Volume 3, number 1, Fall 2005 Current Issue All Articles Church Fathers Editors Submissions Links Glossary Home Page ISSN 1555-936X Proto-Gnostic Elements in the Gospel According to John Mary Sheridan St. Elias School of Orthodox Theology INTRODUCTION This paper contains four sections: A very limited discussion of the relation of The Gospel according to John to the Gnostic writings and Gnosticism. A very limited discussion of the symbols employed in both The Gospel according to John to the Gnostic writings and Gnosticism. A very limited discussion of what might be called the target audience of The Gospel according to John. A very limited discussion of the particular teaching method, stories with embedded symbols, used by the author of The Gospel according to John. Several of the individual stories included in The Gospel according to John will be discussed, exploring and explaining the symbols used in these stories. A word about the author of The Gospel according to John: Ehrman[1] notes that the Gospel “has been traditionally ascribed to John, the son of Zebedee.” However, Ehrman states that John, the son of Zebedee, is never named in the Gospel itself and states, “The book itself is anonymous. The author was clearly a Greek-speaking Christian…[who] evidently lived outside of Palestine.” Ehrman further states that the author of The Gospel according to John used a source never named but only referred to as “ ‘The disciple whom Jesus loved.’ ”[2] Ehrman goes on to state that scholars generally agree that whoever authored The Gospel according to John also used “several written sources, including”: A written account of Jesus’ signs that may have been composed, originally, to convince Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. One or more collections of Jesus’ long speeches. The introductory hymn to Christ that serves as the Gospel’s prologue. PART I Proto-Gnostic Elements in The Gospel according to John: Bultmann[3] states, “Gnostic terminology places its stamp mainly on the words and discourses of Jesus” in The Gospel according to John; however, he goes even further stating that Gnostic terminology “runs through the whole Gospel and Epistles.” He proceeds further with this thought specifying that, “If the author’s background was Judaism, as rather frequently occurring rabbinical turns of speech perhaps prove, it was….out of a gnosticizing Judaism that he came.” Bultmann further notes that “the literary devices with which [the author of John’s Gospel] builds the discussions—the use of ambiguous concepts and statements to elicit misunderstandings—are indicative that he lives within the sphere of Gnostic-dualistic thinking.” Bultmann notes that the Fourth Evangelist makes “use of ambiguous concepts and statements to elicit misunder-standings” and notes that these statements are “indicative that he lives within the sphere of Gnostic-dualistic thinking.” He states that the ambiguities and misunderstandings are not “merely formal technical devices. Rather, they are the expression of his underlying dualistic view.” However, there is an inherent problem with this concept that Bultmann proposes—and that involves the time frame of the written documents involved. For purposes of precision in understanding time frame for the student, it must be remembered that The Gospel according to John “appeared…around A.D. 90-100 or much earlier as some now hold.” [4] Painter[5] notes that John’s Gospel “was written when syncretism between ‘higher paganism’ and Christianity was beginning.” He goes on to state that John “aimed to think through the new categories to clarify the confusion of the situation and in so doing advanced the understanding of the Christian faith.” He further states that “by the mid-second century the church was besieged by Gnostic sects” and that Gnostic sects were attracted to Christianity. However, Painter in another place[6] notes that it may be that “along with the evidence of the Wisdom literature” there is “an indication of the influence of a Gnostic discourse genre, an influence mediated to the evangelist via syncretistic Judaism.” He concludes: “It is possible that the milieu of the Gospel was both Jewish and Gnostic.” Gnosticism: In light of these statements, some discussion of Gnosticism is not inappropriate. Gnostic texts as such are dated later and in some cases much later than The Gospel according to John. For instance, the earliest date given for several Gnostic texts is C.E. 180 when Irenaeus wrote extensively against them. Some of the texts known from Irenaeus’ writings are: The Secret Book According to John and the Valentinian writings, all of which are dated about C.E.100-175; Gnostic materials dated in the third century C.E. are Zostrianos, The Foreigner, the writings of the School of St. Thomas, the writings of Basilides, and the Hermetic Corpus; materials written in the fourth century C.E. are Reality of the Rulers, The Thunder-Perfect Intellect, First Thought in Three Forms, The Egyptian Gospel, The Epistle to Rheginus on Resurrection, The Gospel of Philip, and the writings of Epiphanius against various Gnostic materials.[7] The earlier texts had to have been in rather common use by Jews, Christians, and Christian Jews several years previous to Irenaeus’ inveighing against them. One can only speculate that perhaps these earliest Gnostic texts were either in existence or were written at approximately the time that John’s Gospel was written. In addition it must also be remembered that the writings of Plato, such as that of “Timaeus,”[8] contain many ideas and symbols that eventually became incorporated into Gnostic ideas and symbols. For instance, Plato’s concept of the “eternal God,” the “children of the gods,” and the concept of the creator assigning “the creation of the mortal…to his offspring” are all ideas that were later taken up and developed in specific, individualistic, various Gnostic writings. In addition, Jewish Hellenist writers such as Philo of Alexandria (ca. 20 B.C.E. to C.E. 50)[9] also wrote extensively using what might be called “Gnostic” symbolism. For instance, Philo used extensive dualistic imagery, that of light/darkness throughout his work, “On Creation” (De Opificio Mundi). It is clear that the use of symbols and symbolism prominent in Gnostic writings could be said to have been “in the air,” part and parcel of the very culture and thought of the times, and understood and accepted by anyone in the society of the first century B.C.E. and first several centuries C.E. In fact, it is clear that by the time the Gnostics started using their symbols in their writings, these symbols had long been in use for perhaps a few hundred years. Therefore, the concept of writings for spiritual and religious education and edification was a common one; the extensive use of symbols as part of the teaching element in these writings also had to have been a common teaching technique. Thus, the symbols used by John in his Gospel were symbols readily understood by the people of the time. The author of the Gospel of John, however, incorporated stories in which he embedded the well-known symbolism in use at the time. It will be the position of this writer that the use of stories with embedded symbols was an excellent teaching tool designed to aid in the remembering of the stories for oral transition; in addition, these stories were likely part of a didactic method used to convince Jews of the validity of what the Christians believed about Jesus’ life and teachings. Definitions of Gnosticism: Initially and importantly, a quick overview of Gnosticism will be discussed. It may seem inappropriate to discuss Gnosticism in this paper when Gnostic writings and Gnosticism[10] as such were to follow John’s writings or writings attributed to John. In some cases the Gnostic writings were contemporaneous with the writing of John’s Gospel. However, since many of the symbols used in John’s Gospel are not only part and parcel of Gnostic writings but also of earlier Hellenistic writings and since some of the most prominent symbolism in Gnostic writings is contained in the definitions of Gnosticism, definitions of Gnosticism given by scholars will aid in understanding the symbols used in The Gospel according to John. Gnosticism is a notoriously difficult term to define as will be seen in the varying definitions given by several scholars. In keeping with the multiplicity that Gnosticism was (is),[11] the definitions of Gnosticism vary widely among scholars. Only a few definitions will be noted in this paper—those from the most prominent scholars of Gnosticism. Hans Jonas[12] describes Gnosticism as a fourfold phenomenon: First, he notes that Gnosticism was an “ ‘oriental wave’…of a decidedly religious nature” that was a “prominent characteristic of the second phase of Hellenistic culture in general.” Second, he states, “all these currents have in some way to do with salvation. Third, Jonas says, “all of them exhibit an exceedingly transcendent…conception of God and in connection with it an equally transcendent and other-worldly idea of the goal of salvation.” Finally, he states that the various Gnostics sects maintain[ed] a radical dualism of the realms of being—God and the world, spirit and matter, soul and body, light and darkness, good and evil, life and death—and consequently an extreme polarization of existence affecting not only man but reality as a whole: the general religion of the period is a dualistic transcendent religion of salvation. Jonas notes that the Greek term gnosis, meaning “knowledge,” for the Gnostics meant pre-eminently, knowledge of God. He elucidates that for the Gnostics “knowledge” had a pre-eminently practical aspect. The ultimate object of gnosis was God; this knowledge (gnosis) in the soul transformed the knower himself/herself by making him/her a partaker in the divine essence, which partaking was more than simply assimilating the knower to the divine essence.[13] The above, all-inclusive definition of Gnosticism is by far the best in the opinion of this writer. Another scholar, Bentley Layton, describes “certain features that…confirm the cohesiveness of the gnostics as a group.”[14] Layton notes that the “distinguishing mark of gnostic literature” is a “complex and distinctive myth of origins.” He elucidates that this myth of origins gives a “strong sense of group identity”—that there are in Gnosticism two types of individuals, Gnostic and non-Gnostic. Gnostic individuals often use, as part of their group identity a “special jargon or in-group language.” Lastly, Layton notes the Gnostics refer to a ritual of baptism that marked the induction into the religion. P. Brown[15] simply states that what distinguished the Gnostics (in the eyes of their enemies) was the use of myth as a chosen vehicle of religious instruction. [This writer notes that the word “story” here would mean the same as “myth.”] He explains that Gnostic myths followed the same rhythm of the Gospels and the teaching of Paul: the redemption of the world by Christ; however, Gnostic myths differed from the Gospels and Paul in the scope of redemption; redemption was seen in cosmic terms—the whole person and the whole universe were transformed by the coming of Christ in Gnostic myths. Interestingly, Edward Moore[16] makes a distinction between muthos and myth. Muthos always corresponds to the ‘first hand’ account rendered by one who has undergone immediately, the effect of a certain event”; the “immediacy of an event forbids any doubt or questioning on the part of the one undergoing it”….Myth, on the other hand, he explains, is “always the explanation of something already known, and therefore carries its truth-claim along with it.” Bultmann[17] states Gnosticism was “really a religious movement of pre-Christian origin, invading the West from the Orient as a competitor of Christianity.” He states that Gnosticism was a redemptive religion based on dualism. He goes on to elaborate that Gnostic sects built their rites and doctrines on various influences that included the Greek philosophical tradition, and various “baptist” movements that existed in the area of the Jordan. He also notes that Gnosticism even “penetrated to religious philosophical literature of Hellenism,” was also found in Philo, and influenced Neo-Platonism. [Perhaps Bultmann has the “cart before the horse” here; more likely it was the religious and philosophical literature of Hellenism that penetrated Gnosticism.] Lalleman[18] states that the Gnostic form of Christianity can be notoriously difficult to describe because of its “parasitic” character; that is, he considers that Gnosticism differs according to the form of Christianity to which it is attached. He describes four characteristics: A dualism between an absolutely transcendent God and a cosmos that is not his creation but rather the work of an imperfect, evil demiurge; the result is a “strong anticosmism.” Salvation by the bestowing of knowledge, which knowledge is about the self but at the same time knowledge of God. This bestowing of knowledge on the Gnostic person originates in the world of light. There is an essential divinity in the inner man, a spark of light that is not part of the material world. The above three characteristics are expressed as many hypostases of the origin of the universe, and these characteristics are expressed as myths. In yet another place Lalleman states that the “Gnostics behave as chameleons and that their texts can include almost anything.” This section will conclude with the definition of Gnosticism given by McGuckin.