Gentile converts; tl1at some ιnembers of the Johannine
group either rejoined the Synagogue or became underground Christians; and that the
evangelist (and the Elder) sought to stave off further detections and continued to argue that
Jesus was the Jewish Messial1, greater tl1an Moses, Abraham and the Toral1. Οη the other
l1and, the dialogue with Judaism was by ηο n1eans tl1e only source of dialectical tension
within Johannine Christianity. Martyn, for instance, is happy to side with Kasemann, The
Testament of Jesus, E.t. by G. Krodel (London, 1 968), ίn his locating docetizing tendencies
within the evangelist's christology, but he does little with Kasemann's main thesis that the
evangelist was centrally caught up ίη a dialectical relationship with the institutional church.
sincerity of those who left. Their abandonment reveals their lack of owning
the Johannine coιηmunity's ideals and commitιηent to Jesus as the Christ.
They never were fu\ly (inwardly) a part.
- "But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all are in the
know" (ο"ιδατε πάντες, ν. 20). They were unenlightened, but you have the
Light within you-and among us. We are al\ taught by God (see ν. 27; and
John 6:45; Isa. 54: 1 3).
- 'Ί have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but
because you do know it, and because no lie can come from the truth. Who
is a liar if not the one denying that Jesus is the Christ. This is the
Antichrist-the one denying the Father and the Son." (νν. 2 1 f.) Here the
Elder affirms the universal character of the gospel. It is not simply a matter
of one sect over another; it has to do with m inding the Truth, which in his
view is Christomorphic. Fugitives from the Truth (liars) deny the Father
who sent the Son in their rejection of Christ. Those who adhere to the
Truth, however, resist the Antichrist and are firmly grounded in their faith.
- 'ΆΙΙ who deny the Son forfeit the Father also; but the one confessing
the Son gets the Father too." (ν. 23) At this point the Jewish/Christian
tension is absolutely clear. Gentile Docetists would not be worried about
\osing "the Father," nor would they be reluctant to affirm Jesus as ο
χριστός. Here we have telling signs of a Jewish-constructed dichotomy: 'Ίf
you want the Father, you must renounce Jesus as the Christ; if you cling to
Christ, you forfeίt the Father! " Το this the Elder responds, "Nonsense!
Because Jesus is sent from the Father as his Agent and Son, to receive him
is to receive the Father. Conversely, to reject him is to reject/lose the Father
who sent him."
- 'Ίf what you have heard from the beginning remains in you, you will
both abide in the Father and the Son; and this is the promise which he
promised us: life eternal." (νν. 24f.) Το abide with Christ and his
fellowship, in the midst of persecution and social alienation from your
families and friends, is to receive an inheritance ίη the world beyond. You
will not only receive the Father's approval, but eternal life through the Son.
ΑΙΙ of this ιηatches identical\y with the misunderstanding dialogue

between the Jews and Jesus ίη John 6.48 They question how he can now
48 It also matches the setting implied by other debates between the Jol1annine Jesus and
the Jews. For instance, U. C. νοη Wal1lde ("Literary Structure and T11eological Argument ίη
Three Discourses with the Jews in the Fourth Gospel," JBL ! 0314 [ 1 984], 575-584; see also
l1is monograph, The Earliest Version of John 's Gospel [Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1 989]
identifies significant similarities ot' structure between John 6:3 1 -59; 8: 1 3 -59; and 1 0:22-39.
claim to have come down from heaven when they know his earthly origin
his parents (πcΟ:; νυν λέγει, v. 42); and how he can give us his flesh to eat
(πcΟ:; δύναται . . . δοίJναι, v. 52). Both of these misunderstandings reflect
the scandal of the incarnation and the scandal of the cross. The unbelieving
world asks "how is it possible?"; the Christian proclamation is that it has
happened-an eschatological event, calling forth a human response to
God's saving initiative. Το the Jewish Christian faced with the pressing
decision of whether to rejoin the securίty and comforts of the Synagogue,
the words of Jesus in John 6 would have offered a great deal of support for
retaining one's Christian loyalties. They probably would have experienced
themselves addressed by Jesus' words as follows:
- "This ίs the work of God: that you belίeve in the one he has sent." (ν.
29-Salvation is not received by keeping the Torah, but by responding to
God's saving initiative in faith.)
- "It was not Moses who gave . . . but my Father who gives you the
true Bread from heaven. For the Bread of God ίs the one who comes down
from heaven and gives life to the world" (vv. 32f.-Your Jewish friends
have the typology wrong. Neither manna nor the Torah were given to make
us Moses' fol lowers, but to point us to the Source of provision and
inspiration-God-who has now provided for our needs through the
incarnation.)
- "Ι am the Bread of Life. The one coming to me by ηο means
hungers, and the one believing ίη me will never thirst." (ν. 3 5-Ιη Christ,
God has acted eschatologically, meeting our true needs. As bread and water
meet our physical hunger and thirst needs, so responding to Christ in faith
meets our deeper, spiritual needs.)
- 'Άηd this is the will of the one who sent me, that Ι should Jose none
of those he has given me, but that Ι should raise them all up οη the last
As to who the audience hearing these stylίzed debates n1ust have been, νοη Wahlde correctly
says, "More likely ίt ίs intended to confirm those who already belίeve and to save those who
are in danger of becoming apostate trom the Johannίne community. These latter are
undoubtedly the Jewish Christians undergoing persecution and expulsion trom the
syηagogue." (pp. 583f.) Martyn, The Gospel oj John in Christian History, also ίdentifies
four contexts in which the discussions of Jesus as the Mosaic Messiah lead to identifying hiιn
as the Son of Man. They include John 3 : 1 -1 3 ; 6 : 1 4-58; 7:3 1 -8:28; and 9: 1 7-35ff. lt ίs
sίgnificant to note that all of the above passages reflect the concerns of the evangelίst around
the time the first edition of the Gospel was completed (accordίng to Lindars' theory), and 011
this point one takes issue with Manns (John and Jamnίa) who connects the Synagogue
tensions wίth the final edίtion of John. Τ11ίs means that around the tίme the first edίtion of
John was completed, and around the time 1 John was written, Johannine Christians faced an
acute crisis (probably in the SO's, wίth which Manns ivoufd concur) with the Synagogue.
(Τ11ίs is not to say that the Johannine Gospel and Epistles represent an identical situation
they probably involve parallel ones, however, ίf not the same one. Whatever the connection,
the situations were by ηο means totally disconnected.) Α consideration of tl1e supplementary
material added to the final edίtion suggests that by the time tl1ίs later material was produced,
another crisis was iιnpending, and probably a docetic one.
day." (ν. 3 9-You are individually and corporately called b y God t o abide
with Christ and his fellowship until the end. It is the Father's will that none
of you should be lost, lapsing back into "the world," but that you all should
stay and be raised up in the eschaton. Ι will provide you all you need in
order to be faithful till the end.)
- "Νο one can come to me except the Father . . . draws him . . . . " (ν.
44-Even your apparent initiative is already a response to the Father' s
drawing ί η your hearts. l t is not a matter o f permission-this i s not a dίvine
regulation: "Νο one may come . . . "-it ίs a matter of possibility: "Νο one
can come . . . " lt ίs impossible to "discover" the truth of the gospel by
means of clever exegesis or religίous rίgor. Saving faίth ίs counter
conventional. It requίres paradoxically the abandonment of our confidence
in our own abίlitίes to arrive before we can even begin the journey. Νο one
can come by one's own initiative or ίngenuity, religious or otherwise. These
must be laid at the cross-and repeatedly sο--ί η order to say 'Ύes" to the
saving inίtiative of God.)
- "It is written in the Prophets, Άηd they shall all be taught by God. ' "
(ν. 45.; Isa. 54: 1 3-Don't worry about the threats of the Jews that you wίll
absent yourselves from God's ίnstruction. After all, the very manna passage
they cite has a clear reference ίη Numbers 1 1 to Moses' clίmactic yearning:
"Would that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would
put hίs Spίrit οη them ! " ν. 29. And thίs yearning, as foretold by Isaiah, has
been fulfilled ίη the coming of Christ and the sending of the Parakletos.
What is anticipated ίη the Jewish scriptures is actualized in the Christian
community!)
- "Νο one has seen the Father, except the one being with God . . . . " (ν.
46; 1 : 1 8-This is the reason huιηan initiative cannot suffice, and this is the
means by which you are taught by God-his Logos-who dwelt among us,
and whose glory we beheld ( 1 : 1 4). And, speaking of m ίdrash, this one has
"exegeted" the Father to us incarnationally ( 1 : 1 8).
- 'Ί am the living Bread whίch has cοιηe down from heaven; If anyone
eats of this bread, he will live eternally; and indeed, this Bread is my flesh
which Ι shall give for the life of the world." (ν. 5 1-Two themes are
repeated, but tl1e third one is new. Το receive Jesus as God's means of
saving ίnitίative in the eschatological present is to be assured of eternal life
in the eschatologίcal future. Thίs hope, however, ίs tempered by the cost of
discίpleship. Just as Jesus' beίng the Bread of L ίfe will ίnvolve him giving
his flesh-on the cross-for the life of the world, so the believer must
embrace the cross if he or she wishes to receίve this Bread. Paradoxically,
to receive the promise of life eternal, one must be wίlling to undergo
suffering and death as dίd the Lord.)
- "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drίnk his blood, you
have ηο lίfe ίη you. . . Wl1oever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abίdes
ίη me and Ι in him . . . . This is the bread which has come down from
heaven; not like that which our fathers ate, and died; the one eating this
bread will live eternally." (νν. 53, 56, 5 8-Now using eucharistic imagery,
the appeal for corporate solidarity with Jesus and his community in the face
of persecution is brought to the center of the stage. If one hopes to be raίsed
with Christ ίη the resurrection, one must be willing to go with him to the
cross. Ιη so doing one remains with Christ and his community, and Christ
also abides with the believer, ίη strengthening and empowering ways. The
heavenly manna so triumphally touted by the Ieaders of the Synagogue was
actually death-producing. Our forefathers ate of it . . . but they died. But
this Bread, the flesh of the Son of Man, gives life which is eternal.)
With ν. 5 l c, the theme of suffering is introduced.49 Until then, the

