Johannine Studies
VII. THE SEMITIC BACKGROUND OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
Johannine Studies
VII. THE SEMITIC BACKGROUND OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
Subjects reviewed in this chapter:
The Readers – The Old Testament – Palestinian Geography – Reflections of Jewish Life and Belief – The Rabbinic Background – Qumran – Language
Scholars have found the home of the Fourth Gospel in Palestinian Judaism, in Philonic Judaism, in Hellenistic Judaism, in the Hermetic literature, and in oriental Gnosticism. Under the impact of Nag Hammadi discoveries which increased knowledge of Gnosticism and of Qumran discoveries which revealed the diversity of first century Judaism, opinion again centers on a possible Palestinian background.
The purpose of this paper is to consider only one side of the complexity – that of the Semitic background – of the Johannine story set (as is true of the material of all the gospels) in Palestine. Jesus does not move out of the Holy Land, nor does he have direct contact with individual Gentiles. While Greeks come to him (12:20ff.), and people suppose that he might go to the Dispersion among the Greeks (7:35), he is recognized as a Jew by the Samaritan woman (4:8); and his work is among Jews.
The Readers
There is no dispute that the writer who wrote the Fourth Gospel wrote for a Greek audience on whose part he can assume a knowledge of the Old Testament. John 1:19-23 has references to priests, Levites, the Messiah, Elijah the prophet, and Isaiah – all from the Old Testament.
The writer gives explanations of customs which have been thought intended for the non-Jew, including allusion to the festivals to be discussed later. The life of the people is reflected in the marriage customs (2:1-11), in the friend of the bridegroom (3:29; cf. M. Sanh. 3:5),1 in the six stone jars of water for purifying (2:6), in matters of ceremonial purification (3:25; 11:55; 18:28; 19:31), in events about the burial of Lazarus (11:17-44), and in the concern to avoid defilement which would disqualify one from eating the Passover (18:28, 38). There are Jewish burial customs (19:40); however, the right of execution had been taken from them (19:31).
John never refers to the Gentiles (ta ethne).2 Ethnos to him means the Jewish nation (11:48-52; 18:35). His interest is in the way Jesus came to Israel.
Despite what should be deduced from the writer’s use of the epithet “the Jews,” there is a recognition of the Jews’ special claim to be the people of God. Nathaniel, as a believer, is a true Israelite (1:47). The writer has Jesus coming to his own home and his own people (1:11). He has Jesus identify himself with the people of the Old Testament and to say, “We worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews” (4:22). Those who have rejected the Messiah have alienated themselves from their birthright and stand outside the true Israel; those who believe in him and continue in his word are truly his disciples (8:31). Other sheep not of this fold will be him and continue in his word are truly his disciples (8:31). Other sheep not of this fold will be brought, and there will be one flock (10:14-16). Jesus would die not for the nation only but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad (11:51, 52). Jesus spoke of his having taught the Jews (13:33; 18:20), and of his being handed over to them (18:36).
The writer used “the Jews” (sixty-nine times), often in a geographical sense of Judeans, those who live in Judaea (7:1; 9:7, 8; 11:8; and perhaps others),3 which usage is paralleled in Josephus, Ant. 17:254ff.; Life 346; but there is a different connotation in 18:20 and 19:20, 21. “The Jews” designates unbelievers who reject the gospel of Christ (sometimes the authorities and not the total community of Jews) in opposition to Jesus. They seem to reflect the attitude of Jerusalem (1:19), and they ask for a sign (2:18). The Jews oppose cures on the sabbath (5:l0ff.). They oppose Jesus’ calling God his father, making himself equal with God (5:18). They object to Jesus’ teaching on the bread of life (6:41, 52), silence the multitude in Jerusalem (7:11-13), insist that they are Abraham’s children (8:31ff.), and would have stoned Jesus (8:59; 10:31) had he not avoided them. They are feared by believing Jews (7:13), by the parents of the healed blind man (9:22), by Joseph of Arimathea who remains a secret disciple (19:38), and by the disciples on resurrection day (20:19). In other passages they marvel (7:15), wonder about Jesus’ statements (7:35; 8:22); have a divided opinion (10:19), ask for a clear declaration of Jesus’ claim (10:24ff.), and would have stoned him (10:31). Many believe (2:23; 7:31; 8:30, 31; 11:42, 45; 12:10f., 42). The unbelieving group is identified with the world (kosmos); 15:18-25).