[19] He states simply that there is “one common factor in all the gnostic systems…is a profound suspicion of materiality, a dichotomous view of matter and spirit, and thus a tendency to moral and religious duality following after that (a good God, and an evil or defective world-making God; goodness being pure spirit; evil being flesh and ignorance. He goes on to state that the “world of Hellenism in the two centuries before and after the appearance of the early church was an ideal ecoculture for the rapid transmission and mutual interpentration of such a nexus of ideas.” He states that (in 2004) “there is still no common consensus about Gnosticism as a whole, or even how far the generic term is helpful any more.” McGuckin notes “Gnosticism was one of the most important factors in making the church of the first two centuries articulate its character and quality as an independent religious movement.” Conclusion to Definitions of Gnostics and Gnosticism: In conclusion what definitely can be said about Gnostics or individuals who ascribed to a religion that could be described as Gnosticism is that they regarded the bestowal of a special “knowledge” essential to being considered a member of the specific religion. What may be termed the religion of Gnosticism was woven through and through with Hellenistic concepts, dualism that included both the spiritual and material and the expression in myths of the beliefs held by the sect. It must be remembered that the concepts of both Hellenism and Gnosticism were woven through and through in the fabric of the culture and religions of the first century B.C.E. and the first several centuries C.E. Symbols in The Gospel according to John: Symbols: The word symbol must be clearly defined for purposes of this paper. The term “symbol” will be used only to refer to those words or actions that stand for something else, that is, a physical representation of something intangible. List and Meaning of Symbols: A somewhat longer list of the symbols in The Gospel according to John includes these: Word (Logos), life (Zoe), truth (aletheia), grace (Charis), I am (ego eimi), glory (doxa), light (phos), darkness (skotia), birth (genete), sacred place (topos), flesh (sarx), water (hudor), wine (oinos), food (boma), blood (aima), wind (pneuma), shepherd (poimen), vine (ampelos), vine grower/farmer (georgos), advocate (parakletos), love (agape), father (pater), son (huios).[20] It must be noted that the mention of one of these symbols in the ancient world (and even in present-day world) would automatically connote several of, many of, sometimes all of the others. For instance, this linking of symbols is noted by McGuckin[21] in his discussion of the history of Baptism. He notes that the meaning of the Greek word for baptism is “to sprinkle with water.” Although baptism was the primary ritual for female converts to become members of the Jewish religion, the Hellenists subsumed this ritual symbol in the first-century church; McGuckin notes that Paul stressed its use and “supplied the first theological explanation of its mystical significance.” McGuckin states that the New Testament joins baptism specifically with the forgiveness of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, (the Greek word for spirit, pneuma, also means “wind”) the incorporation of the individual as a member the church, and the way into salvation. McGuckin specifically notes that The Gospel according to John “sees baptism in paradoxical ways.” He notes that the author of John specifically does not include any notion that Jesus Himself was baptized. In the Fourth Gospel John the Baptist practices the ritual of using water for baptism, but Jesus himself does not practice this ritual: “although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples” (4.2). McGuckin notes that this comment concerning Jesus and baptism is an “odd insistence that speaks of an element of apologetic controversy already present in the church.” (See discussion of “Target Audience of The Gospel according to John below.) Yet, for all the ambiguity of the author of John’s Gospel regarding baptism, Jesus Himself in The Gospel according to John insists one must be “born of water and the Spirit” (3.5). McGuckin further notes that by the “mid-first century both the Eucharist and baptism were seen as mystical initiations into the mystery of…death and resurrection.” In linking baptism with many other symbols McGuckin notes that the “earliest accounts of baptismal ritual” included solemn and extended prayers over the water used for baptism. These prayers petitioned the descent of the Holy Spirit into the waters, the anointing of candidates with oil, the confession of the faith professed by the baptism. Exorcism also was included in baptism because most of the baptized had been members of Hellenistic religions. In summary, then, the symbol of “baptism” incorporates within it all the following symbols: Water. Spirit (or gift of the Holy Spirit). Wind. Forgiveness of sins. Membership in the group, church, cult. Confession of faith. Way of being saved. Life. Grace. Birth. Death. Resurrection. Anointing with oil. Exorcism. Eucharist/Nourishment. Food. Water. Wine. It should be noted that proto-Gnostic dualistic themes also predominate in The Gospel according to John. Some of these dualistic themes are: Light/darkness. Flesh/spirit. Birth/death. Signs: Regarding the use of the term “signs,” this writer will follow Meier’s[22] use of the term. In a footnote to a section on “Jesus’ Healings” Meier notes that “the word ‘sign’ (semeion), when used in John’s Gospel of an act of Jesus, always means something miraculous.” He goes on to state that the term “signs” is a “more narrow category than ‘work’ (ergon) which includes more than the signs. He elaborates that the “works of Jesus are everything he does to accomplish the ‘work’ of salvation…the works of Jesus can encompass both words and deeds.” Meier elaborates that the “signs” are “always and only miraculous actions in the physical order whose benefits are immediately visible to the participants or the audience.” He concludes, “a sign performed by Jesus is a miraculous benefit on the physical level whose very meaning is to point beyond itself to the deeper, saving benefits Jesus offers.” Burge[23] notes that in the “Fourth Gospel people come to belief [in Jesus] through signs.” Burge comments that a “sign” (semeion) is a “revelatory sign when it is apprehended by faith….The result…is an unveiling of Jesus.” He further notes that a “miracle” may be ignored, but a “sign” cannot be ignored. Burge continues noting that according to the author of The Gospel according to John “only two options are open” to the witnessing of a sign: either “offense or belief.” He cites the story of Lazarus as one example where after Lazarus is raised from the dead, some Jews believed (11.45) and others conspire to kill Jesus (11.53). He states simply and forthrightly, “no one simply walks away.” Therefore, in this paper the word “signs” will be used only to refer to the miracles Jesus performed. The Gospel according to John itself first uses the word “signs” to have a two-fold purpose. At the end of the story of the marriage at Cana, the Gospel writer states, “This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him: (John 2.11). So, the purpose of Jesus’ signs was to manifest His glory and to allow his disciples to believe in him. Looking at this two-fold purpose from another standpoint, it becomes clear from this very first statement about the story of the marriage at Cana in The Gospel according to John that each sign was a miracle, or what the people of the time perceived to be a miracle. Glory: A word must be said concerning the phrase, “manifested his glory.” First, scholars seem to limit their comments on this phrase. This writer finds five scholars who do comment on this phrase. Two of these scholars, Rensberger[24] and Painter[25] concentrate on the word “glorification” as meaning the hour of Jesus’ death as the hour of his glorification. Painter states that the “ ‘glorification’ of the Son of man” unfolds in the entire Gospel. He further states that exaltation and glorification are terms that signify the manner of Jesus’ death by crucifixion. Burge[26] notes that “glory” has a significant use in The Gospel according to John: “John has applied…glory to Jesus’ earthly life.” Jesus’ “glory is made transparent, throughout his life and especially through his signs.” The miracles in John’s Gospel “become signs that reveal not Jesus’ power but his glory.” Burge notes that in The Gospel according to John the question becomes not what Jesus has but who Jesus is.” In John’s Gospel miracles are intensely christological. If one acknowledges them and recognizes the “divine identity, faith emerges….Thus the revelation of the signs is intimately related to salvation.” While both the above explanations of the meaning of “glory” certainly are correct, in the opinion of this writer both Bultmann and the editor of The New Oxford Annotated Bible explain a simpler, more direct use of the term “glory.” In John 2.11 where the miracle at Cana is noted as “the first of his signs,” the author of John notes that the miracle at Cana “manifested his glory, and his disciples believed in him.” The editor of The New Oxford Annotated Bible[27] states that “his glory” refers to God’s presence in Jesus. Bultmann[28] combines both “revelation” and “glory” in a section entitled “The Revelation of the Glory.” He refers to a “mystical” interpretation derived from a Gnostic myth. He states that the term “glory” refers to a “mutual knowledge of the Father and the Son” or “in mythological language,” the Father loves the Son and the Son “abides” in the Father’s love. Bultmann then goes on to extend this mystical interpretation most beautifully, including the concept of “revelation” by stating that not only do men see God in Jesus but also that “God Himself encounters men in Jesus.” Bultmann continues by saying that Jesus was “a man in whom nothing unusual [was] perceptible except his bold assertion that in him God encounters men.” This writer finds this mystical interpretation the most satisfying explanation of all the explanations of the concept of glory. Within Bultmann’s explanation are contained all the others. Sign Prophets: The period of the first century C.E. must have been a period of intense political and social upheaval. It must also be noted that when there are such intense periods of political and social upheaval, usually there are is an accompanying cultural and religious upheavals. Thus, in one sense it comes as a surprise to discover that Jesus was not the only prophet that produced “signs”; after all, Jesus was so particularly special, one would think that he must have stood out as the only one who did “signs.” But Josephus mentions several “sign prophets” who were obviously “false” prophets. Among them are the following and the circumstances surrounding their “works”: Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. Fadus, however, would have none of this kind of situation, dispatched a “troop of horsemen out against them” and killed many of them but also took many of them alive. Theudas was summarily killed by beheading.[29] In another place Josephus mentions: These works, that were done by robbers, filled the city with all sorts of impiety. And now these impostors and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them into the wilderness, and pretended that they would exhibit manifest wonders and signs, that should be performed by the providence of God. And many that were prevailed on by them suffered the punishments of their folly; for Felix brought them back, and then punished them. Moreover, there came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem, one that said he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go along with him to the Mount of Olives….He said…that he would show them…how, at this command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down, and he promised that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those walls when they were fallen down. Once again, the governor would have none of this type of thing, ordered his soldiers to attack this group; 400 were killed and 200 were taken alive. But, Josephus notes, the “Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more.”[30] There are also various places Josephus mentions “sign prophets” in general:[31] So Festus sent forces, both horseman and footmen, to fall upon those that had been seduced by a certain imposter, who promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under, if they would but follow him as far as the wilderness. In another place: These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of government, and these prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending God would show them the signals of liberty. These individuals and their movements were summarily quashed by the government of the time[32] It should be noted that it seems to this writer that the period of the first century C.E. must have been one of terrible confusion for the ordinary person. There was much social, political, cultural, and even religious upheaval. One asks: How did the ordinary person reconcile the evils that seemed all around them with how they knew they should live? When there were so many “false prophets,” how could one know who was “false” and who was “true”? Two points come to mind in considering the above questions: Gnostic thought and teachings must have received their “start” in this period of time. It seems to this writer that Gnosticism offers an answer to the evil in the world by attributing it to Ialdabaoth and the various aeons. There must have been some evidence that was obvious that Jesus Himself was a “true” prophet as Josephus mentions him: “Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold.”