audience has been hearing about the ways God speaks and should be
heeded. But now, the cost of believing-potential suffering and even
death-is declared bluntly. Verse 5 1 c is not a veiled reference to the
eucharist; it is rather, a scandalizing reference to the cross. This would have
been absolutely clear to the audiences of the oral and written renderings of
this section. Granted, eucharistic language is being used, but the evangelist
ίs not saying "Jesus died οη the cross ίη order to bring us the eucharist."
Neither is he saying, "God gave manna, and then the Torah, and then the
miraculous feeding, and then the Christ Events, and now finally a Christian
cultic ritual. Enjoy it or be damned! " Νο. The eschatology of the evangelist
has not changed one bit from its christocentric fulcrum. Το follow Jesus
will always exact a price-the rejection of the world; and yet, true
faithfulness will also involve a reward-abiding with Christ in the eschaton.
Ιη furthering the goal of corporate solidarity with Jesus ίη the face of
persecution (by the Jewish leaders first, and later by the Romans),
eucharistic imagery is etηployed as a means of making the point
graphically. ΑΙΙ of this was first targeted (orally) at the Jewish/Christian
members of the Johannine audience during the late 70's and 80's, ίη the
face of pressure to abandon the Christian community and to rej oin the local
Synagogue, but it also becomes centrally relevant for averting the next
schismatic threat. For those who remain with Jesus and his commun ity, the
promise of eternal life is given, as well as the provision of the existential
strength to abide in the truth.
49 On this point, Martyn bel ίeves that the local Jewish authorίtίes mustered the socίal and
polίtίcal power to persecute, and even execute, some of the leaders of the Johannine
1ηovement as dίsίncentives to theίr growth (The Gospel of John in Christian History, pp. 37-
89), and Rensberger's book certainly develops that theme in the light of Jol1n's appeal to
liberation in Jesus Chrίst (Johannine Faith, pp. 37- 1 34). While some of t\1ίs 1ηay indeed l1ave
occurred, it is doιibtful that the entire history of ίndividuated Johannine Christianity was spent
under an exclusίvely Jewisl1 cloud. At the least, Jol1annine Jewish Christians would have been
taced witl1 "socίal martyrdom" as tl1ey were forced to make difficult decisίons about
communal loyalties and com111 itments of faith. See Anderson, Christology, Table 21: 'Three
Acute Intraiηural Crises Faced by Johannine Christianity."
3 . The threat of α second schίsm ίnvolvίng Gentίle converts wίth docetίzίng

tendencίes: John 6:51-66
Notice again the overlapping of meanings with the previous discussants.
The third crisis alluded to in John 6 is the temptation of Gentile converts to
disassociate themselves with Johannine Christianity, probably in the face of
Rοιηaη adversity and persecution. As the m isunderstanding discussants
shift from being the Jews to the disciples, one detects the shift to a situation
closer to the immediate audience at the time of the writing of John 6. These
disciples are scandalized, not because of the cannibalistic language being
used, but because the "Bread" offered them is being served up on a
"platter" hewn into the shape of a cross. Το ingest Jesus' flesh and blood is
to accept the fleshly reality of the incarnation-and its implication-that
Jesus' true followers must also be willing to embrace the cross, themselves.
Following the break with the Synagogue, Johannine Christianity began
to reach out to Gentiles, and this mission was apparently successful. Then
again, there may have been Gentile members of the Johannine movement
before that time as well, as the m issionary churches of Asia Minor tended to
include mixtures of Jewish and Gentile converts. Nonetheless, with the
advent of Roman persecution under Domitian, Gentile converts would have
been far more scandalized than Jewish ones. From the days of the
Maccabeans to the oppositions of Judas the Galilean and the later Zealots,
Jews were used to opposing foreign rule and paying a price for their
monotheistic commitments. Faced with the challenge to offer emperor-laud
or to bum incense in reverence to Caesar, a Jew wou\d commonly have
been willing to suffer for refusing such a practice. The average Gentile,
however, would have been far more willing to go along with the Roman
de1ηand, and far less likely to be willing to undergo suffering for one's
faith. This must have been the primary motivating factor underlying their
docetizing proclivities. If Jesus did not suffer or corporally die, how could
he have expected his followers to suffer corporal persecution-and even
martyrdom? Thus, the greatest threat of incipient docetism was not its
unorthodox christology-as it related to a system of faith, but its practical
implications-as they related to the believer's willingness to undergo
suffering and death in the face of Roman persecution. These docetizing
Christians also probably sought to Jegitimize their views by organizing and
teaching a docetic rationale for their accommodation to Roman
requirements, and Jeaders such as Cerinthus must have sought to rally
support for the emerging party platform. This is precisely what the
evangelist is seeking to stave off in John 6:5 1 -66, and what the Elder is
seeking to counteract in his antichristic warnings of 1 John 4 : 1 -3 and 2 John
7. Therefore, the history of Johannine Christianity must have been
something similar to the following outline:
Table #9, 'Ά Brief Overview of the History of Johannine Christianity"
55-70 CE-Phase 1 : Begίnnίng Chapters-The gospel comes to Asia

Minor. Paul (or another evangelist) 'Ίectures" to "the Jews," and many Jews
become followers of "the Way." Οη the other hand, many are offended and
malign "the Way." (Acts 1 7- 1 9) Apollos, the Fourth Evangelist and others
join in the mission, and the evangelist settles down as a local pastoral
presence in one of the churches. He brings with him his own independent
gospel tradition which has been interfluential with the pre-Marcan (Petrine)
tradition.
70-90 CE-Phase 2: Tensίons with the Local Synagogue (overlapping with

Phases 3 and 4)-Following the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, a
fundamentalistic form of the scripture-based Judaism of the Pharisees
begins to replace the Temple-based establishment of the Sadducees. By the
mid-70's, this caused local challenges to the "biblicality" of Christian
Judaism, and Christians were forced to decide between Christ and their
Jewish loyalties. Some persecution, as well as excommunication and even
capital penalties, were used by local Jewish leaders to retard the spread of
Christianity within Judaism, and the Jewish "mission to the ditheists"
partially succeeded in winning some Jesus-followers back into Judaism. 1
John (the first antichristic schism) and the first edition of the Gospel
(debates with "the Jews") reflect some ofthese developments.
8 1 -96 CE-Phase 3 : The Onset ofRoman Persecutίon and the Departure of

Gentίle Chrίstίans (overlapping with Phases 2 and 4)-Persecution by
Domitian (8 1 -96 CE) caused new problems for Johannine Christianity,
especially for Gentile Christians. As they were less willing to suffer for
their faith, they found it easier to deny their Christian involvements. This
caused the Johannine leadership to emphasize the Lordship of Christ
(versus Caesar's), the physicality of his suffering and death (versus the
teachings of the Docetists) and the final importance of maintaining
solidarity with Christ and his fellowship in the face of persecution. During
this time, "false teachers" and "false prophets" also arose, advocating a less
rigorous form of Christian commitment, bolstered by docetizing
christological tendencies and their lax implications for discipleship. These
trends are warned about in 1 John and are countered by the incarnational
(and anti-docetic) emphases of John's supplementary material. By the
writing of 2 John 7, these 'Άntichrists" have also departed, and those who
wished to remain a part of Johannine Christianity while compromising their
faith were excommunicated by its Ieadership.
85- 1 00 CE-Phase 4: Tensίons with the Maίnstream Church (overlapping

with Phases 2 and 3)-As evidenced in the Μ tradition and in the letters of
ΤΗΕ SΓΓΖ ΙΜ LEBEN 43
Ignatius, the centrifugal challenges of Jewish and Roman persecutions Ied

