The Present State of Johannine Studies (Raymond Brown, 1966)

One of the curious aspects of scholarly study on the Gospel of John is that skeptical treatments of the gospel—those which argue that it’s a late non-Jewish fabrication—are actually decreasing in credibility. There are a few aspects to this which I’d like to comment upon, but for now here’s a brief overview of this curious historical trend from a Johannine scholar of note, Raymond E. Brown;

In this century an enormous literature has been devoted to the Fourth Gospel. Indeed, the most instructive introduction to the study of the Gospel is to read one of the surveys of the literature on John—for instance, that of Howard, or the shorter article of Collins. The ephemeral character of some of the positions taken merits sober reflection. The most valuable analysis of Johannine literature is found in French in the writings of Menoud, whose own very competent and balanced opinions emerge from his criticism of the works of other scholars. His bibliographies are most helpful. Haenchen’s German survey is also remarkably complete.

In particular, in the decade after the Second World War there emerged a number of major contributions to the study of John. The commentaries of both Hoskyns (1940) and Bultmann (1941) may be included in this group since they had no wide circulation until after the War. In addition, Dodd’s Interpretation (1953) and the commentaries of Barrett (1955) and Lightfoot (1956) come immediately to mind. The difference of approach in these various works caused much discussion, as evidenced by the articles of Grossouw, Käsemann, and Schnackenburg.

Even a cursory acquaintance with this literature reveals that the trend in Johannine studies has passed through an interesting cycle. At the end of the last century and in the early years of this century, scholarship went through a period of extreme skepticism about this Gospel. John was dated very late, even to the second half of the 2nd century. As a product of the Hellenistic world, it was thought to be totally devoid of historical value and to have little relation to the Palestine of Jesus of Nazareth. The small kernel of fact in its pages was supposedly taken from the Synoptic Gospels which served as a basis for the author’s elaborations. Needless to say, few critics thought that the Gospel according to John had the slightest connection with John son of Zebedee.

Some of these skeptical positions, especially those regarding authorship and the source of influence on the Gospel, are still maintained by many reputable scholars. Nevertheless, there is not one such position that has not been affected by a series of unexpected archaeological, documentary, and textual discoveries. These discoveries have led us to challenge intelligently the critical views that had almost become orthodox and to recognize how fragile was the base which supported the highly skeptical analysis of John. Consequently, since the Second World War there has emerged what Bishop John A. T. Robinson calls a “new look” in Johannine studies—a new look that shares much with the look once traditional in Christianity. The dating of the Gospel has been moved back to the end of the 1st century or even earlier. A historical tradition underlying the Fourth Gospel similar to the traditions underlying the Synoptic Gospels is being posited by some. In fact, the author of the Gospel is gradually having his status as an orthodox Christian restored, after long languishing in the dungeons of Gnosticism to which he had been relegated by many critics. And perhaps strangest of all, some scholars are even daring to suggest once more that John son of Zebedee may have had something to do with the Gospel. This reversal of trend, however, does not mean that all the intervening critical scholarship has been in vain. Scholarship cannot return to pre-critical days, nor should it ever be embarrassed by the fact that it learns through mistakes. Indeed, it is the admirable honesty of biblical criticism and its ability to criticize itself that has led to a more conservative estimation of the historical value of the Fourth Gospel.[1]

Footnotes:

[1] Raymond Edward Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII, vol. 1, 1st ed., The Anchor Bible 29 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), xxi-xxii.