[33] Target Audience of The Gospel according to John: Renowned scholars have answered the question of just who was target audience of The Gospel according to John from the standpoint of the particular point of view they tended to favor and from the standpoint of the clues to be found within the Gospel itself. Bultmann[34] notes that any human society must have regulations to allow for historical permanence; he goes on to say that, therefore, “it is self-explanatory that regulations gradually developed in the primitive Christian congregations.” He points out that the church of the New Testament times was “the eschatological Congregation of those who [were] divorced from the world.” While this is, of course, a most true statement, there is room for some speculation regarding just who constituted the “primitive congregation” that was John’s. Pelikan[35] observes that It remains one of the most momentous linguistic convergences in the entire history of the human mind and spirit that the New Testament happens to have been written in Greek—not in the Hebrew of Moses and the prophets, nor in the Aramaic of Jesus and his disciples, not yet in the Latin of the imperium Romanum, but in the Greek of Socrates and Plato. Moore[36] notes cogently regarding the above quotation that one might infer from this statement that the target audience of The Gospel according to John must have been “a group of rather highly educated, upper-class Hellenes (Gentiles).” Painter[37] notes “the most significant single factor shaping the Johannine tradition was the relation to the synagogue, a relationship which began with dialogue, became a conflict and ended in mutual execration.” Painter goes on to note that the “most significant factor shaping the Johannine tradition” was a “process…[that is] reflected in the tradition and the observation of clues” that lead to what at first “seems hidden.” Painter[38] notes that the “clues” are evidenced in the “Qumran-like[39] dualistic language” of The Gospel according to John which argues that the “Gospel was first shaped in Judaea in the shadow of sectarian Judaism.” He also states[40] that all the Gospels can be said to reflect the stories of the authors and their communities; in The Gospel according to John, especially, the reflections of the Johannine community are the clearest, even though there is no straightforward data on which to base such speculation—all such speculation is based on the “clues” within the context of the Gospel. Rensberger[41] makes a case that the target community of The Gospel according to John was fourfold. He cites that the Jewish synagogue community was an “important object of the Johannine mission”; he goes on to include the “secret Christian Jews” (which this writer would represent as depicted in the story of Nicodemus), the Samaritans (which Rensberger represents are depicted in the story about the Samaritan woman at the well), and the Greeks whom he states are “widely and correctly interpreted as indicating a Johannine mission to Gentiles.” He represents John 7.35 as evidence of this mission to the Gentiles: in this passage the Jews ask one another if Jesus intends to go “to the Dispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks.” The use of the word “Dispersion” in this verse would indicate, however, Hellenized Jews rather than Hellenized pagans. Ihenacho[42] makes a case for a “discernible progression in the development of a crisis” within the Johannine community. He points out “evidence of tensions [in] the Prologue,” citing John 1.5 (“The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”[43]) which he says portrays a symbolic struggle between forces of light and darkness. This verse then according to the rest of his reasoning about the target audience of The Gospel according to John would mean a struggle among the members of the Johannine community itself, the forces of “light” being those who accepted the teachings of the writer of the Gospel and the forces of “darkness” being those who did not accept the teachings of the writer of the Gospel of John. He also states “division seems to be the most basic experience of the Johannine community” and continues, “the drama of division plays out in every part of the Gospel.” In the opinion of this writer the theory of a struggle within the Johannine community itself has some merit. It does seem to this writer that it is clear from more than one of the stories in The Gospel according to John that those who leaned toward John and his teachings, who likely were within the Jewish synagogue community experienced some sort of “fear” of the Jews who did not accept Christ; it may be possible to say that this “fear” went even further, producing some type of conflict between those Jews of the synagogue who wished to remain totally Jewish in their beliefs and those Jews of the synagogue who could not help but believe in Christ. Evidence of this fearful state on the part of those leaning toward Christian teachings is given in at least two stories. One story is that of Nicodemus, a “ruler of the Jews…[who] came to Jesus by night” (John 3.1-2). If one searches for clues, surely, in this passage there is a “clue”: Why would Nicodemus have come to Jesus “by night” unless there was some reason for Nicodemus to conceal his visit with Jesus? Another such “clue” (and perhaps a better one) is in John 9 in the story of the man born blind. This story seems to indicate even more clearly that there was at least some type of fear of the Jews on the part of those who tended to lean toward belief in John’s teachings concerning Christ. In this story John states clearly: “There was a division among them” (9.16). As the story progresses, the parents of the man born blind refuse to acknowledge that they know who “opened his eyes” (9.20). John states that the parents refused to even say anything about the situation of their son’s healing “because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if any one should confess him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue” (9.22). John in this statement clearly indicates a conflict and clearly indicates that Jews who acknowledged Jesus were to be expelled from the synagogue. The story further elucidates that the Jews then called the man born blind a second time to question him. Finally, the leaders of the synagogue take action: the man is cast out of the synagogue (John 9.34: “and so they cast him out”). This writer agrees that there definitely are strong “clues” within this story (and even the previously indicated story of Nicodemus) that in addition to the surface theme of the story (Jesus performing signs) there may be an underlying point to a story that is directed at certain individuals. This underlying story may be one that was easily recognized by those Christian Jews for whom it was intended. If this be the case, this story would certainly indicate a growing rift between the Old Testament Jews and the Christian Jews. However, in the end this reading of “clues” within stories, while compelling, is speculative. McGuckin[44] notes that in John’s Gospel there may have been “apologetic pressure from the continuing disciples of the Baptist” on the Christian Jews who followed John. McGuckin further notes that originally many of “Jesus’ leading followers had originally been disciples of John” the Baptist, and perhaps Jesus Himself had originally been a disciple of John the Baptist. McGuckin speculates that since the main “prophetic sign” of John the Baptist was baptism, the Christian followers of John the Apostle may have changed the main “prophetic sign” of Jesus to the focus on the “sharing of meals in the rural villages of Galilee.” In addition there is no doubt that The Gospel according to John was written for Hellenized Jews. The use of both Pagan and Christian Gnostic symbolism throughout the Gospel and the fact that the Gospel was originally written in Greek indicate that those to whom this Gospel was directed had to have been people (whether “elite” or “non-elite”) who knew and understood the myths and symbolism of the Hellenized world around them. Even more specifically, the Jews of the time did not speak Aramaic any more but spoke Greek. In today’s world a comparison might be made if most of the countries of today’s world adopted English as their language and had forgotten their own individual languages. Such a phenomenon would be truly astounding—but this is precisely what happened in the centuries we are speaking of in this paper. In the opinion of this writer both of these scenarios regarding the target audience of The Gospel according to John could well have been the case. The Jews within the synagogue of which John and his group were members could very well have had leaders who were very educated Hellenized Jews; it may also have been that these same Jews might have not accepted Jesus; a motivation of desperation to preserve their own religion would certainly be understandable. John (or whoever was the author of The Gospel according to John) must himself have been educated. If he himself was not a leader of the synagogue he had to have been very educated to be able to write such a well-composed masterpiece of literature. Yet the teaching of John was such that the Gospel itself tells of one of the leaders (Nicodemus) who must have seen the validity of John’s teaching; yet Nicodemus clearly fears someone as the “clues” of the story indicate that he approaches Jesus (seeks out John and John’s teaching?) during the night when he would not be observed. The fate of the man born blind—obviously one of the less educated members of the synagogue, not a leader—is made clear: He is summarily thrown out of the synagogue. Here again, the concept of the “man born blind” might be interpreted as one of the “non-elite” members of the synagogue who “sees” when he accepts the teaching of Jesus. These two possibilities for whom this Gospel were written are not mutually exclusive, both could well have been the case. The Gospel might well have been written for Hellenized, educated Jews. In the opinion of this writer it would not be an unusual situation to have educated scholars disagreeing (and disagreeing vociferously and intensely) about particular viewpoints, doctrines, and teachings. It would also not be an unusual situation for “rifts” to occur among such types of individuals/groups that at one time might have been “fast friends” and then as the disagreement in each scholar’s position “hardened” major rifts occurred.[45] Who is to say that such a situation could not have occurred among the Johannine community? Each argument has a kind of validity: The Gospel according to John could have been written for educated Hellenistic Jews. There was a growing rift between the Jews in the synagogue and the Christian Jews in the synagogue of which group John seemed to be the leader. The argument for the Gospel having been written for Hellenized Jews seems to be an obvious one—the Jews themselves had accepted Greek culture to such an extent that they no longer spoke their own language but spoke Greek. In the end, the theory about the Gospel having been written to convince members of the Jewish synagogue of which John’s community was a part remains speculative as there is no real way to prove that situation was the case, although there seems to be somewhat compelling evidence for that scenario. One other point is important: It seems clear to this writer that the “stories part” of The Gospel according to John must also have included the less educated members of the Johannine community. This writer cannot help but emphasize once again that “uneducated” does not mean “unintelligent.” But it is also likely that the uneducated members of John’s community would likely have been illiterate. In a society and culture in which “non-elite” members were likely to be illiterate, oral transmission of stories was paramount in teaching these members. Interesting stories filled with details that related to everyday life would be easily remembered and easily told over and over again. Preliminary Considerations to the Stories in The Gospel according to John Stories Considered in This Paper: This paper will consider the following stories from The Gospel according to John: The marriage at Cana. Nicodemus’ coming to Jesus for explanation of the signs He performed. The Samaritan woman at the well. The story of the loaves and fishes. The story of the man born blind from birth. The story of the raising of Lazarus. Stories and Symbols: The writer of The Gospel according to John was not so much remarkable in that he told stories but he was remarkable in that some of his stories seem to have been directed to specific individuals for specific teaching purposes to convey a specific lesson and/or a kind of exhortation to stand strong in a particular situation. This writer notes how quickly and easily a story stays in the mind of a listener—and how readily a story comes to the lips for retelling. In addition the use of stories/myths is a valuable teaching aid in that comparisons of abstract concepts to tangible concepts aids the understanding of not only the student but even the scholar. (This writer is of the opinion that a good teacher always learns from his/her students.) In the stories of The Gospel according to John the symbols listed above are embedded as part and parcel of the stories. Remove the symbols from the story and one loses the context in which the symbol was used. Of course, in the stories told in The Gospel according to John not all symbols are used in each story; some symbols are repeated several times in one story, using the well-known teaching cliché, repetition is the mother of learning. So the first part of this paper will approach the Proto-Gnostic influence of The Gospel according to John from the standpoint of the stories and explain the symbols from that standpoint. In each of these stories in The Gospel according to John,symbols are mixed together, almost jumbled together, in a seemingly haphazard way—but once the story is read or heard, the story becomes unforgettable in the minds of the listeners; and the symbols embedded in each story cannot help but be remembered. This writer will pull out the main stories (in her opinion) in the Gospel according to John, discuss the symbols in the stories, and explain and evaluate the stories with their symbols as a whole. Miracles: Some discussion of “miracles,” is also appropriate. One questions why Jesus performed His miracles in the first place and how the people of Jesus’ time regarded His miracles. Meier[46] after an exhaustive discussion of miracles notes that the “underlying stance” of the miracles found in all four Gospels, including The Gospel according to John is to bring “people to faith, repentance, and discipleship. Those who refuse to let the miracles work as Jesus intends are guilty of disbelief.” Here is a dualistic concept of belief/disbelief, a knowing as opposed to refusal to know at work. During the centuries involved in this discussion, the word “dualism” was likely not called “dualism” as such; however, the concept was one in which people tended to think unconsciously. The thought process involved in “dualism” simply pervaded the very “air” of the time. In addition the concept of “secret knowledge” was certainly clear to people aware of Gnostic teachings. Meier (as Bultmann above) notes that the miracles have an “overarching context: the interpersonal religious relationship between Jesus and the recipients of his miracles.” Meier further notes that the “miraculous power of Jesus…is not seen as some impersonal force…of a capricious divinity or demon” [in contrast to some Gnostic or pagan beliefs]. He notes that the “grand overriding purpose” of the miracles of Jesus was that they were “presented as signs and realizations of the gracious power of the God of Israel….performed mostly for actual or potential followers as the circle of disciples widen[ed].” Meier[47] discusses at length that “the ancient Greco-Roman world was one in which miracles were accepted as part of the religious landscape” and notes that then as now there could be an “all-too-ready acceptance of [‘miracles’] by ordinary people.” He discusses extensively the relation of miracles to magic in the ancient world—some of which is applicable even today. He concludes this discussion by asking specifically “to what extent the…miracles of Jesus should be understood as Jewish examples of lst-century Greco-Roman magic.”