Antiochine Christianity (at Ieast) to erect institutional structures as
centripetal means of maintaining connectedness to Christ (and the apostles)
and cohesion within the church. The figure of Peter takes οη organizing
power and vicarious authority, and those who follow ίη his wake appeal to
it as a means of establishing their own positions locally (as did Ignatius, a
bit later). Johannine Christianity, however, advocated a pneumatic and
familial mode of christocracy (see esp. John 1 4-1 6), and this must have
threatened Diotrephes and his kin. Ιη 3 John we read that D iotrephes has
refused hospitality to Johannine Christians and has excommunicated those
who would take them ίη. This is the final motivator for the Elder's
contacting the ecclesia, and the witness of the Beloved Disciple was finally
compiled and edited ίη order to declare Jesus' original intention for the
governance of his church. John was thus "published" around 1 00 CE by the
compiler (also the Elder) as a christocratic coπective to risίng
institutionalism in the late first-century church. 'Ήίs witness is true." (John
2 1 :25) is as much an ecclesίal as an hίstorical claim.
Whίle several scholars have done well to illuminate the anti-docetic

thrust of the later Johannine material, few have made enough of the
connection between docetism as a proto-heretical faith system and the
practical ίmplications of docetism during rising persecution by the
Romans.50 Ιη his recent book, R. Cassidy has demonstrated beyond
reasonable doubt that scholars who deny any persecution of Christians by
Romans in the Iate first century and early second century are wrong.51
While "persecution" proper may not be the best way to describe the reality
from a Roman perspective (Christians refused to go along with what Roman
understandings of civility: honoring the emperor and showing public
reverence for the empire), ίt ίs fair to say that Romans tried to influence
50 See for instance, Ρ. Borgen (Bread from Heaven); Β. Lindars, Behind the Fourth
Gospel (London: SPCK, 1 97 1 ); U. Schnelle, Antίdoketische Christologie im Johannes
evangelium (Gottingen, 1 987), see Linda Maloney's excellent English translation published
by Fortress Press, 1 992; and R. Ε. Brown (Community, 1 979) have correctly noticed John's
antidocetic corrective, but the practical (and more acutely, the ecclesiological) implications of
docetising beliefs have been underexplored.
51 Wl1ile one is not entirely convinced by Cassidy's exegetical moves (John 's Gospel in
Ne1v Perspective [Maryknoll: Orbis, 1 993] ; see my review ίη JBL 1 14, 2 [ 1 995)) he offers
very convincing evidence that based on Pliny's Letter to Trajan (Χ.96) and Trajan's Rescript
(Χ.97), Christians were being persecuted, sometimes simply for bearing the name "Clπistian.''
Sιιys Pliny, 'Ί have asked them in person if they are Christians, and if they admit it, 1 repeat
the question a second and third time, with a warning ofthe punisl1ment awaiting tl1e1n. lf they
persist, 1 order them to be led away for execution . . . .
"
Το this, Trajan responds, "These people must not be hunted out; if tl1ey are brought before
you and the charge against them is proved, they must be punished, but in the case of anyone
who denies that he is a Christian, and makes it clear that he is not by offering prayers to our
gods, he is to be pardoned as a result of his repentance however st1spect his co11dt1ct may be.''
(pp. 89-9 1 )
Christίans, sometimes with force, and this was experienced as persecution

by Christians. From the excessive tax of two drachmas (identical to the
amount of the Jewish annual contribution to the Temple, levied against
Jews and some Christians) instituted after the destruction of Jerusalem, to
the trial and execution of men, women and chίldren-simply for bearing the
name, "Christian" (who did not deny their faith or malign Christ when
given the opportunity to escape punishment), Cassidy shows from the
Roman records that such a backdrop of persecution must be consίdered
when reading John. Without operating on the assumption of earlier and later
material in John, Cassidy nonetheless infers themes that must have been
used to bolster the faith and corporate solidarity of Johannine Christians,
which Lindars includes as parts of the "supplementary material" added to
an earlier edition of the GospeJ.52 Ιη these and other ways, Cassidy adds the
backdrop of Roman persecution to Martyn's, Brown's and Rensberger's
scenarios illuminating the dia\ectical backdrop of the Jewish/Christian
relations. Both of these crises were real, and an assist from Ignatius may
clarify some ofthe issues at stake for Johannine Christianity.
While Ignatius' seven letters to the churches were probably written a
decade or two after John, they nonetheless cast light οη the Johannine
situation--or at least parallels to it. For instance, the oft-cited "medicine of
immortality" reference ίη lgnatius' letter to the Ephesians (20:2) betrays not
a theophagic proc\ivity ίη his sacramentology, but rather, a concern for
corporate unity in the face of persecution and schismatic tendencies. The
full passage (Eph. 20: 1 -2) is as follows:5J
If Jesus Christ counts me worthy through you iprayers, and if it be the

(divine) will, 1 will give you in the second document. .. [a] further
explanation of. . .Jesus Christ, having to do with faith in him and love of
him, with his suffering and resuπection; particularly if the Lord reveals
anything to me. ΑΙΙ of you, severally and in common, continue to come
together ίη grace, as individuals, in one faith and in Jesus Christ, who
according to the flesh was of the family of David, the son of a human
and son of God, that you may obey the bίshop and the presbytery with
52 For instance, Cassidy interprets the Farewell D iscourses and Jol1n 21 as needing to be
read against the backdrop of Roman persecution (pp. 54-79; see also L. W. Barnard, "St.
Clement of Roιne and the Persecutίon of Domίtίan," ίη his Studies in the Apostolίc Fathers
and Their Background [New York: Schocken Books, 1 966], pp. 5-1 8), and his ίnterpretatίon
of Jesus' Roman trial and imperial titles applίed to Jesus are also well-taken. Ιη doίng so, he
accentuates the sovereίgnty and all-sufficίency motίfs, as applίed to Chrίst, belίevίng tl1at they
tunctioned to offer a direct counter-balance to Roman claims regarding the deίty of tl1e
emperor. However, Cassίdy does hardly anything with the incarnatίonal-and tl1us anti
docetic-motifs ίn John, as they may have helped the believer undergo suffering tor one's
Lord. Thίs area would be worth explorίng.
53 Cίted from W. R. Schoedel, Jgnatίus of Antioch (J>hiladelphia: Fortress, 1 985), p. 95;
see also L. W. Bar11ard, "The Background of St. Ignatίus of Antioch," ίbid., pp. 1 9-30.
undistracted mind, breaking one bread, which is the medicine of

immortality, the antidote preventing death, but leading to life in Jesus
Christ forever.
From this fuller passage it is obvious that the central issue for Ignatius is
the corporate unity of the fellowship. In other words, the emphasis in not on
the eucharistic bread as the pharmakon athanasias, but upon the one bread
(as opposed to factious groups splitting off and having their own fellowship
meals) where corporate solidarity is at stake. Clearly this passage harkens
back to Eph 7: 1 -2, which describes factious leaders who "are rabid dogs,
.
biting without warning, whom you must guard against since they are almost
incurabJe. There is one physician . . . Jesus Christ our Lord." The central
theme here is oneness. In the face of the factious tendencies of "rabid
dogs," Ignatius emphasizes one physician, one bishop and presbytery, one
worship service and the breaking of one Joaf-the antidote to such
schismatic toxins.
Α possible explanation for some of these schisms may be alluded to in
his letter to the Smyrneans. Here Ignatius connects the fleshly suffering of
Christ with his own suffering and participation in the eucharist: (Smyrn.
4:2; 6:2-7: 1 )
For if those things were done by our Lord (only) in appearance, Ι too am
in bonds (only) ίη appearance. And why have Ι given myse\f up to
death, to fire, to sword, to wild beasts? But near the sword, near God;
with the beasts, with God; only in the name of Jesus Christ to suffer with
him ! Ι endure all things since he, the perfect human being empowers
me . . . .
Now observe those who hold erroneous opinions about the grace of
Jesus Christ . . . : for love they have no concern, none for the widow,
none for the orphan, none for the one distressed, none for one
imprisoned or re\eased, none for one hungry or thirsty; they remain
a\oof from eucharist and prayers because they do not confess that the
eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ which suffered for our
sins, which the Father raised by his goodness.
These passages make it clear that the scandalous result of docetism in