The Old Testament
Though quotations form only a small part of the use of the Old Testament in the Johannine writings, the eighteen formal quotations in the gospel have a variety of introductions. The cry of the triumphal entry which comes from Psalm 118:26 has no introduction (John 12:13). A “fulfill” citation in John 18:9 used for a saying of Jesus comes from an unidentified source.
While C.C. Torrey claimed that all the quotations were from Hebrew and were all made from memory with customary freedom and arrangement,4 according to Bernard,5 the O.T. citations show a knowledge of Hebrew (1:23; 6:45; 12:15, 40; 13:18) as well as of the Septuagint (2:17; 12:38; 17:17; 19:24); however some citations are indecisive on this issue (6:31; 7:42; 8:17; 10:34; 12:13, 34; 15:25; 19:28, 36).
Things done, like the cleansing of the temple (2:17), the hatred of the people (15:25), the loss of Judas (17:12), the division of the garments and the casting of lots for the robe (19:23f.), the expression of thirst (19:28), the limbs left unbroken (19:36), and the pierced side (19:37) are said to fulfill O.T. passages. These all form a basis of faith (19:35).
In addition to the specific quotations, the Fourth Gospel is replete with echoes of the O.T. The prologue opens with identical words to the Greek Genesis: “In the beginning” (en arche), and begins to speak of light and darkness (1:5) which were separated in the first chapter of Genesis. The vocabulary arche (“beginning”), phos (“light”), zoe (“life”), skotos (“darkness”), sperma (“seed”), and kosmos (“world”) is found alike in Genesis 1:1-2:1 and the gospel. The link between Genesis and the Johannine material may be Psalm 33:6, 9 which speaks of creation of the heavens by the word of God’s mouth, and of his commanding and things coming to be. God is still working after the six days of creation (5:17).
The Scriptures are in preparation of the Messiah (5:39), and the three O.T. figures Abraham, Jacob and Moses are mentioned in connection with him. Abraham looked to Christ’s day (8:56), Moses wrote of him (5:46), and a greater than Jacob opened a well (4:12ff.). The Lamb (amnos) of God who takes away the sin of the world (1:29, 36) likely echoes Isaiah 53:7-12 (cf. I Pet. 2:21-25). The Messiah is the one of whom Moses and the prophets wrote (1:45).
Old Testament images represent the relation of Christ and his people. The Good Shepherd figure (l0:lff.) recalls several O.T. passages (Ps. 23:1ff.; Isa. 40:11; Jer. 23:1-4; Ezek. 34:1ff.; 37:24) as also does the vine and the branches (15:1ff.; cf. Ps. 80:8-13; Isa. 5:1-7; Jer. 2:21; Ezek. 15:1ff.; 19:10, 14; Hos. 10:1). While the use of the 0. T. in the Johannine corpus reflects Jewish exegetical tradition to the time of the writing, it has its own modifications of that tradition.
The Spirit resting upon Jesus is an echo of Isaiah 11:2 where the Septuagint uses anapausetai (“will rest”), the verb John uses. The angels ascending and descending echo the Jacob’s ladder episode (Gen. 28:12; John 1:51). The Passover is alluded to three times (John 2:13, 23; 6:4; 11:55), and some scholars argue that the writer presents Jesus as the Passover lamb. Jesus claims superiority to the temple (2:19). The writer makes use of the serpent (3:14) and the manna in the desert (6:31) episode and Jacob’s giving the well in Samaria (4:12). The law only judges a man after having him a hearing (7:51); the testimony of two witnesses is true (8:17; cf. Deut. 19:15). Circumcision from the patriarchs is given by Moses (7:22). The woman taken in adultery is to be stoned (8:1ff. [text problem]; cf. Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). There is a two-fold resurrection – to life and to judgment (5:29; cf. Dan. 12:2). The symbols of lamb and light of the world go back to the O.T., but were there applied to Israel. The bringing of other sheep (the Gentiles) rests upon Isaiah 56:8.