[48] Meier[49] summarizes the miracles of Jesus as opposed to magic performed in the Greco-Roman culture and religions that included magical works. The usual, overarching context of a miracle is that of an interpersonal relationship of faith, trust, or love between a human being and a deity and/or his agent (Jesus). The person in need usually initiates the request for some healing or benefit; occasionally, Jesus initiates the miracle. Jesus grants the request simply. If he employs some symbol, it is a simple one. The miracles generally take place because Jesus responds to the need of the individual requesting aid. The basic supposition is that “God’s hand is not to be forced” (as was often the case in “magical” works). All miracles take place in the Gospel context of “Jesus’ obedience to his Father and to the mission he has been given.” The miracles are always understood to be partially “concrete realizations of the kingdom of God.” Jesus’ miracles do not punish or hurt anyone. Stories as Teaching Tools: Lastly, it must be understood that the “stories” excerpted from The Gospel according to John will be approached as this writer believes they were used—as teaching tools. When teaching, one uses stories to “grab” the attention of the students and to keep them interested; a teacher then uses concrete analogies and symbols to get intangible and abstruse ideas across to one’s students—in the case of the writer of The Gospel according to John the listeners who were the “target audience” intended by John. Furthermore, as one is teaching, one starts with simple, easy concepts and proceeds progressively through to more complex and more difficult concepts. The Prologue of John (Chapter 1) indicates the complexity of the ideas to be conveyed. This prologue will be discussed in another paper. Thus, the stories discussed in this paper start simply and proceed in complexity—as the Gospel is written. Specific Stories in The Gospel according to John: The Wedding at Cana: The author of The Gospel according to John starts with a very simple story that any one of the various groups and/or individuals who might have been the “target audience” could relate to: a happy story, a family story, a story of a wedding. Family: A word about family in Jesus’ time: Meier[50] points out that, “ ‘Family’ ” meant something very different in ancient Palestine than it does in contemporary middle-class society…today.” He points out that in the entire “ancient Mediterranean world the large extended family was the major social ‘safety net’ for the individual.” He also notes that the “individual was not an isolated, completely autonomous person…but rather a part of a larger, sprawling social unit.” The extended family in a village or town “imposed identity and social function on the individual in exchange for the communal security and defense the individual received from the family.” He notes that the “extended family of Jesus probably made up a sizable proportion” of a town [or more than one town] “where many people would be distantly related to one another by blood or marriage.” Painter,[51] in discussing the miracle at Cana first notes that Mary plays a central part in this story; the fact of her presence at the marriage at Cana is the factor that led to Jesus’ invitation to the wedding. Yet at the conclusion of his discussion of the miracle at Cana, he notes that Mary’s importance is diminished as the story goes on; he concludes that Jesus’ presence at the wedding of Cana was not a “family visit” but rather the beginning of the itinerant ministry of Jesus. He notes that the presence of Jesus’ disciples bolsters his argument for the beginning of the itinerant ministry of Jesus. However, this writer finds Painter confusing and contradictory in his argument. First, he notes Mary is the “questor” in this story; then he states the focus changes to the quest of the disciples and concludes that the visit at Cana should not be “understood as a family visit.” This writer finds Painter’s argument one that does not appreciate the masterpiece of writing that is The Gospel according to John. It makes more “literary” sense that the presence of Jesus (even with his disciples) at the wedding of Cana be a family visit. Therefore, this writer speculates that the couple whose marriage Jesus attended in this story of the miracle at Cana were likely members of the extended family of Jesus. Symbolism: There is not any “heavy” use of symbols in this story as there is in some of the other stories. This story is an extremely simple one. Jesus’ family must have been invited to the wedding. The writer of John says that “the mother of Jesus was there” (2.1) and that Jesus also was invited. Then surprisingly, the author of John notes that Jesus’ disciples were also invited. (2.2). Is the mention of Jesus’ disciples being present at the marriage at Cana simply a teaching tool used to explain how it was that the disciples of Jesus believed in Him at an early time in his ministry or were the disciples actually invited with Jesus to the wedding? This writer, appreciating the masterpiece of writing that is The Gospel according to John, opts for the idea that the presence of the disciples at this wedding was a literary device on the part of the author of this Gospel; placing the disciples at this miracle nicely accounts for the belief of the disciples in Jesus. McGuckin[52] notes that the meal at the wedding feast of Cana likely fit well in the symbolism used in The Gospel according to John as a substitute for the symbol of baptism. McGuckin further notes that in the first century C.E. meals/Eucharist symbolized a mystical initiation into the mystery of death and resurrection. Thus, to this writer’s thinking the changing of water into wine could well be a substitute for the symbol of baptism and the “changes” in the individual that occurred with one’s being baptized. Meier[53] notes that several points of interest about the seemingly “simple” story of the miracle at Cana turn out to be “not so simple.” First, he notes that this story is “especially puzzling” and that it “resembles in some ways the only other gift miracle…the feeding of the multitude.” Meier notes that there are three specific points that set this miracle apart from all the other “miracle stories in the Gospels.” “Instead of a clear petition” on the part of someone for help, there is “only the laconic observation” of Jesus’ mother: “They have no wine” (John 2.3). Meier notes that in this story there are “ellipsis and silence” where further explanation is often imagined by commentators. The miracle is seemingly performed in an indirect fashion. Jesus simply gives “two orders to the servants: fill the jars with water...[and] draw off some of the liquid and bring it to the headwaiter (John 2.7-8).” Meier notes, lastly, “the concluding acclamation is likewise indirect and allusive.” The wine steward simply notes that the best wine was left for last (John 2.10). Meier notes that it is “Johannine irony” that has the “person extolling the quality of the wine in 2:10” not realizing that “he is acclaiming a miracle” but the servants knew (John 2.9). Meier also notes that this miracle is “unlike every other miracle story….Within the Four Gospels, the wine miracle of Cana truly stands alone.”[54] Meier[55] comments that of the two miracles in The Gospel according to John that are performed in Cana [the second is the healing of the official’s son], the first of the miracles at Cana “shows itself to be the ‘beginning’ in more ways than one.” Proto-Gnostic Symbolism: Meier notes that a Gnostic “dualistic theme of knowing and not knowing is combined with the theme of the ‘whence’ of the divine gift Jesus gives.” Meier notes that the “central theological themes” of the person and work of Christ[56] and the concept of redemption[57]are “touched… briefly for the first time” and are developed throughout The Gospel according to John. Meier further notes that, “John pointedly uses the noun arche, ‘beginning’ ”; he also notes that the author of The Gospel according to John begins the “whole Gospel: en arche…in the beginning” which is a “very important term for the whole Johannine tradition.” In addition Meier notes that this first, beginning, sign is also the “beginning of a series of signs that will spell out in ever greater detail the abundant, overflowing gift of divine life succinctly symbolized in this first sign.” Ihenacho[58] considers that there is “reasonable evidence of…sacramental rituals in the Johannine community.” He cites the wedding at Cana as a “good example” of this evidence. He notes that in this story the author of The Gospel according to John included the presence of Mary, Jesus, and his disciples. During the marriage celebration Jesus is said to perform his first miracle—a changing of water into wine. He maintains that since the redactors placed this “unique miracle” in a matrimonial setting and since it was the first occasion on which Jesus revealed his glory to his disciples, this “special miracle” during wedding ceremonies was a “primitive sacramental action” and would have “symbolic and sacramental value in the Johannine community.” Reprise: It must be noted that it seems to this writer that some of the stories have what might be called a “reprise” later in the Gospel. Regarding the story of the wedding at Cana, this “reprise” is seen in John 4.46 and 54: “So he came again to Cana in Galilee, where he had made the water wine.” This phrase then leads into another miracle story. The Healing of the Official’s Son: This second Cana story (4.46-54) tells of an “official” whose son was ill. He heard that Jesus had come to Galilee and begged Jesus to go to his son and heal him because he was close to death. The author of The Gospel according to John has Jesus reproach the official saying, “Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe.” Instead of Jesus going to the son, he simply tells the official, “ ‘Go; your son will live.’ ” The Gospel notes specifically that the man believed Jesus. As the man is returning to his home, his servants meet him telling them the son was living. The official asks at what time the son began to get better; he finds out that at the time Jesus told him his son would live was the moment the son started a recovery. The story says the man “believed, and all his household.” The author notes that this was the second sign that Jesus did when he had come from Judea to Galilee and the town of Cana. Identity of the Official: First, a comment regarding scholars’ differing opinions on just who this official was: The New Oxford Annotated Bible[59] calls the official “a Gentile military officer.” Painter[60] notes that John uses the Greek term basilikos, “nobleman.” He notes in a footnote that Josephus uses the same term “to refer to soldiers of the emperor or of Herod,” leaving open the question of whether the nobleman is a Jew or a Gentile. Painter further notes that the comment that “he himself [the official] believed, and all his household” (4.53) “might evidence the mission situation of the early church surfacing in the narrative….