Ignatius' view was threefold: first, it made a mockery of Christ's suffering
and the martyrdom of contemporary Christians. lgnatius draws the
implication into the spotlight: if Jesus did not suffer, then why should we?
Precisely the point of the Docetists. Second, this view of cheap grace
resulted in the moral failure of its advocates. They failed to hold up their
agapeic commitments within the community of faith, and thus the
fellowship suffered because of them. Third, they apparently refused to
participate fully in the meetings for worship because they did "not confess
that the eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ which suffered for
our sins." It is not clear here whether the emphasis ίs upon the flesh or the
suffering of Christ,54 but it is clear that their refusal to participate must have
divided the community and ίt disrupted Christian fellowship. The Johannine
situation was entirely parallel to these. Ιη the face of Roman harassment and
persecution, Gentile Christians (or prospects) found it all too easy to deny
the humanity and suffering of Christ, and thereby to try to escape the
Roman penalties for being Joyal to "the name." They thus made it a practice
of denying their Christian involvements and even maligning Christ
perhaps excused in their minds by the notion that a non-suffering Jesus
would not expect his followers to suffer and die. When these practices were
opposed by the Christian leadership, probably emphasizing the importance
of ingesting the flesh and blood of Jesus, the docetizing groups began to
break off into quasi-Christian groups, holding their own cultic meetings and
developing their own "theological" defense of their assimίlating actions:
denying the flesh-and-bloodness of Jesus. Representatives then became
some of the "false teachers" and "false prophets" mentioned in the
Johannine Epistles and the Jetters of lgnatius. These tendencies may be
observed in the second antichristic threat of 1 John 4: 1 -3 and 2 John 7.
Consider the outline ofthe Elder's antidocetic appeal:
Table #10, "The Second Antichristic Schism (1 John 4: 1 -3 and 2 John 7)
The Departure of Gentile Christians and their Docetizing Teachings"
- "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see ifthey
are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." ( 1
John 4 : 1 ) The warning of a forthcoming threat is issued, and the community
member is advised to test the spirits, Jest one be deceived by a false
prophet. This antichristic threat will be different from the first ίη terms of
christological content and the proselytizing character of its advocates, but
beware; do not be deceived.
- "By this you can recognize the spirit of God: Every spirit that
confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit that
does not confess Jesus is not of God." ( 1 John 4:2-3a) By other
appearances, these prophets may seem to be solid Christians, but ask them/
54 At t!1is point, Scl1nel!e's argument (Antidocetic Christology) ίs we!I worth considering.

He argues, based on this passage, that because the Docetists here refused to believe tl1at the
eucl1aristic bread was Jesus' flesl1, the Fourth Evangelist has cal!ed for ful! participation in the
eιιcl1arist (John 6 : 5 1 c-58) as a measured way to confront tl1eir docetic beliefs. Still, however,
tl1e eιnphasis ιnιιst be placed upon the larger corporate and ethical issues rather that ritual
ones. The goal of the evangelist was the restoration of Christian ιιnity (and the prevention of
fιιrther defections), and he used incarnation motifs, an emphasis on the cross, and eucharistic
imagery to confront the docetizing tendencies of his audience. Docetism divided precisely
because it advocated a gospel of cheap grace in the face of' persecution.
about the jlesh and blood ο/Jesus, and their teachings will be laid open for
scrutiny. These people would not have been of Jewish origin (tending to
deny Jesus as the Christ); rather, they would have been of Gentile origin
(tending to deny the Christ as incarnated in the man, Jesus), precίsely those
least inclίned to resist assimilation to Roman and/or cultural demands.
- 'Άηd this is the spirίt of the Antichrist, which you have heard is
coming-and even now is already ίη the world! " (Ι John 4:3b) Whereas the
first antichristic schism has already departed ( Ι John 2 : l 8ff.), the second
antichristic threat is still οη the way. Not only was the first threat different
in its beliefs and socio-religious identity, it ίs also different ίη terms of
timing. The warning is sounded: Beware ofthe Docetists!
- "For many deceivers who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in

the flesh have gone out into the world. This is the deceiver and the
Antichrist." (2 John 7) By this time the docetic threat ίs not only οη the
way, but ίt appears that some of ίts adherents have also "gone out into the
world." The encouragement to remain (ν. 9) inψlies that a second schίsm
has indeed transpired (perhaps the Docetists were expelled from the
Johannine commun ity as much as being enticed into newly-formed
docetic/Chrίstίan groups), and the Johannine Christian ίs warned to be οη
the lookout against such false teachers and their divisίve tactίcs.
From these corollarίes, one may infer a second schismatic crisis

confronting Johannine Christianity, this time involving Gentile Christians
with docetizing tendencies.ss The challenge of Roman persecution and
Hellenistic dualism combined here to form the beginnings of docetίc
christologies, which later evolved into more fully-developed gnosticism. Ιη
the "supplementary material" inferred by Lindars, one can readily locate the
maj ority of John's antidocetic material (the Word made flesh, 1 : 1 4; blood
and water flowing from Jesus' side, 1 9 :34f. ; "unless you eat my flesh and
drink my blood . . . " 6:53ff.), and this suggests that Johannine Christianity
was faced by the docetizing crisis a few years after the crisis with the
ss Indeed, many scholars lunψ all three Antichrist passages rat!1er uncritica!ly into the
same schismatic soup, but fail to realize the generally flexible character ofthe term. It was tl1e
ultimate slanderous appellative within such a Christocentric setting, and it was used to warn
against more than one threat. Given the historical evidence for two external sources of
persecution, tl1e opposite differences in christological be!iefs between the Antichrist passages,
the chronological differences between the times Jewish and Gentile converts would have
entered and exited Johannine Christianity (as well as t!1eir relίgίous proclivities), and the
apparently sequential dealing with two individuated crises (in John, the Johannine Epistles,
and in tl1e letters of lgnatius), such a view becomes untenable. See also C. C. Richardson for
convincing evidence that !gnatius a!so faced two consecutive threats: a Jewish one and a later
docetic one ("The Evidence for Two Separate Heresies," in his The Christianity of fgnatius of
Antioch [New York, 1 967 (1 935)), pp. 8 1 -85). Whi!e the Johannine situation is not identical
to the Ignatian, tl1e paraliels are suggestive at least of a similar seque11ce of ordeals.
48 PAUL N. ANDERSON
Synagogue. This crisis is also alluded to ίη John 6:5 1 -66, where Jesus'
discussants eventually shift to his disciples. They are scandalized by Jesus'
words and also begin to grumble-like the Jews, a sure sign of their
unbelieving inclination (ν. 6 1 ). Their exclamation and question are, "This is
sure a hard word (to stomach)! Who can possibly go along with (swallow)
it?" (ν. 60) Here the Johannine use of irony works powerfully. Οη one
Ievel, the reader might assume a misunderstanding dialogue οη the
controversial character of the eucharist might be ensuing. Certainly the
language of eating and drinking Jesus' flesh and blood would be offensive
to any audience, and real debates οη precisely this topic occurred. But οη a
deeper level, it becomes clear that the subject being discussed is the cross:
its centrality in Jesus' mission, and the would-be disciple's calling to
embrace it in the face of persecution. The disciples in the evangelist's
audience would have experienced the dialogue as follows:
- "Indeed, this bread is my flesh whίch Ι shall gίve for the life of the
world." (ν. 5 l c-To be my disciple involves the willingness to go with m e
to the cross. Paradoxically, in losing one's life one finds it. This is the life
producing food offered by the Son of Man.)
- "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and Ι
will raise him up οη the last day." (ν. 54-You may think you're about to
hear a defense of the eucharist against Jewish charges of "cannibalism," but
beware. Α far more disturbing message is coming your way. Ιη the light of
those docetizing Christians who deny the flesh-and-bloodness of the
incarnation, as well as its implications for costly discipleship, you must
ingest Jesus' humanity if you wish to share in the benefits of his divinity. I f
you expect to b e raised with him οη i n the eschaton, you must b e willing to
suffer and die with him in the present.)
- 'Άre you scandalized by this? How will you feel when you see the
Son of Man ascending to where he was at first?" (νν. 6 l ff.-Consider your
ordeals from the perspective of eternity. Granted, you are offended at
bloody talk about the true cost of discipleship, but how will you feel in the
eschaton if you take the easy way out for the short term and deny your Lord
and his community for the sake of saving your skins? When you see the
Son of Man being raised up, triumphant over the powers, and you realize
you denied him before humanity and that you will be denied by him before
the Father, beware! The final scandal will be yours and your faίthless
choίces.)
- "The spirit is that which is life-producing: the flesh profits nothing.
The words Ι have spoken to you are spirit, and they are l ife; although there
are still some of you who do not believe." (νν. 63f.-As we began with at
the beginning of this exhortation, work not for the death-producing food,
but the life-producing food, which the Son of Man shall give you. My
words should offer you consolation: first, because Ι have promised you an
ΤΗΕ SΙΤΖ ΙΜ LEBEN 49
eternal reward for your faithfulness; second, because Ι will provide you all
you need to remain in me; and third, because they are of heavenly origin
and are life-producing. That hardship you have wanted to escape, perhaps
viewing it as "the bread of affliction," is actually like choosing the flesh of
quail over God's eschatological provision. As was the case in the
wilderness, those who craved flesh became sick and died. Don't make the
same error. Receive the Bread which has now come down from heaven, and
be willing to ingest his suffering and death if needed. Doing the work of
God will be your true nourishment; the way ofthe flesh profits nothing! )
- "This is why Ι have told you that ηο one can come to me unless the
Father has enabled him." (ν. 65-Human initiative cannot suffice when it
coιηes to the way of the spirit. Following Jesus ίs paradoxical, not practical.
Ιη responding to the divine initiative, not only must one be willing to set
aside one's physical needs, one's religious methods and wisdom, and one' s
instincts for survival, but one must also Jay at the cross one's
understandings of how the Iife of faith ought to work. Even some of you
who consider yourselves true followers of m ine do not understand or
believe. Your only hope is to respond ίη faith to God's saving initiative. It
is not of yourselves, but a gift from God.)
At this, the words and knowings of Jesus are confirmed, and many of
his disciples slide back and walk about with him ηο more (ν. 66). The
scandalizing words of the Lord are ηο mere debate over eucharistic rites or
answers to Jewish charges of cultic cannibalism. The scandal is that the
disciples have understood ful l well the cost of discipleship, but have not
comprehended the identity and mission of the Lord. Like the shallow
enthusiasm of the crowd which m isunderstands the feeding as a political
sign (νν. 14f.), even some of Jesus' followers are unwilling to pay the
u ltimate cost of discipleship. They see the Jesus movement as offering
teιηporal benefits-perhaps even the overthrow of the Romans-but are
scandalized when asked to be willing to suffer and die for their Lord. The
einmalig level of the narrative here pierces the situation of Johannine
Christianity. Ιη the light of a second schismatic crisis-a docetizing one Ied
by Gentile Christians-the Johannine Christian is called to remain loyal to
the Lord and his community of faith. While eucharistic imagery is used,
Johannine Christianity probably does not have a full-blown sacramental
ritual as of yet56 The "real thing" is corporate fellowship, which ίs
56 At this poi11t, the insight and question articulated by R. Kysar, The Fourth Evange/ist
and His Gospel (Mίnneapolis: Augsburg, 1 975), p. 259, are tellίng ones: 'Ί believe that the
early form of the gospel . . . had no sacramental reference because the johannίne communίty
at that tίme was essentially 11011-sacramental. Could it be that the absence of the institution of
the lord's supper from the fourth gospel is due to the fact tl1at that narratίve was not part of
the johannίne tradίtίon and that the johannίne community dίd not know the ίnstitution
narratives ίη any form?"
experienced in the gathered meeting for worship, in fellowship meals, in the