Palestinian Geography
The Gospel of John reveals a considerable knowledge of Palestinian geography. References to Galilee are in 2:1-12; 4:3-54; 6:1-71; 7:1-9. In Galilee there is Bethsaida the city of Andrew, Peter (1:44) and Philip (12:21). Nazareth, the home of Jesus, is an insignificant place (1:46); Cana in Galilee (2:1, 11; 4:46; 21:2) is not in any other earlier known writing; but from Cana Jesus goes “down” (2:12; 4:47, 49, 51) to Capernaum (6:17, 24, 59). Whichever of the two candidate sites one chooses for Cana, one drops from above sea level to more than six hundred feet below in the descent.
The Sea of Galilee is also called the Sea of Tiberias (6:1; 21:1), and on its shores is Tiberias (6:23). Storms come on the sea (6:18ff.), and three or four miles [twenty-five or thirty stadia] as a distance of rowing is given (6:19). From the sea, Jesus goes up into the hills (6:3).
Jesus goes “up” (anabainein) from Galilee to Jerusalem for the Passover (2:13, 23); and in going from Jerusalem to Galilee passes through Samaria (4:4); and near there is Sychar, a town of Samaria, which is near the field that Jacob gave Joseph (4:5). Jacob’s well which is deep (the deepest in Palestine) is there (4:6, 11), and from the well fields ready for harvest (4:35) would be visible at the proper season. The mountain (Mt. Gerizim) is near (4:20).6 Earlier John had baptized at Eanon near Salim where there was much water (3:23), a place now identified as being only across the mountain from Shechem.7
Near Jerusalem is the Kidron valley (cheimarrous; 18:1) and its garden. Also near is the Mount of Olives (8:1 [text problem]). The Praetorium into which Jesus is led (18:28) with its pavement (lithostroton) which in Hebrew is gabbatha is in the city (19:13); but whether on the corner of the temple area or near Herod’s palace is not determined.8
Priests and Levites who question John are from Jerusalem (1:19); John baptizes at Bethany beyond the Jordan (1:28; 10:40) which is to be distinguished from the other Bethany, the village of Mary (11:1; 12:1) two miles (fifteen stadia) from Jerusalem (11:18). A town near the desert is called Ephraim (11:54). The place of a skull (Golgotha), near the city (19:17, 20), is not definitely located. There was a garden (kepos) and in the garden a new tomb (19:41) whose owner Joseph is from Arimathea (19:38).9
Reflections of Jewish Life and Belief
The Semitic background of the Fourth Gospel is to be seen in the allusions to observances of the Jewish festivals: Passover, Tabernacles (7:2, 10), Dedication (10:22, 23), and an unnamed feast (5:1). Jesus is in Jerusalem for each of these though observance of Dedication did not require presence there. Jews go early to Jerusalem at Passover to purify themselves (11:55). Allusion is made to the day of Preparation (19:31, 42; cf. Josephus, Ant. 16.6.2 [163]) and to the observation of the sabbath (5:9-18; 9:16); to the last day which is the great day of the feast of Tabernacles (7:37), and to Greeks who come to the Passover (12:20).
The Fourth Gospel reflects popular Jewish views in Galilee (1:4, 46, 49; 6:14, 28, 30f.), in Samaria (4:25, 29, 42), and in Judea (5:39, 45f.; 7:26f., 40-43; 8:30f.; 10:24; 12:34).10 Scribes (8:3), Pharisees (1:24; 3:1; 7:32, 48; 11:47, 57) and chief priests (7:32; 12:10; 18:35; 19:6, 15) who have their officers (huperetai; 7:32, 45; 18:3, 12,18, 22; 19:6) furnish opposition to Jesus. They plot the death of Lazarus (12:10). Though the writer does not mention the Sadducees, he knows of those who hold official posts in Jerusalem (11:49f.). Notice is taken of Annas, father-in-law of Caiaphas (18:13) and of the high priesthood of Caiaphas (11:49-51; 18:13, 14, 24), of the council (sunedrion; 11:47), and of fear of the Romans (11:48). A man has a hearing before he is condemned (7:51). The Jews bring Jesus before Pilate (18:29, 33; 19:8, 12, 19, 38). The priests and the Pharisees act together (7:32, 45; 11:47, 57; 18:3). At times the writer speaks only of “the authorities” (hoi archontes; 7:26, 48; 12:42). The chief priests are always in the lead (cf. 11:47; 12:10; 18:35; 19:6, 15, 21).