[and] might indicate a Roman context.” Painter, however, comes to the conclusion that this reference to the household’s conversion “appears misguided.” Painter then goes on to say this story of the healing of the official’s son “was used…to appeal to those within the synagogue who were open to the messianic claims of Jesus.” This writer finds Painter’s argument about whether the official was a Jew or a Gentile confusing and indecisive. However, Meier,[61] in a very cogent argument notes that John does not “specify the ethnic origin” of the official. He thinks that the “overall redactional theology of John makes it likely that the Fourth Evangelist understands the official to be a Jew.” He goes on to reinforce his stance that this official was a Jew instead of a Gentile by noting, “In John’s Gospel…Jesus’ ministry is limited to Israelites….John is adamant: no Gentile speaks directly to Jesus during the public ministry.” Further bolstering his argument, Meier notes that in a “crucial scene” in The Gospel according to John, at the end of Jesus’ public ministry, Greeks who have come to Jerusalem to worship during the Passover approach Philip asking to see Jesus (12.20-26). Philip goes to Andrew, and both disciples approach Jesus regarding a visit with the Greeks; however, Jesus does not grant the interview with the Greeks. Meier notes that Jesus “sees the desire of the Gentiles to come to him as an indication that the ‘hour’ of his ‘glorification,’ of his death and resurrection,” has now arrived: “And Jesus answered them, “The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified” (12.23). Meier’s argument is that, for John, only the “saving unity created by Jesus’ death and resurrection” allows for the inclusion of the Gentiles in the salvation Jesus was to bring to the world. Therefore, at the point in the Gospel where this story takes place (chapter 4.46-54) the official “must” be a Jew to “serve the theological” goal of the author. In the opinion of this writer, Meier has the more cogent argument; she believes this for the following reasons: Meier’s argument that the official had to be a Jew fits the excellent literary composition of the writing of The Gospel according to John better than the statement that the official was a Gentile as Painter and The New Oxford Annotated Bible indicate. Meier’s argument is better constructed than Painter’s argument. Painter’s weak and contradictory evidence that the official was/was not a Jew or a Gentile is most unsatisfying in its conclusion. Meier’s argument would also be a better fit with the previous speculation that John’s community was an integral part of a synagogue with divergent views among its members. Allowing for the evidence in The Gospel according to John that there was some dissention between the Old Testament Jews and the Christian Jews, it seems a logical fit that John would “make” this official a Jew rather than a Gentile. Proto-Gnostic Symbolism: This story too is not very “heavy” with symbolism—as was also said of the story of the wedding at Cana. Note is made in the Gospel, though, of Jesus’ complaint that “Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe” (4.48). Reprise: This story of the healing of the official’s son is seen by this writer as a kind of “reprise” to the story of the miracle at Cana. The writer of The Gospel according to John notes at the end of this story that “This was now the second sign that Jesus did when he had come from Judea to Galilee” (4.54). This statement implies then that this was the second miracle performed when Jesus was in Cana—not the second miracle Jesus ever performed. The Story of Nicodemus: The story of Nicodemus in John 3.1-21 is a story that likely would have been directed to both the educated and the uneducated members of the Johannine community—with perhaps more emphasis on the educated members. The “target audience” for this story was discussed above. The story of Nicodemus in this section will concentrate on the symbols and meaning of this story. Who Nicodemus Was: First, a word about exactly who Nicodemus was: The Gospel according to John (3.1) notes that Nicodemus was a Pharisee and a ruler of the Jews. The New Oxford Annotated Bible[62] notes that the term “ruler of the Jews” indicates that Nicodemus was not only a Pharisee but also a member of the Sanhedrin.[63] It is, therefore, clear that Nicodemus was a man of power and influence and thus had to be an educated person. This story, then, has much more teaching and instruction in it, and this teaching and instruction is given in a scholarly way—obviously meant for an educated person. Nicodemus said to Jesus “ ‘we know you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him’ ” (John 3.2). Jesus immediately addressed Nicodemus at his level of education, saying, “ ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God’ ” (John 3.3). T.G. Brown[64] comments interestingly on this statement of Jesus. She notes that within the Mediterranean cultural context one’s honor status carried the utmost importance. Honor is considered to be one’s socially recognized claim to worth. One can “get” honor in one of three ways: first, by nature of one’s birth; second, by appointment to office by an elite person or by consecration for sacred tasks; or third, by being acquired through honorable actions. Such actions might be military, athletic, or artistic achievements or a social contest of challenge or response. She then states that non-elite persons could acquire honor by means of this third method.[65] Rensberger[66] notes that Nicodemus is a symbolic figure who is to be understood as a “communal symbolic figure. He cites evidence within the Gospel itself for Nicodemus as a symbolic figure. Rensberger notes that in 3.2 Nicodemus addresses Jesus: “ ‘Rabbi, we know you are a teacher come from God.” He notes that later Jesus tells him, “You people must be born again” (3.7). Rensberger further cites 3.11-12 where the plural is used yet again: “We speak of what we know, and testify to what we have seen, and you people do not accept our testimony”; Rensberger then refers to Jesus’ speaking to “you people” of earthly and heavenly things, which “you people” fail to believe. [67] Rensberger elaborates that the use of these plural terms must signify that Nicodemus does not stand for an individual person but for “some specific group.” Rensberger states that the group for which Nicodemus stands is the Johannine Christians over against the “group represented by Nicodemus.” This writer is willing to consider the validity of Rensberger’s argument. It could be that Nicodemus could stand for both—himself and the group of which he is a member. Meier[68] states that Jesus is noted to “engage in civilized debate or even friendly dialogue with Pharisees, scribes, or ‘rulers,’ the priests are never presented in such positive light”; so the Sadducees are not considered. Thus, it is apparent that Nicodemus was one of those Pharisees who were willing to listen to Jesus, debate with him, and consider his teachings. Proto-Gnostic Symbolism: T.G. Brown[69] goes on to state that Jesus’ statement about being “born anew” in 3.3 would result in the person “bearing an honor status of God…receiving an honor rating commensurate with divine birth…[being] deemed worthy of the kingdom of God.” She goes on to elaborate that “[b]y emphasizing spiritual birth…as the prerequisite to eternal life, the Evangelist is setting up a dualistic structure, contrasting the earthly sphere with the ‘God-sphere.’ ” Painter[70] notes what this writer considers a Proto-Gnostic symbolism hidden within the narrative of this story. He calls attention to the fact that Nicodemus came to Jesus by night and the “furtive nature of the visit.” The knowledge that Nicodemus sought from Jesus would bring to “light” Nicodemus’ search for information. This again is a “dualistic” symbolism that would easily be understood by readers of the time. This writer notes that there is further dualistic reference in this story. Jesus tells Nicodemus, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, “You must be born anew.” The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know when it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit (3.5-8). This statement of Jesus contains the dualistic baptismal symbolism of being born of water/spirit and the dualistic symbolism of spirit/flesh. Even the term “wind” is a reference to the Spirit as the words for “spirit” and “wind” are the same in Greek, pneuma. Reprise: This writer sees a “reprise” to the story of Nicodemus. It is Nicodemus who together with Joseph of Arimathea who at the death of Jesus came with 100 pounds of myrrh and aloes, wrapped the body of Jesus in linen cloths and buried Jesus in the tomb in the garden (19.39-41). Painter[71] notes that the burial of Jesus by Nicodemus (and Joseph of Arimathea) is an act of openness and faith….it does show a growth in open commitment to Jesus in the face of intimidation.” This writer notes that John himself seems somewhat unclear about whether Nicodemus finally became a believer—that is a Christian Jew. The Gospel notes (19.38) that “Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews” took the body of Jesus “away.” Only then does John note that “Nicodemus also who had at first come to him by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about 100 pounds’ weight. They took the body of Jesus” and buried it” according to “the burial custom of the Jews” (19.31-40). The Gospel seems to be clear that Joseph of Arimathea was a “secret” Christian, yet conspicuously does not say the same of Nicodemus. This writer is left wondering and conjecturing that Nicodemus in the end may not have had the courage to stand against the Jews of the synagogue. Therefore, Rensberger likely is correct that Nicodemus stands not only for the individual he was but also for the group of Jews John was appealing to in his synagogue. The Samaritan Woman at the Well: This story is one that does not contain a miracle, but does contain a sign. This story is also “crammed full” of symbols; and most of these symbols center around water: a well, drink, water jar, leading to other symbols—salvation, spirit, truth, food. These symbols are repeated over and over—almost as a teacher does when conveying a difficult concept to a group of students. Who the Samaritans Were: The Samaritans at the time of Jesus were the descendants of the Assyrians who had been moved to the area during the Babylonian exile (587-537 B.C.E). The custom of the time was for peoples who were moved into a territory by a conqueror to assume the religion of the place to which they were moved. Thus, the Assyrians adopted the Jewish religion—to a certain extent; that is, they adopted the Pentateuch. They even built a temple at Mount Gerizim where sacrifices were offered. However, from the time of Ezra (among the first of the returning exiles from Babylon) and Nehemiah (among some of the later returnees exiled from Babylon) there was particularly “bad blood” between the Jews and the Samaritans. At that time the Samaritans had offered to help rebuild the temple at Jerusalem; the Jews “scornfully rejected” the help of the Samaritans. Thus a chance at the uniting of these two groups was lost at that time, and the Samaritans were thoroughly rejected by the Jews as being any part of the Jewish religion and/or the covenant.[72] The story of the Samaritan woman at the well takes place at Jacob’s well that was a historic place of specific importance to both the Jews and the Samaritans. The Gospel according to John specifies that Jesus stopped at the well of Jacob because Jesus was tired from the journey he had made from Judea through Samaria on His way to Galilee (4.6). Jacob’s well is mentioned in Genesis 29 and 30; this section of Genesis tells the story of how Jacob met the father of his wives-to-be, Leah and Rachel, and tells the story of how Jacob came to be married to these two women. So this well was very significant and had a long history with the Jews and Samaritans. The Story: The story of the Samaritan woman at the well notes that Jesus’ disciples had gone to buy food while Jesus rested at the well (4.8). The woman came to the well to draw water, and Jesus asked her for a drink (4.7). Going to a well to get water for the home was a common task; it would also be common for someone on a journey to ask for a drink. In this well-constructed story by the author of John’s Gospel, the woman notes the long-standing conflict between the Jews and the Samaritans and is surprised that Jesus asked her, a Samaritan, for a drink (4.9). At this point in this story Jesus proceeds with a discussion with the woman, a discussion full of symbolism. Jesus “turns the table” somewhat, by saying “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water” (4.10). The woman thinks concretely and says, “Sir, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep; where do you get that living water?” (4.11). Jesus responds to her concrete thinking metaphorically by saying “Every one who drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst; the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (4.13-14). The woman again, thinking concretely, says, “Sir, give me this water that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw” (4.15). At this point in the story, Jesus changes the subject and tells the woman to get her husband (4.16). She says she has no husband; Jesus says, you are right, you have had five husbands and the person you are living with now is not your husband (4.17-18). The woman considers that Jesus must be a “prophet; she notes the conflict between the Jews and the Samaritans: the Jews worshipping in Jerusalem and the Samaritans worshipping in Gerizim (4.20). The author of the Gospel of John then has Jesus speak words that seem obviously meant for the target audience of Old Testament Jews of the synagogue: Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know….But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth (4.21-24). The author of this Gospel has the woman speak in the place of the Old Testament Jews, saying, “ ‘I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ); when he comes, he will show us all things” (4.25). Jesus then addresses Old Testament Jews: “I who speak to you am he” (4.26). The disciples come with food, and the woman leaves to go back to her home (4.27-28). Again, here the author of John’s Gospel addresses the “target audience,” having Jesus tell his disciples: I have food to eat of which you do not know….My good is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work….I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see how the fields are already white for harvest. He who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may rejoice together” (4.32‑36). The Samaritan woman tells the people in her town, “Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ?” (4.29). The entire town goes out to see Jesus, he stays with them several days, and “many more believed” (4.41). Once again, the Jews of the synagogue are addressed in this story: “It is no longer because of your words that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world” (4.42). The story ends with Jesus, after his stay with the Samaritans leaving for Galilee. It should be noted that the end of this story once again addresses the Jews of the synagogue, noting “Jesus himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country” (4.44). The Samaritan Woman: T.G. Brown[73] is one of the few scholars who comments on the Samaritan woman herself. She notes there are “three factors that contribute to the portrayal of the Samaritan woman as a marginal person.” She is a woman who steps outside the boundaries allowed women in the ancient Mediterranean culture; therefore, she behaved dishonorably. She is a Samaritan. She is sexually dishonorable. In elaborating on these three points T.G. Brown observes that the first detail noted about the woman in John’s Gospel is that she “came to draw water at midday” (4.6-7). This bit of information informs the reader that she came alone to draw water at a very unusual time. Women usually drew water in the mornings and/or the evenings and always came in the company of other women. T.G. Brown notes that the Samaritan woman by going to the well alone at this particular time “enters into public space, or male space.” She further elaborates that the ancient Mediterranean world was basically divided into two areas: public and private. Public space was reserved for men; private space, specifically, the home, was reserved for women; at specific times and with certain accompanying reservations women could “invade” public space without opprobrium; that is, women could be in public space at certain times when domestic responsibilities were being fulfilled. These places were generally restricted to public wells and ovens. As a result of these rules, male space allowed interaction with non-kin individuals; female space allowed women contact only with males who were family. Philo has a long section: “About Women Behaving Immodestly” in De Specialibus Legibus, III (The Special Laws, III) that elaborates on just this topic.