caring for the needy within the group and in being willing to confess and
suffer for one's Lord. Abiding solidarity with Christ and his community is
the central goal of this section's appeal. This is the goal furthered by the use
of graphic (and even offensive) eucharistic language, and this is the "hard
word" which scandalizes the audience.
4. The portrayal of Peter and Johannίne Chrίstίanίty 's dialectίcal

relatίonshίp wίth the maίnstream church: John 6:67-70
While indications of this crisis are far more subt\e ίη John 6 than the other
ones, they nonethe\ess are suggestive of other issues beneath the surface
and emphasized 1nore clearly elsewhere in the Gospel. Verses 67-70 appear
οη the surface to deviate from the rhetorical pattern found ίη the other
dialogues of John 6, as well as from the standard revelational pattern. The
initiative passes from the discussants to Jesus in ν. 67, and Peter appears to
make an exemplary confession (νν. 68f.). What is extremely odd is Jesus'
negative retort immediately following Peter's confession: 'Ήave 1 not
chosen you, the Twelve? And yet, one of you is a devil ! " While this
statement is entirely parallel to the Marcan Jesus' response to Peter' s
re\uctance to al\ow the Son of Man (and his vice-regents) to suffer and die
("Get Όut of my face, ' Satan! You are not minding the things of God but
the things of humans." Mark 8 :33), Jesus' calling Peter "a devil" here is
highly problematic. So problematic that it is indeed probab\e that ν. 7 1
represents the attempt ofthe compiler to resolve this perplexity.57 Whatever
the case, ν. 70 represents Jesus' rejection of Peter's confession, and this
implies a misunderstanding somewhere ίη his statement. This being so, a
likely solution is to view the first part of Peter's confession (ν. 68) as an
adequate response to the question of Jesus; but to see something in his
confession-perhaps the second part of it (ν. 69) as representing some
broader aspect of Petrine understanding which Jesus rejects. One might
Historically, this was probably true for some time. The question is how long did it take tl1e
Jol1annine expressions of sacramentality to evolve from human and social (incarnated)
realities to ritual and symbolic (eucharistic) ones. Much of John seems to oppose such
developments. It is probable that this transition happened, at the latest, after the passing of the
Beloved Disciple around the turn ot' tl1e century. See W. Marxsen, The Lord 's Supper as α
Chrίstologίcal Problem, trans. L. Nieting (Pl1iladelphia: Fortress, 1 970); and Α. Schweitzer,
The Problem of the Lord's Supper ( 1 90 1 ), English trans. of 1929 ed. Α. J. Mattill, Jr. (Macon:
Mercer University Press, 1 982); and Ρ. Ν. Anderson, "The 'Medicine ot' l ιnιnortality' in
lgnatius and John 6," unpublished paper presented at the Johannine Seminar of the National
AARISBL Meetings, New Orleans, 1 990.
57 Just as it appears that the compiler has clarified for the reader 1vhich Judas it was that
was speaking in John 1 4:22 (not Judas lscariot), it appears that he has also solved tl1e
perplexity of John 6:70 by explaining parenthetically, "(Jesus did not mean Simon Peter, who
was a devil, but Judas, son of Sίmon lscariot, who would betray him later and wl10 must h ave
been alluded to in ν. 64b earlier.)" It appears the compiler has "clarified" the meaning of a
similar text at John 1 1 : l Of.
even ίnfer that the response of Peter comes to a fu ll stop at the end of ν. 68,
and that the ίηίtίatίνe passes from Jesus to Peter in ν. 69. With the boldness
of hίs declaration, "We have believed and known that . . . " one 1nay detect
the evangelist's use of ίronic exaggeration--especially, given Jesus' abrupt
response to what sounds like a perfectly acceptable and exemplary
affirmation. But is it really?
Knowing how to interpret συ έι b δ;yιος του θεο-U (ν. 69b) ίs a difficult
matter. Nearly all scholars interpret it as an exemplary declaration of Jesus'
holiness and sacred mission, but gίven ν. 70, this explanation is inadequate.
Neither is Peter here being cast in the role of the Marcan deιηoniac (Mark
1 :24 ), even though the confession is identical. What we probably have is a
connotation that is fully parallel to Mark 8:32b, where Peter, after makίng
his confession (ν. 29), takes Jesus aside and begins to rebuke him for tellίng
the disciples bluntly that the Son of Man must be rejected, suffer and die.
At this point Jesus rebukes Peter ίη Mark, and his reason for doing so ίη
John appears to have been entirely parallel. !η Mark, Peter is unwilling for
the Son of Man-and especially his followers-to suffer and die. Ιη John,
tl1e same concem comes though, and what has been rendered a question by
Jesus actually reads better ίη the declarative: 'Ί have not elected you, the
Twelve (to escape tribulation, ούκ εγeο ύμδ.ς τους δώδεκα εξελεξάμην),
and one of you is a devίl (for suggesting so)! " That being the case, one must
ask how Peter's confident confession that Jesus is the 'Ήoly One of God"
may have been tantamount to hίs refusal to allow the Son of Man to suffer
and die. This query leads in two dίrections: the first concems the function
of this particular confession in Mark, and the second pertains to its
associated meanίngs beyond Mark.
The deιηoniac's declaring that Jesus is the ''Holy One of God" ίη Mark
sets the stage for Jesus' vanquisl1ing of Satan's reign by his authoritative
words and dynamic deeds. Indeed, Jesus prωηptly exorcizes the man, heals
Sίmon 's mother-in-law and begins to proclaim the gospel. Lίkewίse, he
designates the Twelve as emissaries, commissίoning them to cast out
demons and to proclaίm the gospel (Mark 3 : 1 3 - 1 5). As plunderίng the
household of a "strong man" hinges upon first bίnding the strong man
(Mark 3 :27), so the thaumaturgical work of Jesus and his band prepares the
teπίtory for the advance of the Kingdom of God. Jesus' recognitίon as the
'Ήoly One of God" by the demonίac ίη Mark 1 :24 ίntroduces Mark's
Davidic and triumphal basileiology, whereby Jesus sets up his royal
kίngdom in Zion. This contrasts dίametrically to the explanation for why
the Judeans failed to recognize Jesus as the Christ in John. They expected
(based οη their again inadequate exegesis) that the Christ would be a
Davidic Messίah from Bethlehem, not a Galilean prophet (John 7:4 1 f.).
Does having a Davίdic or thaumaturgic messίology, according to John,
cause the missίng of Jesus' ίdentίty and the true character ofhίs kingdom?
As a christological title, b ά:yιος -του θεοί) occurs elsewhere only ίη