The Pharisees inquire of John’s baptizing (1:24: 4:1), and question the man born blind (9:13-18). They scornfully reject the opinion of the multitude (7:47), question the authority of Jesus (8:13), condemn his miracles done on the sabbath (9:13ff.), excommunicate Jesus' followers (9:22; 12:42), and admit frustration after the triumphal entry (12:19). The writer is well acquainted with the practices, beliefs, and schools of thought within later Judaism.
One has said, “Although the nationalistic Messianism is not shared by John, he stands on the ground of Jewish messianic belief.”11 To the Jews the Messiah is to be a political king (6:15; 11:48; 12:13). Messianic expectations are reflected in the use of the term Messias (not found in the other gospels) which is twice explained to mean Christos (1:41; 4:25). Messias is a title only to be understood in the Jewish sphere. It is not used in Greek religious thought (cf. Justin, Apol. 1.49.5). and is not used by Philo and Josephus. The gathering into one the children of God that are scattered abroad (11:52) is a Messianic work,12 John is aware of Messiah’s meaning as a synonym to “king of Israel.”13 Of the expected one, Moses in the law and the prophets wrote (1:45). The Scriptures bear witness (5:39). He was not expected out of Galilee, but from Bethlehem (1:46; 7:41-43, 52; cf. Targum Micah 5:1). The expectation of the Christ (1:20), of Elijah (1:21), and of the prophet (1:21, 25; 4:19; 6:14; 7:40-52; 9:17), but not a prophet from Galilee (7:52), are reflected. Also the expectation of a hidden Messiah is echoed (7:27), but in common expectation, rather than dying, the Christ remains forever (12:34).14 Jesus is king in quite another sense (18:33-37). Jesus performed signs, even the Christ could not be expected to perform more (7:31).
Contemporary with the temple was the synagogue in which Jesus could teach (6:59; 18:20); but there is a tension with the synagogue. Though Jesus spoke openly to the world, in the synagogues, and in the temple (18:20), the one who confesses the Christ is to be put out of the synagogue (aposunagōgos genesthai; 9:22). The authorities though believing in Jesus would not confess it lest they be put out of the synagogue (12:42), and Jesus warns that his followers would be put out of the synagogue and killed as a service to God (16:2; cf. Justin Martyr, Trypho 95:4; 133:6; Martyrdom of Polycarp 13:1).15
The tensions between the Jews and Samaritans in which “Jews have no dealings with Samaritans” (4:9) and in which Jesus can be called derogatorily a Samaritan who has a demon (8:48) are reflected. The controversy over whether Jerusalem or Mount Gerizim is the place of worship is brought up (4:20).
There was a clash between Jesus and the Jews over his healing on the sabbath (5:9-18); 9:1ff., 14); it was not lawful to carry a pallet on it (5:10), and there were other sabbath regulations; however, there were matters like circumcision on the eighth day which were recognized to take precedence over the sabbath rest (7:22, 23). Bodies were not left hanging on a cross over the sabbath (19:31, 42).
The Rabbinic Background
Another part of the Semitic background of the Johannine literature is seen in those elements it holds in common with later rabbinic literature. The dating of rabbinic literature is a problem in evaluating this element. Existing rabbinic literature is considerably later than the Johannine literature; however, it is a commonly accepted assumption that some of the views expressed in rabbinic sources are older than the present form of the sources. With this assumption, some of the views may be contemporary with the date of the writing of the Johannine material.