[74] Market places, and council chambers, and courts of justice, and large companies and assemblies of numerous crowds, and a life in the open air full of arguments and actions relating to war and peace, are suited to men; but taking care of the house and remaining at home are the proper duties of women; the virgins having their apartments in the center of the house within the innermost doors, and the full-grown women not going beyond the vestibule and outer courts; for there are two kinds of states, the greater and the smaller. And the larger ones are called cities; but the smaller ones are called houses. And the superintendence and management of these is allotted to the two sexes separately; the men having the government of the greater, which government is called a polity; and the women that of the smaller, which is called oeconomy. Therefore let no woman busy herself about those things which are beyond the province of oeconomy, but let her cultivate solitude, and not be seen to be going about like a woman who walks the streets in the sight of other men, except when it is necessary for her to go to the temple, ifshe has any proper regard for herself; and even then let her not go at noon when the market is full, but after the greater part of the people have returned home; like a well-born woman, a real and true citizen, performing her vows and her sacrifices in tranquility, so as to avert evils and receive blessings.[75] [This writer notes three points on Philo’s words: First, the words “going about like a woman who walks the streets in the sight of other men” are very close to the term often used for prostitutes even today. Second, although these restrictions on females may not be so extreme in Mediterranean countries nowadays, these same restrictions, however, certainly seem to apply in many Middle Eastern countries even in present times. Third, this writer notes that even in the twentieth century, five decades ago, her own father was most strict that “vulgarities” not be spoken in the presence of her own mother. It would seem that social customs regarding women (and admittedly others) change extremely slowly with remnants of such customs trailing down through centuries.] T.G. Brown then notes that both the presence of the woman who was alone at the well at “the sixth hour” (4.6), about noon, and her speaking to a non-related male (Jesus)—both actions—in and of themselves made her a suspect woman. These factors also account for the disciples’ shock when they returned (4.27). Secondly, the Samaritan woman, just by being Samaritan, is considered a “marginal” person. T.G. Brown notes that all Ioudaioi (Jews) considered Samaritans to be “mixed” (that is, they were descendants of the Assyrians and might have/likely had intermarried with the Jews and thus were considered “semi-pagans.” She calls attention to the fact that since the time of John Hyrcanus (135-104 B.C.E.) relations between the Samaritans and the Jews had been “particularly antagonistic” as the Jews during that period had destroyed the Samaritans’ temple on Mount Gerizim. In addition, the “Pharisaic purity laws” considered Samaritan women perpetually unclean. So this Samaritan woman represented the enemies of the Jews and “unmitigated ritual impurity.” Lastly, the Samaritan woman is considered sexually dishonorable because the man she is currently with is “not her husband” (4.18). T. Brown notes that she is living either in “adultery or concubinage.” T.G. Brown notes that the Jews allowed three marriages; this woman is said to have had “five husbands.” [This writer wonders whether women were able to choose their husbands or if the men of their household were primarily responsible for choosing husbands for the females in their homes. A case for this latter argument might be made given P. Brown’s discussion of the place of women vis-à-vis men in ancient society.[76] If women had little choice in the choosing of their husbands, the situation of this woman may not have been her “fault.” She could have been at the mercy of male family members who may have married her off for political purposes, or she could have been a slave. Women (even some women in some places in today’s world) had little if any input with regard to their own bodies and what happened to them and how they were used.] T.G. Brown summarizes the situation of the Samaritan woman by noting that she “was, according to her culture and social context, marginalized on the basis of her gender, ethnicity, ritual impurity, and moral conduct. She goes on to note: “Precisely because of this characterization, Jesus’ words to her about abundant availability of living water and the imminent possibility of true worship of God resonate as radical.” Proto-Gnostic Symbolism: This story is not only packed with symbolism but obviously must have been addressed to the Old Testament Jews of the synagogue; otherwise, the dialogue would not make sense. Burge[77] comments, “John’s Gospel is the only NT writing to mention living water.” It seems clear from Burge’s following comments that the teaching in this story is directed at the Jews of the synagogue. Burge notes the following points: John has Jesus using “living water” in “conceptually parallel ways”: The Old Testament, Jewish monuments, and Jewish institutions are contrasted with the “gift of Jesus.” In this story the historic well of Jacob becomes “redundant” when Jesus offers his living water. Water was a metaphor for the Spirit in both Old Testament and Rabbinic thought. The Qumran also used water and Spirit as a metaphor, but from the standpoint of a ritual sense of purification. Jesus also referred to water and Spirit in the story of Nicodemus (3.5) noted above: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” The metaphor of the living water depicts two things: The valueless institution which Jesus replaces in his person. The newness Jesus brings. Lastly, Burge notes that his story has its climax in the “Samaritan expectation of living water” which “is fulfilled if one believes in Jesus.” He notes that John then lists christological titles that “give substance to this belief: prophet (vv.19, 44), Messiah and Christ (v. 25), ‘I am’….(v 26), and Savior of the world (v. 42).” T.G. Brown,[78] citing several scholars, notes “living water” is interpreted as a metaphor for “spirit” and refers to the story of Nicodemus 3.5 where Jesus speaks of being born of water and the spirit; she then notes that being born of the spirit “opens up possibility of receiving the eternal life available through Jesus.” She cites John 19.34 where Jesus’ side is pierced and “water and blood” came out of the wound. She concludes that drinking living water means a transition from the “earthly realm” into becoming one of God’s children. She notes [as this writer has noted previously in this paper] that here too symbols are “integrally related concepts” where “living water/spirit” will become “a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (4.14). The living water/spirit that Jesus offers opens up the “possibility of entrance into the realm of God and eternal life by allowing believers a new ascribed honor status as children of God.” T.G. Brown also notes the difference between Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman. Nicodemus has a discussion with Jesus; no indication is ever given in his story that he really understood Jesus’ teaching. However, in the story of the Samaritan woman, while she initially misunderstands Jesus’ teaching, interpreting it concretely, she begins to understand and have some insight into Jesus’ teaching. As the narrative continues, T.G. Brown notes that the Samaritan woman “initiates dialogue with Jesus, reacts to his revelations, and provides an “opportunity for Jesus to draw her to greater depths of understanding.” T.G. Brown notes that the conversation concludes with Jesus “disclosing to her his identity as the Messiah, in the form of an absolute ‘I am’ statement (v.26). This is the first occurrence of the ‘I am’ formula in the Gospel” and the absence of a statement of “who” I am “functions to recall the utterance of the divine name in the Old Testament.” Lastly, she notes that the “narrative closes with this marginalized group of people giving voice to the most exemplary confession in the Gospel thus far”: “It is no longer because of your (the Samaritan woman’s) words that we (the people of the town in which the Samaritan woman lives) believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world” (4.42). Painter[79] notes that the story of the Samaritan woman takes up a new theme not discussed before in The Gospel according to John. He states that in his opinion John himself developed the story of Jesus dealing with the Samaritans. He agrees with T.G. Brown stating, “Jesus was not restricted by the conventions of his time but freely initiated this relationship with a Samaritan woman” (4.9). Painter does note that “obviously Jews and Samaritans did associate at certain levels” because the disciples had purchased food (4.31). He notes that it was the “context …[that] was unusual.” He also agrees that while Nicodemus “simply disappears, the woman responded positively” to Jesus. He concludes that by the end of the story the Samaritan woman’s search for life has been “satisfied beyond her expectation.” Rensberger,[80] interestingly, citing Kasemann, notes that in The Gospel according to John “women play a noteworthy role.” He cites both the Samaritan woman and Mary Magdalene who “bear the news of Jesus’ messiahship and of his resurrection (4.28-29 and 20.2, 17-18).” He states it is these women who carry out the mission of the Gospel itself; “they represent the community as a whole.” In its time such a representation was very radical. Reprise: Once again there is a reference elsewhere in The Gospel according to John to the story of the Samaritan woman. Burge[81] notes “John’s Gospel is the only NT writing to mention living water.” “Living water” is “reprised” in 7:38. In chapter 7, Jesus has gone to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast of The Tabernacles. It is noted, “About the middle of the feast Jesus went up to the temple and taught” (7.14). At the end of his teaching the author of The Gospel according to John notes that On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and proclaimed, “If anyone thirst, let him come to me and drink.” He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, “out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.” Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive.” (7.37‑39). T.G. Brown[82] concludes the story of the Samaritan Woman at the well beautifully by noting that this story concludes “with this marginalized group of people giving voice to the most exemplary confession in the Gospel thus far”: “we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world” (4.42). The Loaves and the Fishes: Chapter 6 of The Gospel according to John is a section that is packed with multiple symbols and multiple layers of symbols. The story of the loaves and the fishes is in verses 1-14 with what might be called the “reprise” of the story immediately following in verses 22-71. Symbols in the Story of the Loaves and Fishes: A list of the symbols used in this chapter contains the following: Bread (eating, loaves, fishes, manna, flesh, bread of life, bread from heaven); drink (thirst, blood); sea (water); wind; life (eternal life); life/death (bread from heaven, manna); signs (works). These symbols are repeated numerous times—a count indicates that there are at least 21 mentions of bread and its accompanying layering of symbols noted above; there are at least five mentions of symbols involving drink and its related symbols; there at least five mentions of signs/works. Thus, this story is layered with symbolic content. Content of the Story: The content of the story of the loaves and fishes, that is, chapter 6.1-21 is this: Jesus crosses to the “other side” of the Sea of Galilee (6.1). A “multitude” of people follow him because they have seen “the signs” he did involving the healing of people (6.2). Jesus Himself notes the number of people and wonders “out loud” to Philip, “How are we to buy bread so that these people may eat?” (6.5). Philip notes that it would take almost a year’s wages of an ordinary laborer[83] to feed all the people (6.7). Andrew notes, “There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what are they among so many?” (6.8-9). Jesus then has everyone sit down (the author of John’s Gospel notes that there were 5000 men), “gives thanks” over the loaves and fishes, and has the food distributed. The Gospel notes that the people had “as much as they wanted” (6.10-11). After everyone had eaten, there were 12 baskets of bread left over (6.12-13). The Gospel notes, “When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, ‘This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world!’ “ (6.14). [This writer notes that everybody must have eaten all the fish as no mention is made of leftovers of fish. Or it might have been that the fish would spoil, whereas the bread would last longer if saved.] In this writer’s opinion the second part of the story illustrates clearly and succinctly the attitude of so many people toward free food; that is, the promise of free food draws people like a magnet. It may be that people are poor and do not have enough money for food; it may be that the promise of free food resonates somehow deep within the individual representing the need for nourishment that is so basic to survival. Whatever the reason, this story is one of “free food” and people’s reaction to “getting” such free food. This symbol-laden story is a rather simple one. When the text of the story is read, it seems that the phrase “crossed to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of Tiberias” (6.2) does not mean a “crossing” as such. If one checks a map[84], one notes that Tiberias is a town south of Capernaum; thus, it would appear that the “crossing” was not a “crossing” in that Jesus went from one side of the “sea” to the other but rather used water transportation as a route from Capernaum to Tiberias and later in chapter six from Tiberias to Capernaum. However, scholars point out that in The Gospel according to John two stories have likely been merged. Painter[85] notes that the story of the feeding of the multitude and the crossing of the sea “were once independent stories that had come to form a sequence” in John’s Gospel. Painter point out that there is a pattern in this story. The pattern is that of a sign prophet, a sign, a wilderness location, a crowd as audience—all of which suggest a relation between Jesus and the sign prophets. (See above.) Painter notes that in The Gospel according to John “the crowd which followed Jesus into the desert place responded to him in a way consistent with the perception of him in these terms,” that is in terms of the “sign prophets.” Painter notes that in other writings at the time, the “first redeemer (Moses) brought down the manna, so also will the latter redeemer.” Barnstone[86] notes that 2Baruch was written in the “latter part of the first century A.D., after Titus had burned the Temple of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This would place the writing of 2Baruch at approximately the same time as the writing of The Gospel according to John. This book “begins with a pessimistic lament” and proceeds to admonish the “deity to take the responsibility himself, since his stewards have failed.” Barnstone notes the “terrible conditions in the latter first century” that lead Jews and Christians to look for the messiah. He notes that 2Baruch is an eloquent statement of worldly sorrows and the joy of anticipated redemption….it depicts that confused period [of the first century C.E.] when pessimism reigned, when night once again covered the waters and desert. Its dark outlook is interrupted by an almost forced vision of salvific triumph and glory. Specifically, the phrase of 2Baruch that is referred to in the “manna reference” is: Healing will descend in dew, Disease will withdraw, And worry and pain and lamentation will be unknown to men And felicity will cover the earth. This writer notes that here in 2Baruch is a statement that would have lead people to Gnostic religions—implied in these words is a criticism of the creator, which in Gnostic religions made perfect sense. Ialdabaoth was responsible for the “mess” the world was in, and it would make perfect sense to call this god to be responsible for the chaos the people were living through. No wonder Gnostic religions were attractive to people. Painter[87] notes, however, that John’s Gospel has Jesus make a “calculated withdrawal” (6.15) that in itself “shows his rejection of the attempt to make him king.” Painter goes on to note that the “crowd looked for a political resolution to the Roman occupation; he notes that a second “traditional story” looked “for an apocalyptic solution to the ills of the world.” Painter’s opinion is that the following story of Jesus’ disappearing, the apostles getting into the boat where a storm arises, and Jesus’ coming to them walking on the water had a purpose in the story of the loaves and fishes: it “dramatically” separated “Jesus from the crowd which had followed him”; it served as a way to make the “point of Jesus’ rejection of the political role.” Jesus proceeds to Tiberias followed by a great group of people “because they saw the signs which he did on those who were diseased” (6.2). The time period is that of the Passover (6.4). Proto-Gnostic Symbolism: The story of the feeding of 5000, the crossing of the sea and Jesus’ walking on the water, and the subsequent discourse to the Jews, that is, chapter 6, verses 1-71, in the opinion of this writer can be considered as one whole when it comes to the symbolism. T.G. Brown[88] refers to the “long ‘Bread of Life’ discourse, which centers on Jesus’ exhortation to work for ‘the food that endures to eternal life’ ” (6.27). She notes the “dualistic perspective of the overall Gospel” and then focuses in on the “contrast constructed” in chapter six, stating that it is “representative of the God realm, and parallels closely the contrast” in the story of the Samaritan woman at the well “between living water and the unsatisfying water provided by Jacob.” She notes that the “conversations and mini-discourses that comprise the larger discourse” of chapter six take place in a “Capernaum synagogue between Jesus and a group of hungry followers looking for another meal.” Citing verse 27, “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give you; for on him has God the Father set his seal,” she notes that Jesus “insinuates a contrast not only between food that perishes and that which endures, but more importantly between the Son of man and other givers of ‘food.’ ” T.G. Brown goes on to state that this contrast between the types of food given is the “skeleton upon which the entire discourse hangs.” She cites verses 33-34 that contrast the manna that was given in the desert under Moses’ leadership and contrasts it with verse 35 where “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’ ” In verse 41, the Jews complain that Jesus said he was the bread from heaven. “They said, ‘Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say “I have come down from heaven?’ ” Further in this discourse in verses 47 to 51, Jesus says, Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. She includes verse 58: “This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” T.G. Brown concludes that the “pivotal theme of the entire discourse centers on Jesus’ ability to provide life-giving bread unlike the bread the group’s ancestors ate and ‘they died.’ ” T.G. Brown notes that the phrase “bread from heaven” was “commonly used to refer to the manna in the Hebrew Scriptures, that “God’s Word” or the Torah was also referred to as “bread and food.” Thus, the Jews would certainly understand that “bread from heaven” would refer to both the manna of the desert and the Jewish Law.[89] T.G. Brown considers that this concept of Jesus’ flesh and blood would have been understood by the Jews as a way of Jesus’ speaking of himself “in a particular sense, and need not point…to the eucharistic elements.” She further interprets the “flesh and blood” symbolism as signifying “violent human death”; she states the author of The Gospel according to John “utilizes graphic language to heighten the offense” of the “violent, shameful death,” Jesus underwent. She concludes this line of thinking by leading into a Gnostic concept. She notes that, “Only those who understand the revelation of God through and in Jesus come to belief… ‘eating the bread of life’ indicates the activity of those who understand Jesus and thus receive him.” One of the basic concepts of Gnosticism was the “knowledge” that the Gnostics possessed (believed) that others did not; the Evangelist employs the Gnostic concept of “knowing,” “believing” in Jesus when others did not/would not. Burge[90] (before T.G. Brown in time) notes also that the “case for seeing a primary reference to the Eucharist in [the story of the loaves and fishes] is tenuous at best.” He notes “John’s stress is entirely on Jesus and the identification of him as the descended bread.” He goes on to cite the “wisdom background” of “bread from heaven” as “divine instruction…is well rooted in OT and Jewish thought.” This thought is also found in the thought of Hellenistic Judaism, the religious and philosophical thought world of first century Alexandrian Judaism.[91] Philo[92] states: It is therefore quite consistent with reason to say that the body which was fashioned out of the earth has nourishment which the earth gives forth akin to the matter of which it is composed; but the soul, inasmuch as it is a portion of the ethereal nature, is supported by nourishment which is ethereal and divine, for it is nourished on knowledge, and not on meat or drink, which the body requires. But that the food of the soul is not earthly but heavenly the Holy Scriptures will testify in many passages, “Behold I will rain upon you bread from heaven, and the people shall come forth, and shall collect from day to day, when I will try them, whether they will walk according to my law or not.” You see that the soul is nourished not on earthly and corruptible food, but on the reasons which God rains down out of his sublime and pure nature, which he calls heaven. And in the case of the manna therefore, and of every gift which God gives to the race of mankind, the principle being guided by numbering and by measure, and of not taking what is more than is necessary for us is good; for the opposite conduct is covetousness. One can conclude from the above that a case for a Eucharist interpretation of chapter six of The Gospel according to John is weak at best. Clearly, the Jews would have interpreted the symbolism used in chapter 6 as manna referring to the Torah and to individuals believing in the teachings of Jesus. Summary of the Symbolism in the Story of the Samaritan Woman and the Story of the Loaves and Fishes: Painter[93] notes that these two stories, one using the symbol of life-giving water, and the other of life-giving bread must have “originally belonged together.” He notes the symbols have a “particular resonance for Judaism.” The well/water and the manna/bread both are symbols of the Law. He notes that these two chapters “appeal to sympathizers and secret believers within the synagogue.” This writer notes that these two stories have very different outcomes. The Samaritans accepted Jesus, Jesus stayed with them for two days, and “many more believed because of his word” (4.39-41). However, the Jews in the story of the loaves and fishes and in the subsequent teaching material in this extended story conclude: “ ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’….After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.” (6.60, 66). The Healing of the Man Born Blind: Meier[94] notes that the story of the healing of the man born blind “is stamped…with the theological thought and vocabulary of John.” He further notes that this story with its narrative and dialogue forms a superb piece of “literary and theological art that clearly reveal[s] the fine hand of the Fourth Evangelist.” He notes that there is a pattern to the miracle stories—that all the miracle stories “boil down to the bare bones” of three steps: The presentation of the problem. (Jesus is presented with some problem.) The act of healing. This act of healing usually involves some word and/or gesture of Jesus. The affirmation or demonstration of the healing with reactions from bystanders. The person in this story was blind from birth and can now see; the reactions of the bystanders in this story consist of a “growing debate” about whether the miracle actually took place and a debate over whether Jesus broke the Sabbath. Meier notes that the debate reflects the “painful break of John’s church from the Jewish synagogue.” The Story: The story itself is about a “man blind from his birth” (9.1). After some discussion among the disciples about who has sinned the man or his parents, Jesus says no one has sinned; this man was born blind so that “the works of God might be made manifest in him” (9.2-3). The author of The Gospel according to John has Jesus further elaborate in dualistic terms: “We must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day; night comes, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world” (9.4-5). The story then proceeds to narrate that Jesus spat on the ground, made mud/clay of the spittle and dirt, and “anointed” the man’s eyes with the clay. Jesus then tells the man to go wash in the pool where he washes and “came back seeing (9.6-7). The neighbors see the man and question who he is. He explains what happened to him. The people start looking for Jesus and do not seem to be able to find Him. So they bring the man born blind to the Pharisees. The Pharisees question him at length; the man in the end says that Jesus is a prophet (9.8-17). The Gospel then begins the narration of the “trouble” the Pharisees caused for the man born blind and his parents (9.18-20). The Gospel indicates that the parents eventually refuse to have little to do with the matter as “they feared the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if any one should confess him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue” (9-21-23). The Pharisees then call the man a second time and question him at length. The man in a wonderfully sardonic response asks the Pharisees “Why do you want to hear it again? Do you too want to become his disciples?” (9.24-27). Further debate ensues, with the Pharisees eventually castigating the man born blind, and finally “they cast him out” (9.28-34). Jesus again “finds the man” and the man says to Jesus, “Lord, I believe.” Jesus then notes, “ ‘For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.’ ” [This is a very “dualistic” response on the part of Jesus.] The Pharisees then ask “ ‘Are we also blind?’ Jesus said to them, ‘If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains’ ” (9.35-41). Meier[95] notes that from a “literary point of view” the character of the man born blind “is the most fully realized ‘character’ in all of the Gospel miracle stories. He alone may be said to have a completely developed personality. And yet he remains anonymous.” T.G. Brown[96] comments on the Pharisees, noting that they were in control of who was or who could be considered a member of the synagogue. In this role the Pharisees “mediate access to religious participation, and thus to right relationship with God, by either allowing or disallowing synagogue participation”; she cites 9.13-23[97] as proof of this. She notes that this power of allowing participation in the synagogue was particularly important in the period after the destruction of the Temple in C.E. 70. Since the temple had been destroyed in C.E. 70, the only place Jews could worship was in the synagogue. Therefore, being “cast out” of the synagogue was equivalent to what would be called today excommunication (or shunning in some groups). In addition T.G. Brown further notes that though “[p]rophets brought the words of God to the ears of God’s clients” the “teachers of Israel actualized the mediating power of the Torah by interpreting it and teaching it to the Israelites.” Thus, after the destruction of the Temple in C.E. 70, the Pharisees were extremely powerful figures within the Jewish community. Meier[98] expands T.G. Brown’s theory by commenting, “this controversy material is suffused with Johannine theology, reflecting in particular the painful break of John’s church from the Jewish synagogue.” In a footnote to this comment, he states, “John’s hand can be seen in “the depiction of the Pharisees as a juridically competent body with the authority to expel any Jew …from the synagogue,” and in the “theme of Jesus as the light of the world, who not only gives the blind man both physical sight and the insight of faith but also passes judgment on the Pharisees, who…plunge further…into spiritual blindness.” Meier also notes in this same footnote: “John’s depiction of the Pharisees and their authority over Judaism reflects the realignment of power-structures in Judaism after the…destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.” He notes “it is not accidental that the Fourth Gospel, among the last NT books to be written, is the first piece of Greek literature to use the adjective aposynagogos. John is reflecting a new religious situation, one that did not hold true during the time of Jesus’ ministry.” Meier[99] notes that the entirety of chapter nine is “such a huge and complicated work of literary and theological art” that a number of stages of tradition and redaction must have taken place between the primitive miracle story[100] and the “monumental tract of Johannine theology” that is chapter nine. He notes that the core of this story of the man born blind must have originated in Jesus’ time as this story “takes for granted” the “topography of pre-A.D. 70 Jerusalem.” Specifically, the pool of Siloam is known to have existed before C.E. 70 from two independent sources, Josephus and the Copper Scroll found at Qumram; it seems the pool at Siloam was destroyed when the Temple was destroyed. Meier also notes that another unique element in the story of the man born blind is that Jesus used spittle to make mud to “anoint” the eyes of the blind man but that it is only when the man washes in the pool that he can see. Meier notes, “Apparently the mud is meant to symbolize the blindness that is ‘washed away’ when the blind man obeys Jesus’ command to wash in Siloam.” He further notes that the man born blind is a “convenient symbol of a humanity born into a world of spiritual darkness.” Proto-Gnostic Symbolism and Hellenistic Elements: Painter[101] considers that 9.3-5 (“Jesus answered, ‘It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him. We must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day; night comes, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.’ ”) is the beginning of “symbolic development of the themes of sight and blindness” which are concluded in verses 13-38; these verses are those where the Pharisees interrogate the man born blind, accuse Jesus of working on the Sabbath, interrogate the man’s parents about his blindness, interrogate the man a second time, and end up expelling the man born blind from the synagogue. Painter[102] notes two noticeably Hellenistic elements in this story: “Reference to the use of spittle and the making of clay to anoint the eyes” of the man born blind are crude, physical means of healing which are “often taken as a sign of…contact with Hellenistic means of healing.” The “Hellenistic” terminology used in this story: “the language ‘blind from birth’…is Hellenistic, rather than the Semitic, ‘blind from the mother’s womb.’ ” Painter then associates the themes of light and judgment and notes this association is significant. Jesus begins by revealing Himself as the light of the world and concludes when He reveals himself as the Son of man. Painter notes that there is a “harmonic relationship” between sight/blindness and light/darkness—the classic Gnostic dualism and the classic Gnostic symbol of light. Painter[103] refers to “the touch of the evangelist’s hand” which is “evident in the symbolic interpretation of the growth of sight (the blind man) and of blindness (the Pharisees) and the division caused by the presence of light.” He notes that within the story itself, Jesus Himself notes that the “man’s blindness was to serve the purpose of God, linking the themes of sight and blindness with the symbols of light and darkness.” Painter[104] also notes that the rejection of the Christian Jews by the Pharisees from the synagogue then allowed for the Christian Jews to reject the synagogue. Again the “theme of light verses darkness is important.” Painter further notes “light/darkness dualism was prominent in the Qumran texts” where the “dualism was an expression of the community’s separation from the world in general and from Judaism in particular.” Painter continues: “The Johannine Christians were the sons of light while synagogue Judaism [was] condemned to the darkness (9.39-41).” Painter concludes that “in its final form, the story legitimates the separation of the Johannine Christians from the synagogue and portrays those who rejected them as under the judgment of God.” [In the opinion of this writer it is of such situations that schisms are born. In this case the schism eventually resulted in the birth of Christianity.] Mystical interpretation: Bultmann[105] has a beautiful mystical interpretation of the light/darkness dichotomy: Light refers to the “state of having one’s existence illumined, an illumination in and by which a man understands himself, achieves a self-understanding which opens up his ‘way’ to him, guides all his conduct, and gives him clarity and assurance.” He goes on to note that darkness refers to a situation in which a person “does not seize this possibility—that he shuts himself up against the God revealed in the creation.” Bultmann calls darkness “illusory self-understanding” and light “genuine self-understanding.” Bultmann concludes that the “concepts [of] darkness, falsehood, death, and bondage” and the “concepts [of] light, truth, life, and freedom” are contrasting groups. “They all derive their meaning from the search for human existence…and denote the double possibility of human existence: to exist either from god or from man himself”; light…illumines his [God’s] way.” Bultmann concludes that the “cosmological dualism of Gnosticism has become in John a “dualism of decision.” Conclusion: T.G. Brown[106] notes that references in John “likely reflect a situation where Christians, no doubt Christians close to the Evangelist, have been expelled from the Synagogue.” Lalleman[107] goes further with this idea noting “There is no external evidence of a Johannine community in the second century.” He cites the fact that while there is internal evidence of a Johannine community, the “absence of evidence for a Johannine community in the AJ [Acts of John] is most remarkable…one would expect to find evidence for its existence in the second century.” It may be then that, sadly, the Johannine community may have died out. However, the masterpiece of literature that is The Gospel according to John has remained down through time. The Raising of Lazarus from the Dead: Meier[108] notes that “the raising of Lazarus is the last and greatest of the ‘signs’ performed by the Johannine Jesus.” He notes that the story of Lazarus is placed at the “culmination of the public ministry” which has “links both backward and forward to connect it with the overall structure of his Gospel” and that the author of The Gospel according to John creates a “careful crescendo” of miracle stories on both the literary and theological levels. He notes that the theological dialogue in the story of the raising of Lazarus is woven throughout the story, not added on to the ending of the story. Meier notes that “in every sign Jesus gives, on a physical level some sort of fuller, more joyful, or more secure life to people whose lives were in some way constricted, saddened, or threatened.” From a literary standpoint, Meier notes, the story of the raising of Lazarus pushes the “plot forward to its inexorable conclusion; it moves the Gospel story from Jesus’ public ministry to his death and resurrection.” He notes that the “great irony” in this story is that “Jesus is to be put to death because he has raised the dead to life.” Meier[109] notes also: “The magnificent dramas of Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well…the healing and subsequent ‘trial’ of the man born blind…and the Lazarus story…show that the Evangelist is a superb writer of suspenseful narratives.” The Story: The story itself is this:[110] The dual problem of Lazarus’ illness and Jesus’ delay in coming to visit him (11.1-6). The two dialogues of Jesus with his disciples (11.7-16). Jesus’ arrival in Bethany and the encounters with the two sisters (11.17-32). Jesus’ visit to Lazarus’ grave where he is “deeply moved in spirit and troubled” (11.33‑39). Martha’s objection that there will be “an odor” from the grave if the stone is rolled away and Jesus’ reply that “if you would believe you would see the glory of God” (11.39-40). The actual raising of Lazarus from the dead (11.41-44). The positive reaction of “many Jews who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him” and the negative reaction of “some of them [who] went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done” (11.45-46). Core Story: This writer could help but wonder if the story of the raising of Lazarus from the dead was an actual event that happened or if it was a story that was “made up” by the author of The Gospel according to John for theological and literary purposes. Meier[111] answered this “wonder.” He notes that this story must go back to a miracle story “circulating in the Johannine tradition before the Gospel was written.” He also notes that the “question of what actually happened cannot be resolved.” Meier, after discussing whether it may be possible that a “healing story” involving Lazarus grew into a story of Jesus’ raising Lazarus from the dead, concludes that the story must ultimately go back to “some event involving Lazarus, a disciple of Jesus, and that this event was believed by Jesus’ disciples even during his lifetime to be a miracle of raising the dead.” In a footnote[112] Meier notes, “the disciples did not have our modern ability (or even the ability of an ancient doctor like Galen) to discern the difference between apparent and clinical death.”[113] Meier[114] thinks the following comprises the “core story” of the narrative of the raising of Lazarus from the dead: Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha…So the sisters sent to him, saying, “Lord, he whom you love is ill”….Then after this he said to the disciples, “Let us go into Judea again”….and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him”….Now when Jesus came, he found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb four days….Then Mary, when she came where Jesus was and saw him, fell at his feet, saying to him, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died”….Then Jesus, deeply moved again, came to the tomb; it was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, “Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days”….So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, “Father, I thank thee that thou has heard me”….When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out.” The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with bandages, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.” Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him (11.1, 3, 7, 15, 17, 32, 38-39, 41, 43-45). Meier[115] notes that, “the oldest stratum of the Johannine narrative seems to come from Palestine and…from the environs of Jerusalem, whose topography appears to be well known in some of the Gospel’s stories.” He further notes that the Lazarus story must come “from a Palestinian milieu” and that it must have “circulated for a good many decades before it was incorporated into the Fourth Gospel.” Meier[116] offers for consideration the following points: § That the story highlights Mary, not Martha, at the beginning and end of this story. § That if the story of Martha is omitted, “Mary’s encounter with Jesus makes good dramatic sense”; that the addition of Martha to the story is a “secondary element” that allows for greater “theological richness”; he concludes that perhaps the character of Martha in this story could be removed entirely. Painter[117] notes that Mary is a “known person” in this story as she is noted as being the one who “wiped the feet of Jesus with her hair” (a story from the following chapter 12). Lazarus is identified as her brother. Painter goes on to note that it is “strange that, while Mary is mentioned first, Martha is given the “leading dialogue” in this story. Painter also notes that Jesus is mentioned as having loved them all (11.5), that he was “deeply moved in spirit and troubled (11.33), that Jesus wept (11.35), and that Jesus was “deeply moved again” (11.38).[118] Proto-Gnostic Symbolism: Meier[119] notes that the narrative of the story of the raising of Lazarus from the dead “ends wit