Luke 4:23 in the entire canonical corpus, and here it ίs simply a repetition
of the Marcan passage. Οη the other hand, -τbν &:γιον κα\. δίκαιον is found
οη the lips of Peter in Acts 3 : 1 4, 'ιεράτευμα ά:yιον and έθνος ά:yιον are
mentioned in l Peter 2:5 and 9, and l John 2:20 refers to -του iχ)'ίου as the
source of spiritual unction. The 'Ήο\y one of Israel" is mentioned
prolifically ίη Isaiah and some in Zechariah, but it cannot be viewed as
identical in meaning, though it is certainly Zionistic and power-oriented.
From these corollaries one may hypothesize that Peter's dec!aration of
Jesus as "the Holy One of God" suggests the following: l .) Based οη Jesus'
abrupt response, it was not included by the evangelist as an exempl ary
reference to Jesus' holiness, but served a negative role, probably parallel to
Peter' s refusal ίη Mark to allow the Son of Man to suffer and die. 2.) This is
closer to the sort of Jewish appellation that Peter would have used and ίs
probably closer to Peter's actual words than the more Hellenized and
confessional rendition ίη Mark.5s 3 .) Ideologically, we have here the
portrayal of Jesus' rejecting the typically Davidic Synoptic messiology, just
as he had fled the crowd' s popularistic designs οη his future (νν. l 4f.). 4. )
Such a portrayal suggests a Johannine inclination to correct the Synoptic
view of the Kingdom-how it is established and how it is maintained;59 and
this corrective is illuminated by the juxtaposition of Peter and the Beloved
Disciple elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel.
While not described ίη the context of John 6, the ambivalent relation of
Peter to the Beloved Disciple ίη John is implicated by the ambiguous
portrayal of Peter in vv. 68-7 1 . While several scholars have done well to
notice this juxtaposed relationship, few have worked out specifically the
ecclesial implications as they reflect the Johannine posture toward
58 "The Holy One of God," the 'Ήoly and Righteous One," 'Ήoly Priesthood" and 'Ήoly
Nation" are characteristic of the Petrine connection of sanctification with empowerment.
Based οη the criterion of dissimilarity, b άγιος τοϋ θεοϋ would have been far less comrnon
than the more predictable Marcan rendition, b χριστός, which is also ιηοre Hellenized. If
indeed Peter had anything to do with the tradition underlying Mark, as Papias believed, the
citation of b άγιος τοϋ θεοϋ in Mark 1 :24 and John 6:69 may be plausibly traced to the
historical Peter (Luke even sides with the Johannine rendition by adding τοϋ θεοϋ to the
Marcan b χριστός). lt reflects the Petrine understanding of how the Kingdorn of God
advances, and tellingly, just as the pre-Marcan interpretation of Jesus' miracles in corrected in
John 6, apparently so is the pre-Marcan basileiology.
59 lt is wrong to assume that the deartl1 of Johannine references to the Kingdoιη of God
implies its low priority in the thinking of the evangelist. John uses other terms to describe the
Kingdom of God: nouns such as ''light," 'Ίife" and "truth," and such verbs as "believe,"
"know" and "love." Furtherrnore, the two passages describing the Kingdom ίη John are both
corrective ίη their nuance. John 3 : 1 -8 corrects wooden (institutional?) notions of the
Kingdom-it is like the wind of the Spirit; and John 1 8:36f. challenges institutional claims to
autl1ority-Jesus ίs a king, but his Kingdom is one of Truth. T11ese critiques of human
instrumentality would have applied to Jewish, Roman and evolving Christian forrns ot'
institutionalisrn.
impending mainstream Christian trends.60 Central to this issue is the fact

that the two other dialogues between Peter and Jesus in John both portray
Peter as misunderstanding the character of servant leadership and agapeic
shepherding. In response to Jesus' attempt to model Christian servanthood
at the foot-washing scene (John 1 3 : 1 - 1 7), Peter totally misunderstands the
point being exemplified and requests a total immersion. Climactically, Jesus
declares, 'Ά servant is not greater than his master, nor is an apostle
(i:χπ6στολος) greater than the one sending him." (ν. 1 6--Is the Petrine
apostolate here being alluded to as competing with Jesus?)
Peter also misunderstands Jesus' intent in the Iake-side appearance
naπative, where Peter fails three times to understand and respond
adequately to Jesus' question ((χyαπφ; με?). Granted, many view John 2 1
as a reinstatement of Peter's authority, but it is not an unambiguous one.
Peter is the first to abandon the itinerant ministry of Jesus' band, returning
instead to his conventional trade ('Ί'm going fishing! " ν. 3); he does not
recognize the Lord οη his own but must be guided by the insight of the
Beloved Disciple (ν. 7); he misunderstands the agapeic instruction of Jesus
and is even hurt (ελυπήθη) by Jesus' questioning (νν. 1 5- 1 7); his
helplessness in martyrdom is predicted by the Lord (νν. 1 8f.); and the last
glimpse of Peter shows him glaring enviously at the Beloved Disciple
saying, 'Άnd what about him!" (νν. 20f.), to which the Johannine Jesus
responds in ways reminiscent of the Marcan calling naπative, "Follow thou
me!" (ν. 22, repeated from ν. 1 9).61 The point of all this is to suggest that
the inadequacy of Peter's confession in John 6 probably reflects the
60 Such scholars as S. Agourides, "Peter and John in the Fourth Gospel," Studia Evangelia
4, ed. F. L. Cross (Berlin: Akademie, 1 968), pp. 3-7; Α. F. Maynard, "The Role of Peter in the
Fourth Gospel," Neiv Testament Studies 30 ( 1 984), 53 1 -48; and G. F. Snyder, "Jol1n 1 3 : 1 6
and the Anti-Petrinism of the Johannine Tradition," Biblical Research 1 7 ( 1 97 1 ), 5 - 1 5, have
detected clear anti-Petrinism in John. Οη the other hand, such scholars as Brown, Donfried,
and Reumann, et al., Peter in the Neiv Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1 973); and Κ.
Quast, Peter and the Beloνed Disciple, JSNTSS 32 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1 989) conclude
that such a juxtaposition is less telling, as Peter is portrayed with a certain degree of
ambiguity ίη all tl1e gospels. None of these studies, however, l1as developed the
"christocratic" implications of this relationship as they relate to John's ecclesiology and
dialectical relationship with rising institutionalism in the late first century church (see ιny
review of Quast 's book in Critical Reνiew of Books in Religion, 1 99 1 ). This issue has been
explored fruitfully by Τ. V. Smitl1, Petrine Controνersies ίn Early Christianity, WUNT 11 1 5
(Ttibingen: J . C . Β . Molir [Paul Siebeck], 1 985), but the particular Johannine scald o n the
matter deserves further exploration.
61 Indeed, Luke appears to have taken over parts of John 21 for l1is rendition of the calling
narrative in Luke 5. Lιιke's clear deviation from Mark cannot be explained on the basis of
John's dependence on Luke, and the view that John and Luke shared a common source is far
more speculative tl1an to hypothesize that where Luke deviates from Mark or Q and sides with
John may suggest Lucan access to the Jol1annine tradition. See Ρ. Ν. Anderson, 'Άcts 4:20:
Α First Century Historical Clue to Johannine Authorship?" an unpublished paper presented at
the Pacific Northwest Regional AAR/SBL Meetings ίη Walla Walla, 1 992. lf Luke did draw
from the Johannine tradition, it must have been during the oral stages of tl1e Johannine
tradition, as issues of sequence and association are better thus explained.
Johannine attitude toward the evolving influence of Peter in the mainstream

church around the time the final edition of John was written. Α clue to at
least one acute crisis ίη the Johannine situation, which must have
exacerbated the need for this corrective, is suggested by 3 John.
Ιη 3 John 9f. Diotrephes "who loves to be their superior" (b
φιλοπρωτεύων αύτών), neither receives Johannine Christians nor allows
any of his membership to take them ίη. He "gossips maliciously" about
Johannine Christians and even exercises totalitarian authority over his own
congregation, being willing to cast out any who should like to extend
hospitalίty to them. TeJlingly, the Elder comforts Gaius by telling him that
those to whom he has mίnistered have reported good things about his love
to the church (ν. 6, εκκλησία), and that he has written to the church (ν. 9,
ί::κκλησ'ια) about Diotrephes. Whomever he may have been, it ίs obvious
from these references that (from the Johannine perspective) Diotrephes
must have been a heavy-handed leader aspirίng to rule his congregation by
means of institutionally-imbued authorίty, granted from the centralίzίng
church. Thίs obviously betrays an early form of the emerging
monepiscopate, rising in Asia Minor durίng the last two decades of the first
century CE, which Ignatius of Antioch seeks to bolster a few years hence.
For whatever reason, Diotrephes seems threatened by Johannίne traveling
mίnisters and denies them hospitality and access to his group.62 It is
probable that in doing so he has constructed his positional fοπη of
leadership οη the basis of the tradition, or at least the sentiment, of the
Matthean "keys to the Kingdom" passage (Matt. 1 6 : 1 7- 1 9), and that he feels
justified ίη wielding his authorίty οη chΓistocratic grounds.63 This explains
62 Kasemann is indeed coπect to infer that Diotrephes is an episcopal leader of sorts, who
is threatened by Johannine Christians (The Testament of Jesus, 1 968). He is wrong, however,
in judging tl1e reason tor this perceived threat to be tl1e docetizing tendencies of Jol1annine
Christianity. First of all, the Elder and the evangelist have been quite active in opposing such
trends, and there is ηο evidence that even incipient Docetism was ever n1ore than a peripheral
phenomenon within t11is sector of the church. Second, as Μ. Meye Thompson has pointed out
so well in her recent monograph (The Humanity of Jesus ίn the Fourth Gospel [Philadelpl1ia:
Fortress, 1 988]), the evangelist's christology was absolutely as incarnational as it was
elevated. lt may l1ave been exalted, but it was never docetizing. Third, far more threatening to
Diotrephes' positional authority would have been the Johannine vie1v ο/ pneHmatically
mediated and universally accessible /eadership of the risen Christ. The Jol1a11ni11e scandal in
Diotrephes' eyes (and rightly so, as far as his aspirations were concerned) was tlie egalitarian
teaching that by 1nea11s of the Parakletos, all believers can be led by Christ (see G. Μ.
Burge's excellent treatment of the Holy Spirίt in the Jol1a1111i11e tradition: The Anoίnted
Community [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1 987]). ΑΙΙ of these ιnake it plausible that Diotrephes
was probably more threatened by tl1e Johannine pneumatic and egalitarian ιnode of
christocracy which threatened his own position and his (Antiochine?) view of how his own
community could be gathered in the face of Roιnan J1ardship.
63 This is not to say that all hierarchical expressions of c!1urch leadership misused tl1e
image of Peter or the evolvίng "offιces" of the church. This would be 110 more true tl1a11 to
assuιne that all forms of charismatic expression l1ad the same faults as Corinthian entJ1usiasm.
lt is to say that in at least one case, we have a clear example of institutional autl1ority-and
why the Elder implicates the εκκλησία (probably an Antiochine reference)