The rabbis saw the law as pre-existent as John describes the logos to be preexistent (1:1). C.H. Dodd, whose work this section summarizes,16 pointed to affinities between the Fourth Gospel’s use of “law” (nomos) and rabbinic use of torah. He paralleled John 7:51, “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing?” to Exodus R. 21:3: “Flesh and blood, if it hear the words of a man, judges him; if it does not hear, it cannot establish his judgment.” Also 8:17, “In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true,” based on Num. 35:30, Deut. 7:6; 19:15, is paralleled in Siphre on Numbers 35:30, paragraph 161. “It is written in the law” (10:34; 15:25) is a common rabbinic formula (M. Abodah Zarah 3:4; Lev. R. 4:6; Qoh. R. 1:8; 11:1). However, what the rabbis ascribed to the law, John declared to be fulfilled in Jesus.
That the law was given by Moses (1:17; 7:19, 23) is the common rabbinic view. Siphre on Deut. 31:14, #305 states: “Blessed be God who gave the Torah to Israel through Moses our teacher.” Dodd notices that the attitude expressed in 7:49, “But this crowd who do not know the law, are accursed,” parallels rabbinic attitudes toward the 'amme ha 'arets, those who do not scrupulously follow the requirements of the law.17 Hillel said, “A bor [a brutish man] does not fear sin and no 'am ha 'arets [ignorant man] is pious” (M. Pirke Aboth 2:6).
The casuistry involved in the sabbath argument of John 7:22-24 parallels the rabbinic “light and heavy” (qal wachomer) type of argument. The law permits circumcision on the sabbath because the act must be done on the eighth day (P. Ned. 38b; Tos. Shab. 15:16). From that premise in a light and heavy argument, Jesus reasoned that the entire man could also be healed on the sabbath. Eliezer ben Azariah (ca. A.D. 100) put it, “If circumcision which affects one of our 248 members, repels the Sabbath, how much more must the whole body repel the Sabbath?” (b. Yoma 85a-b).
Despite the parallels with later rabbinic thought, examples of which could be multiplied, Dodd points out that the differences are also great.18 The author of the Gospel of John writes as one outside the Jewish system, using the terms “your law” and “their law” (8:17; 10:34; 15:25). He contrasts the law which came through Moses with grace and truth which came through Jesus Christ (1:17). The rabbinic view is that grace and truth are attributes of God: “Grace: that means God’s acts of love, truth: that means the Torah” (Midrash Ps. on Ps. 25:10). In many rabbinic passages study is the way to eternal life (M. Pirke Aboth 7:6; Mech. Exod. 13:3; Pesiqta 102b); but for John the study of the law is inadequate (5:39). Rather than the law's being life, Christ’s words are life (6:63).
Twice Jesus is called Messiah (1:41; 4:25) which is then translated “Christ.” Solid evidence for the use of this term for a future appearing figure in pre-Christian Judaism is elusive apart from Daniel 9:25, 26. “Anointed” is used in the O.T. for the reigning king, and there is the promise of a prince of the house of David. The future monarch of the house of David is called christos kurios in Ps. Sol. 17:36 which is assumed to be a translation of in meshiach 'adhonai. The term then appears in the Apocalypse of Baruch 29:330:1 about A.D. 100 and occurs in one recension of the Zadokite Document 9:10. The term is used in the Targums. According to I. Abrahams, the term became common in rabbinic usage after the destruction of the temple and was well established after the Bar Cochba War (A.D. 135).19
Some people were inclined to accept Jesus as the Messiah on the basis that he performed signs (7:31; cf. 6:30f.) and greater ones could not be expected of the Messiah. Rabbinic sources stress signs of the Davidic Messiah’s coming rather than his miracle working power.20 The signs stressed in John, though convincing to believers, would have little convincing power to those of such expectations. However, in a typology, the prophet-Messiah like Moses was expected to do things like Moses did, dealing with manna, riding a donkey (Qoheleth Rabba 1:8, 4), and furnishing water. The writer of John has the crowd expect a miracle, but when they see a miracle, they fail to recognize the sign.
The Messiah is a descendant of David born at Bethlehem (7:42). The descent from David is a standard part of the messianic belief (Ps. Sol. 17:23-36; 18:6-8). John rejects the idea that he is a man born of men (cf. Justin, Trypho 8:3; 49:1); he is “from above,” “from God,” “from heaven” (3:31; 6:38; 8:23, 42). The rabbinic expectation of the return of David is not alluded to in the N.T. Micah 5:2 is not frequently cited in the literature. Allusion to a messianic birth in Bethlehem comes in the fourth century. One has to reckon with the possibility that though the expectation was a part of contemporary first century expectation, O.T. claims favored by Christians were abandoned later in rabbinic schools.
Qumran21
It is widely recognized that rather than there being a direct dependence between Qumran and the Johannine corpus, the Qumran materials find their importance in showing that there was a Palestinian atmosphere in which the vocabulary and religious ideals of the corpus would have been understood.22 Ideas which formerly were known only in second century Gnosticism can now be dated to the first century.
No other literature furnishes the close terminological and ideological parallels to the Johannine literature which the Qumran literature does. While both have an O.T. background, they diverge from it. Creation is traced to God (John 1:2; 1QS 3:15; 11:11; 1QH 1:20; 10:9); however, in John, God works through his Word (1:1), while in Qumran it is through his knowledge (1QS 3:15; 1QH 1:20). In Qumran the two spirits were created (1QS 3:25); the Gospel of John does not raise the question.
The scrolls and the Johannine writings have a dualism under one God the creator in which good and evil are opposite each other. In Isaiah 45:7 the Lord is said to “form light and create darkness,” but the struggle depicted in the Johannine literature and in Qumran is not so precisely delineated in the O.T. In Qumran all men are aligned either with light or darkness; and in the Johannine writings light and truth struggle with darkness and evil. The dualism is ethical and eschatological rather than being metaphysical as is that of the second century Gnostics.
In the Gospel of John, with the advent of Jesus, light has come into the world (John 1:4, 9; 12:46), and he is the light of the world (9:5). He is quite different from Qumran’s created angel of light, and the terminology used for the leader of the forces of darkness in Qumran differs from that of John. While John speaks of darkness and mentions the devil or Satan who is the ruler of this world (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), John does not characterize him as an angel of the forces of darkness as Qumran does.
Whereas the Johannine literature reflects a struggle which has some parallels in the Qumran picture, its details are different. In Qumran the struggle between good and evil, light and darkness (though light is ultimately to be victorious) is to continue until the end. The victory is in the eschatological future. In John the victory has already been determined with the coming of Jesus into the world (16:28). Light is victorious over darkness. Darkness did not overcome the light (1:5). “He who walks in darkness does not know where he goes” (12:35); cf. 1QS 3:2). The prince of this world is cast out (12:31), and Christ has overcome the world (16:33).
In Qumran the sons of light are the members of the community who live by its rule: “All who dedicate themselves to do God’s ordinances shall be brought into the covenant of friendship to be united in God’s counsel” (1QS 1:7-8). Refusal to do God's will makes one a son of darkness. The member of the community was expected to manifest truth, humility, patience, compassion, understanding, wisdom, zeal, and purity (1QS 4:2). Misbehavior was seriously punished. Contrasting with this acceptance of the community's interpretation of the Law is the fact that in the Gospel of John one in the light believes in Jesus (12:36, 46) and follows him (8:12). The figure of Christ and his revelation is a significant difference between the two groups.
In Qumran one must hate evil and love the good (1QS 1:3-4; CD 2:15). The members must hate the sons of darkness (1QS 1:10), curse the sons of Belial (1QS 2:4-5), and separate themselves from perverse men (1QS 5:11; 9:17-18). Yet they were not to return evil for evil (1QS 10:18); they were to respond humbly before the haughty (1QS 11:1). One must love the sons of light (1 QS 1:10) and not speak to a brother in anger (1QS 5:25). The theme of brotherly love is prominent in the Gospel of John (John 13:34, 35; 15:12); but to hate is foreign.