centrally in this crisis, and it must imply his ideological motive for
"publishing" the witness of the Beloved Disciple, "whose testimony is true"
(John 2 1 :25).
At stake in the Elder's motivation to circulate the witness of the Beloved
Disciple must have been not simply the preservation of one more gospel
narrative, independent though it be, but the desire to declare the original
intentionality of Jesus for his church. It is a matter of christocracy-the
effective means by which the risen Lord continues to inspire, lead and
empower the church-and John poses a familial and egalitarian model over
and against the emerging institutional and hierarchical one.64 When
compared with Peter's confession in Matthew 1 6 : 1 6- 1 9, the portrayal of
Peter in John 6:67-70 is all the more telling. ln Matthew, Jesus imbues Peter
(and those who follow in his wake) with christocratic institutional authority;
in John, however, Peter is portrayed as acknowledging the living and
pneumatic words of Jesus as the only christocratic hope for the Jesus
movement. Ιη effect, Peter is here portrayed as returning the keys of the
Kingdom to Jesus. By means of this deconstructive rendering of Peter's
confession, the evangelist clears the ground for h i s pneumatic and familial
ecclesiology developed elsewhere in the GospeJ.65 Notice, for instance, that
probably Petrine au•I1ority-being wielded in ways that were experienced negatively by s01ne
Johannine Christiar:s. This kind of development must have aft"ected the evangelist's appeal to
Jesus' original intentionality for his church, and it must have motivated the Elder's desire to
circulate such a testimony.
64 One is indebted to Ρ. Menoud, "Church and Ministry According to the New Testament"
ίn Jesus Christ and the 1'aith (Pittsburgh, 1 978), pp. 363-435, for the term, "christocracy" (pp.
407- 1 1 ) . !η this essay, Menoud wisely describes the tension between institution and charisma,
which existed in the first century church and in every generation before and since. T11e
relevance for the present study is to acknowledge the extent to which rising institutionalism in
the Iate first-century church was experienced as a deviation fron1 nascent Christianity, calling
1'orth a corrective response by the Johannine tradition, which produced a manifesto of radical
christocracy-a gospel portrayal of the spiritual means by which the risen Lord will continue
to Iead the church. This "dialogue" may explain one reason why good biblical traditions
continue to come up with variant ecclesiologies. The ecclesiological self-understaηding of the
historical late first-century church was dialectical, not monological.
65 ln the writings of Ignatius one clearly sees the elevation of Peter and his monepiscopal
representative in the Iocal church as the centripetal means of countering centrifugal
tendencies in the face of Roman persecution. This is clearly the fu11ctio11 of Matthew's
supplementing Peter's confession with institutionalizing themes. I f one considers an outline of
the content of Matthew 1 6 : 1 7- 1 9, one may find remarkably parallel correctives to each of
tl1ese seven points in John. (See Anderson, Christology, Table 20: "Matthew 1 6: 1 7- 1 9 and its
'Christocratic Correctives' in John. ")
See also Ρ. Ν. Anderson, "Ύοu (Alone) Have the Words of Eternal Life ! ' Is Peter
Portrayed as Returnίng the 'Keys of the Kingdom' to Jesus in John 6:68f.?" (unpublished
paper presented at the Johannine Seminar, National AAR/SBL Meeting, Anaheim, 1 989); and
my essay outlining five aspects of the Johannine Christocratic corrective to institutional
developments in the Iate first-century church in Quaker Relίgίous Thought 76 ( 1 99 1 ), 27-43).
These cl1ristocratic correctives include the character of worship, ministry, sacramentality,
authority and apostolicity.
while the Beloved Disciple is not entrusted with instrumental keys to the
Kingdom, he is entrusted with the mother of Jesus ( l 9:26f.)-an action
suggestive of not only the authority of the Johannine tradition, but also the
relational (familial rather than institutional) character of the church as
having christocratic primacy.
The point here is that in the face of rising Roman persecution under the
reign of Domitian, the leadership of the mainstream church and the Fourth
Evange\ist sought to appeal for church unity in the face of schismatic
tendencies, but they did so using diametrically opposite models of
organization. The mainstream church sought to bolster church unity by
raising the value of structured worship and the authority of hierarchical
leadership; the Johannine leadership sought to emphasize the presence of
Christ within the egalitarian fellowship, appealing for corporate solidarity
with Christ and his "family" as an indication of one's love for God and one
another. Each of these had its own strengths and weaknesses, and neither
expression was by any means perfect.66 By the time 3 John was written and
the final stages of the Gospel were composed, however, the mainstream
"solution" to schismatic defections had itself become a source of division
and alienation for at least one Johannine community. This produced not
merely a complaint about the execution of "right faith and order" within the
church, but a critique of the degree to which rising institutionalism in the
late first-century church represented the orίgίnal ίntentίonalίty of Jesus for
hίs movement. This being the case, John 6:67-70 would quite possibly have
been interpreted by the evangelist' s audience at the time of the final stages
of writing John 6 (probably in the m id 90's) as follows:
- (Jesus asking the Twelve) You don't want to leave too, do you?" (ν.
67-The testing motif of John 6, begun with the testing of individual
disciples, the crowd, the Jews and Jesus' would-be followers now
culminates with the testing of the Twelve. The crowd m isunderstood, the
Jews grumbled and even some of the disciples abandoned Jesus . . . what
will the Twelve do?)
- (Peter responds) "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of
eternal life." (ν. 68-Αη absolutely shocking statement; especially coming
from Peter-the one everybody has heard received instrumental keys to the
Kingdom! Jesus himself is the source of life-producing words, not his
representatives. Despite what you hear from Diotrephes and his kin,
Christ's l ife-producing word ίs available to all believers by means of the
Parakletos, who will sustain you, guide you and convict you of all Truth.
Before Jesus departed he appeared to his own and breathed οη
[pneumatized] them, gave them the authority [responsibility] to forgive
66 See R. Ε. Brown's excellent treatment of emerging ecclesiologies in the Sub-Apostolic

era (The Churches the Apostles Left Behind [New York: Paulist Press, 1 984]) and especially
the strengths and weaknesses of each.
sins, and sent [apostolized] them as the Father had sent him [John 21 :2 1 -
23]. Here Peter, the spokesman o f the Twelve, declares the radical
possibility of the apostolίcίty ofevery belίever.)
- (Peter continues, a bit overly confident, though) "We have come to
believe and know that you are the Holy One of God! " (ν. 69-As the
demon recognized the true identity of Jesus as the apocalyptic King-like
David, who will sweep out of the skies like Enoch's Son of Man, surely the
Romans will be made a footstool for his feet and the heavenly Kingdom of
God will once more rule from Zion. Surely this Messiah will be victorious
over the Romans, and ηο harm will come to his vice-regents. Unlike the
Jewish messianism of John 6: 1 4f., the mainstream [Synoptic] Christian
basileiology will emerge triumphant.)
- (Jesus responds) "Ι have not elected you, the Twelve [to emerge
unscathed from the trials of this age ίη apocalyptic triumphalism]; and one
of you is a devil [for suggesting so] !" (ν. 70-Now thίs is an aporia! How
can such a devout confession bring such a negative response from Jesus. He
must have meant Judas, the betrayer, who was alluded to a few verses
earlier. Then again, maybe Jesus' reign never involved a foolproof plan to
deliver us from a\l earthly trials. Maybe he expects us to abide with him
regardless of the consequences. Now that is a test!)
Ιη the light of such hard sayings, especially casting Peter and Synoptic
basileiology ίη critical light, it is easy to see why translators have rendered
Jesus' response as a question instead of as a declarative (after all, it does
work as a question, although not as well syntactically) and why the
compiler has sought to clarify the apparently harsh treatrnent of Peter by
adding ν. 7 1 . As the compiler inserted John 6 between chapters 5 and 7, he
probably doctored this aporia of portrayal. He obviously has harmonized
John 1 8 : 1 to accommodate the insertion of chs. 1 5- 1 7 between chs. 1 4 and
1 8. Furthermore, just as he has clarified which is not the wicked Judas
(John 1 4:22), and just as he has sought to elevate the presentation of Peter
in the rnaterial added in the epilogue ( ch. 2 1 ), so he has also "clarified" fόr
the reader that Jesus was not addressing Simon Peter son of John, but Judas
Iscariot son of Simon, the one alluded to in ν. 65, who would Iater betray
the Lord. The first audίences, however would not have been prίvileged to
this softening gloss, and they would have understood full well the
ecclesiological implications of the evangelist's pointed crafting of the story.
Here the ideological corrective returns to the critique of Synoptic
thaumaturgy highlighted ίη ν. 26 (crisis # 1 ), and this is further evidence of
the long-term duration of that critique. Το fol low Jesus is to embrace the
offence of the incarnation. Even Christian (not just Jewish) thaumaturgy
and triumphalism rnust be laid at the foot of the cross-precisely the reason
the evangelist's rnessage was, and often continues to be, rnisunderstood.
Ε. SYNTHESIS
While John 6 has evoked the most prolific combination of I iterary,

hίstorίcal and theological debates of any single unit in the Fourth Gospel,
this complexity also produces an equal degree of interpretive richness when
considered comprehensively. Because John 6 represents a basically unitive
written co1nposition, preserving an independent oral tradition whίch
elaborated homiletically οη the meaning of Jesus' words and works for later
generations, some of the issues faced by Johannine Christians are mirrored
ίη the misunderstandings of Jesus' discussants and hίs corrective responses
to them. In this sense, John 6 is literarίly synchronic, but rhetorica!ly
dίachronic. At every turn, the audίence is called to work for life-producing
rather than death-producing "food," and this appeal must have meant
different things at various times in the community's history. In that sense,
whi\e the formal Sitz ίm Leben of John 6 was constant, the situational
contexts in which its content was delivered homiletically continued to
evolve.
Ironically, classic Jewish manna-rhetoric is overturned by the Johannine
Jesus, as he corrects superficial understandings of the physical benefits of
Jesus miracles, represented by the prevalent, thaumaturgical valuing of
Jesus' wonders. The evangelist points instead to their revelational
sίgnificance as semeia. And, in the face of Jewish appeals for Johannίne
Christians of Seιnitic origin to return to the local Synagogue, Jesus not only
overturns theίr exegesis, but he exposes their absolute failure to understand
the eschatological workings of God-ίn the past and ίn the present-thus
running the risk of missing their reward in the afterlife. The Gentίle
Christian ίs also addressed existentially in John 6. Faced wίth a second
round of persecutίon, this tίme from the Romans, members of Johannine
Chrίstίanity are called to reject absolutely the docetizίng tendencies of those
who believe a non-suffering Lord would excuse theίr accommodatίng to the
requίrement of emperor-laud-at the penaltίes of harassment, sufferίng and
even death. Eucharίstίc ίmagery ίs used to bolster the appeal for corporate
solίdarity with Christ and his community in the face of such hardships, and
the cost of dίscipleship ίnvolves the ingestίng of, and ίdentίficatίon wίth,
Jesus' Bread: the ίncarnated flesh of the Son of Man, gίven for the life of
the world.
In the face of coping wίth persecutίon, Johannίne Christίans also
become malίgned by ecclesίal groups who attempt to overcome schίsmatίc
tendencίes by ίncreasing structural authorίty and value. In the midst of these
ίntramural dialogues, the pneuιnatically mediated and egalitarian mode! of
chrίstocracy is raίsed as representing Jesus' original intentionality for his
church, and the Johannine Christian ίs called to resist "safer" innovations,
c!inging instead to the life-producing words of Jesus. Structurally and
theological\y, the narratίve of John 6 cal!s for an abandonment of human-
originated ploys and methods in exchange for responding to the saving

initiative of God, as revealed through Jesus the Christ. Ironically, however,
all of this leads to a final and ongoing paradox for the interpreter: to
understand and believe the text fully is to fully release one's dearly-held
conclusions-even exegetical ones-to the priority of responding to the
divine initiative which, like the daily-given manna, comes through and
beyond the revelatory text. Κύριε, πάντοτε δΟς ήμ'iν τον άρτον το-Uτον.

The Sitz Im Leben of The Johannine Brea

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Sitz Im Leben of The Johannine Brea

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Sitz Im Leben of The Johannine Brea

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digital Commons @ George Fox University

Faculty Publications - College of Christian Studies College of Christian Studies

The Sitz im Leben of the Johannine Bread of Life

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/ccs

ι Exceptions in terms of John and Synoptic comparison/contrasts would of course include

demonstrated that the Johannine Bread of Life Discourse is indeed a written

sense, crίtical findings become the sources of new analytica1 beginnings.

Ι. The styJe ofJohn 6 ίs basίcαlly unitive..

to a lesser degree that of the OffinbarnngsΠ?den (p. 204, n. l ).

that �t is a11 imitation. "(Bultmaπn, p. 235, η. 4; see also p. 243, π. 4)

distinguished from 'Ήellenized Aramaic" is difficult to understand, Iet

2. 'Άporίas " are not necessarίly indίcatίve ofedίtorίal seams ίn John 6.

3 . The "eucharίstίc ίnterpolatίon" in John 6 is neither.

only be appropriated existentially by an authentic "yes" to the divine

4. John 6 must be considered α basically unίtίνe composίtίon, and it was

5. John 6 represents α tradίtίon parallel to, and yet ίndependentfrom, Mark

being parallel to--yet independent from-the Synoptics.16 Even Bu\tmann,

Β. ΜΑΝΝΑ AS Α "RHETORICAL TRUMP'' ΙΝ ANCIENT JUOAISM ΑΝΟ JOHN

One agrees with Professor Painter19 that Professor Borgen's monograph οη

l. The rhetorίcal use ofmanna pattern ίn Phίlo and John

While Borgen believes he has identified a "homiletical pattern" at work in

Table #1, "The Rhetorical Use of Manna Pattern in Ancient Jewish

Α.) Μαίn poίnt or text. Α point of argument, exhortation or text to be

21 While he categorizes various references to the ΠΊanna ΠΊοtίf as "exegetical paraphrase,"

Β.) Development of main point using dualistίc either/or categories. This

C.) Jntroduction of manna as α rhetorical trump (secondary proof-text).

D.) Continued development and implicatίons. The discussion continues,

Ε.) Reiteration of main point. The original appeal (Α) or text is

2. The rhetorίcal use ofmanrιa pattern ίn Psalm 78.

Table #2, "The Rhetorical Use ofManna Pattern in Psalm 78"

Α.) Μαίn poίnt of exhortatίon: Put your trust in God, oh my people,

Β.) Development ο/poίnt usίng e ίtherlor categorίes: God did 1ηany

fire, but they still did not trust. (v. 2 l f.)

C.) lntroductίon of manna as α rhetorίcal trump: God even opened

D.) Contίnued development and ίmplίcatίons: God did miraculous

3. The crowd 's use of n1anna as α "rhetorίcal trump " ίn John 6.

until we receive another feeding?). The ironic character of this odd

Β.) Development of poίnt usίng eίther/or categorίes: (Ιη response to

C.) lntroductίon ofmanna as α rhetorίcal trump (and repetition ofmain

the gauntlet is thrown down. They are willing to do their part . . . is

D.) Contίnued development and ίts ίmplίcatίons: The crowd then

Ε.) Reίteratίon of maίn poίnt: "Therefore, they said to him (regarding

This pattern is identical to the most typical use of manna in ancient

the overall truth to which they point. Ι η their wielding o f scriptural

c. REVELATION AND RHETORIC Ι Ν JOHN: τwο DIALOGICAL M ODES

The Johannine narrative also serves a rhetorical function, and nowhere

The device Qf'Not understanding'-deiibemte οο. the part of th e author,

1 . The reveiational scenario/discourse as declaratίon of the dίvίne ίnίtίαtίνe

developments. This forward-moving spira! is dialectical on several ievels.

Next, we 1nay infer something of the dialectical s ituation in which the

28 Μ. Bakhtin, "Forms of Time and Chronotope ίη the Noνel" in The Dialogic

Table #4, "Divine Initiative and the Revelational Scenario/Discourse in

Revelational sequence of Result explained in life/death

God or God's agent

This dialectical structure is identical within the narration of Jesus' signs

2. The rhetorίcalfunctίon ofthe Johannine mίsunderstanding dialogue

outlines the rhetorical function of the objections.3o As in the structure of the

God or God's agent ..._

What we have ίη John 6 is a shifting back and forth between