Other contrasts are that John has nothing of Belial as the personification of evil (1QS 1:18, 24; 1QM 1:1ff.). He uses the Jewish term “Satan” only at 13:27, but three times uses the Greek word diabolos (6:70; 8:44; 13:2). John has nothing of an eschatological war (1QM), of a New Covenant concept which is characteristic of Qumran (CD 6:19f.), of hatred of outsiders (1Q5 1:4, 10), of degrees of rank among members (1QS 2:20-23; 6:4-23), of repentance (CD 2:5; 8:16), community punishments (1QS 7:1ff.), and numerous other doctrines.23
Many features in the Fourth Gospel have no parallel in Qumran. The Messiah as incarnate God (1:14), abiding in the Son of God (15:1-8), “Son of man” as a Messianic title (1:51; etc; thirteen times), new birth (3:3), flesh and spirit as opposite (3:6), and eating the flesh of the Son of man (6:53, 54) are all foreign to Qumran. The Ego eirni (“I am”) predictions, the coming from above, and the being born from above concepts have no point of connection in Qumran.24 God as God of love, not merely of righteousness, the ministry of healing of the Messiah, his coming to save all sinners, not merely the elect, and his atoning death are foreign to Qumran.25
The Gospel of John would never have been written in the Qumran community. While the scrolls show that vocabulary and ideas which scholars previously thought were to be dated in the second century are now known to be present in the first, their meaning to Qumran and John are not identical. Furthermore, the scrolls have helped to break down the clear division of thought previously made between Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism. Previously known Palestinian materials had been predominantly Pharisaic. The Qumran scrolls enable scholars to see sectarian Judaism from its own presentation.
Essenes (if the Qumran people were Essenes) were in every city of Palestine (Josephus War 2.8.4 [124]); however, the Qumran movement did not lead people to Christ. The Johannine materials, though sharing some terminology, did not arise out of Qumran. However, the materials seem to establish the possibility of a Palestine background for the Johannine materials. W.F. Albright, while leaving open the possibility of later editing, argued that the parallels make acceptable the argument that the gospel contained memories of the Apostle John from within the first century rather than being late as some had argued.26
Language
The Semitic element in the language of the Fourth Gospel is difficult to demonstrate to those who read neither Semitic nor Greek. Aramaisms (cf. 9:18), but not Hebraisms, have been identified.27 Semitisms are constructions which are present in both Hebrew and Aramaic (cf. 1:27) but are not native to Greek. Septuagint influence is not thought to be an adequate explanation for their presence. Scholars like Burney28 and Torrey29 argued inconclusively for an Aramaic original which had been translated into Greek, but E.C. Colwell argued for use of a non-literary koine Greek, insisting that there is nothing to justify the claim that the author of the Fourth Gospel thought in Aramaic but wrote in Greek.30 Others like Howard31 and Black32 have said that the author did think in Aramaic but wrote in Greek.33 Bultmann thought his hypothetical signs source of the Gospel was by a Greek speaking Semite.34 Dodd speaks of irresistible evidence for an underlying Semitic idiom.35 Turner points out that the language is more Semitic than that of the other Gospels.36
Cases of alleged mistranslation which could be rendered back into Aramaic for slight correction and retranslation into Greek to correct the difficulty (the stock in trade of the argument of Burney and Torrey) were reduced by Black to two (8:34; 11:33, 38).37 Barrett rejected even these, arguing that the existing Greek is not such as to need conjecture.38
The Semitic coloring in vocabulary is seen first in the words which are given in Semitic form and translated: Rabbi (1:38; etc), Rabbouni (20:16), Messias (1:41; 4:25), Cephas (1:42), Siloam (9:7), Thomas (11:16; 20:24; 21:2), Bethzatha or Bethesda (5:2), Gabbatha (19:13), and Golgotha (19:17). Other words which are not translated include “amen” (“truly”; 3:3; etc.), “hosanna” (12:13), and “manna” (6:31, 49).
Other English words and phrases from strongly Semitic colored Greek are “behold” (1:47) and “answered and said” which occurs 31 times.39 Others are “grace and truth” (1:14, 17), “believe on the name” (1:12; 2:23; 3:18), “the name” referring to God and his nature (12:28; 17:6, 11, 12, 26), “does what is true” (3:21), “rejoice greatly” (3:29), “has given all things into his hand” (3:35), “seed” for descendants (7:42; 8:33, 37), “sons of light” (12:36), “son of perdition” for the lost one (17:12), “the devil had already put into the heart” (13:2), and “all flesh” for kol basar (17:2). “Come and see” (1:39, 46; 11:34) is common in rabbinic materials inviting to that which is unusual,40 often claimed as a parallel, is rejected by Smith.41 “You have well said” is paralleled in Mechilta 19:24.42
Qumran texts often illustrate Johannine usage. The double “truly” (amen) which occurs twenty five times (3:3; etc) is found in 1QS 1:20; 2:10, 18. “Deeds were evil” (3:19; 7:7) parallels “works of darkness” (1QS 2:7; 1QM 15:9). “Do the truth" is paralleled in 1QS 1:5; 5:3; 8:2 but is also in Tobit 4:6; 13:6. “The wrath of God rests upon him” is paralleled in 1QS 4:12, but is common in Judaism. “Spring of water” is paralleled in the Damascus Covenant 3:16; 8:22. “Witness to the truth” (5:33; 18:37) is paralleled in 1QS 8:6. Other examples include “walk in darkness” (8:12; 12:35), “the ruler of this world” (12:31; 14:30; 16:11, and “sons of light” (12:36). In syntax, Semitic influence can be seen in the use of casus pendens where pan (“all”) refers to the personal pronoun (6:39; 15:2; 17:2). There are twenty-four cases of the dangling clause.43 The partitive ek with the omission of tis (1:24; 3:25; 7:40; 16:17) occurs which is usual in Semitic and frequent in the Septuagint. Pas is put before a conditional participle resulting in the translation of “whoever” (or “every one”) . . .” (3:8,15, 16, 20; 4:13; 6:40, 45; 8:34; 11:26; 12:46; 15:2b; 16:2; 19:12). It is also seen in the imperative with kai used for the future (1:39; 2:19; etc), and the imperative is used with a second imperative (1:46; 7:52; 11:34).
The Greek is characterized by the use of parataxis in which short sentences are connected by kai (“and,” “but,” and “then”), rather than using particles and subordinating clauses in examples too numerous to list (cf. 1:10, 11; 3:10, 16-21; 5:24; etc.) in narrative and in reports of discourse (5:39, 43; 17:8, 10, 11). John 9:6ff. may be cited for its five occurrences of kai. Kai is also used adversatively (cf. 1:5; 17:11; etc) in twenty-two cases.
After making allowance for the occurrence of some of the phenomena in Greek not known to be Semitic and for the influence of gospel tradition upon the writer of the Fourth Gospel, C.K. Barrett summarizes: “Perhaps it is safest to say that in language as well as in thought John treads, perhaps not unconsciously, in the boundary between the Hellenic and the Semitic; he avoids the worst kind of Semitism, but retains precisely that slow and impressive feature of Aramaic which was calculated to produce the effect of solemn, religious Greek, and may perhaps have influenced already the liturgical language of the church.”44
R. Schnackenburg, from whom this survey is condensed, concludes that “John was written in Greek from the start even though the language displays many Semitisms or Semitic colouring.”45 R. Brown is more cautious but also feels that the evidence is inadequate to demonstrate that the gospel according to John ever existed in Aramaic.46
Space limitations prohibit an exhaustive consideration of all Semitic aspects of the Fourth Gospel. We have looked at only one strand of its complexities. After one has discounted the material the Fourth Gospel has in common with the Synoptic Gospels the data we have collected substantiates the opinion that “the Fourth Gospel . . . is one of the most Jewish of the early Christian writings. . . . At the same time it attests some of the diversity of Judaism in the first century.”47 It remains disputed whether this atmosphere was to be found outside of Palestine as well as in Palestine. Scholars who reject the gospel’s Palestinian background will continue their struggle to explain how such an atmosphere was transplanted out of Palestine.
