Paul Anderson, The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel: An Introduction to John (Minneapolis:

Fortress, 2011). Reviewed by Jim West

Part Two: Addressing the Johannine Riddles

5. Scholarly Approaches to John / 95

The Author as the Source of the Johannine Tradition / 96
Composition Theories Distinguishing the Author from an
Eyewitness and from John Son of Zebedee / 104
Composition Theories Regardless of Authorship / 114
Conclusion / 123

6. The Dialogical Autonomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Plausible

Theory 125
An Autonomous Tradition Developing Alongside Mark—The
Other Bi-Optic Gospel / 126
The Dialectical Thinking of the Evangelist / 129
The History-of-Religions Origins of John’s Human-Divine
Dialectic / 131
Dialogical Engagements within the Johannine Situation:
Seven Crises over Seven Decades / 133
A Two-Edition Theory of Composition / 141
Aspects of Interfluentiality between John and Other
Traditions / 144
Revelation and Rhetoric: Two Dialogical Modes in the
Johannine Narrative / 150
Conclusion / 152

7. The Origin and Character of the Johannine Riddles: A Guide

to Interpretation 157
The Origin and Character of John’s Theological Tensions / 158
The Origin and Character of John’s Historical Conundrums /
162
The Origin and Character of John’s Literary Perplexities / 166

Conclusion / 169

Summation of Part Two / 171

It’s plain to see that in the second section of the book, Anderson will offer more technical
exegesis than in the first. There, he simply laid out the issues. Here, he will address them
in detail.
Once more, in order to keep this review from being unduly lengthy and taxing, I’ll focus
on the chapter which is of most interest to me, and that would be the 7th, as it contains
Anderson’s examination of the theological and historical tensions and conundrums of the
Gospel. And again, once more, readers are urged to check out the other sections for
themselves as they are equally engaging and provocative.

Chapter 7 begins

We return now to the Johannine riddles and how to address

them. The two previous chapters showed how composition
theories and analyses of the Johannine tradition and its
situation have sought to provide ways forward. In the light of
John’s dialogical autonomy, we have here an independent
tradition that developed alongside Mark and the other Gospels
but is not dependent on them. Further, some of the contacts, in
oral stages of the traditions and otherwise, may have been
dialogical—and even corrective—instead of simply repeating
the same thing. In history as well as theology and literature,
points are often made by means of contrast rather than
imitation. Furthermore, some of John’s distinctive
presentations of Jesus imply a historical opinion, not simply a
theological insight. While we now have a closed canon, with a
fitting selection of four authorized Gospel narratives, we must
remember that first-century engagements with these traditions
were variable and in flux. Differing forms of material may also
have been circulating, so even our best work in the twenty-first
century must remain modest in its claims (p. 157).

That sense of circumspect modesty is precisely what allows Anderson to address the
issues of John’s theology and the historicity of the Gospel with even-handedness. He
suggests that there are four ‘origins’ of John’s theological tensions-

The dialectical thinking of the Evangelist, The Prophet-like-Moses agency schema, The
dialectical Johannine situation, and The rhetorical designs of the Evangelist (pp. 158-159
where each point is fully explained and then again in the following pages even more
fully).

During his discussion of John’s dialectical thinking he writes

He [John] also rhetorically asserted both Christological poles

several decades [referring to the later stages of the Johannine
tradition] later, pushing Christological claims higher in seeking
to reach later audiences with his message, and then
 emphasizing Jesus’ fleshly humanity as Gentile believers found
a suffering Lord problematic (p. 159).

This supports the idea that John may actually have written two editions of his Gospel.
One, early on, addressing one ‘pole’ and the other, later on, where the second pole’s
concerns are inserted. When he continues in the next sentence

He also rhetorically asserted both Christological poles several

decades later, pushing Christological claims higher in seeking
to reach later audiences with his message, and then
emphasizing Jesus’ fleshly humanity as Gentile believers found
a suffering Lord problematic.

But of course the only way such a dialectic could be implemented would be with
supplementation of earlier material by later. A two edition Gospel of John. There’s no
reason there couldn’t have been and every reason to suggest that there could have been.

When it comes to historical issues, Anderson suggests

Given the fact that most of John’s historical problems are

factors of its divergence from the Synoptic traditions, most of
these riddles are explicable as factors of an alternative Jesus
tradition developing alongside the Synoptic Gospels in parallel,
yet autonomous, ways (p. 162).

But therein lies the problem, at least from my perspective: the Synoptics do not intend to
be ‘historical’ in the sense of offering a ‘historical/ biographical’ ‘Life of Jesus’. Hence,
there are no ‘historical problems’ except when such problems are imputed to the text by
modern historically oriented exegetes and interpreters. Or in other words, if there’s a
‘problem’ with differences between the Synoptics and John, it’s our problem and not
theirs.

A bit further A. clarifies his sentence above –

Even though the Johannine presentation of Jesus and his

ministry is highly theological, this does not mean it is not
historical. On one hand, the Evangelist’s theological
understandings, language, and convictions come through
palpably within the narrative, but claiming that something is
historical is invariably linked to its perceived significance;
therefore, we can say that John’s history is presented
theologically. On the other hand, the Evangelist’s theological
investments are furthered through his narration, so his
theology is presented within the history of the ministry of Jesus
 and its reception. Of course, even the word historical is itself a
rhetorical term, and any historical account is rhetorical. The
Synoptics are also theological with particular rhetorical
agendas, as are the works of Philo, Josephus, and Roman
historians, so the Johannine narrative is not unique in its
conjoining of history and theology (p. 163).

I can certainly agree that John’s ‘history’ is presented theologically, and that the Synoptics
are theological; but that John conjoins history and theology causes problems. Such a
marriage only produces offspring that are neither history nor theology.

Are there historical ‘kernels’ in John? Certainly. And in the Synoptics too. But they are
utterly buried beneath mountains of theological intentionality and simply cannot be
mined out without completely destroying the entire crest.

When Anderson broaches the subject of eyewitnesses as sources (or primary source) he is
far more reserved than Bauckham. Anderson writes

The dialectical character of the Evangelist’s thought suggests

firsthand contact with his subject, and while Johannine claims
to firsthand memory of Jesus and his ministry are problematic,
they have not exactly been critically overturned. Put otherwise,
the Johannine Gospel may be the only complete story of Jesus to
involve narration by an eyewitness. This does not mean it is
always accurate or free of bias; it does call for a fresh
consideration of Jesus of Nazareth in Johannine perspective (p.
164).

If, and that’s a huge if, but if there is in truth eyewitness testimony in the Gospel of John
(and that remains to be satisfactorily demonstrated) then Anderson’s point is quite right
– such a state of affairs would certainly require and not simply call for a fresh
consideration of the life of Jesus.

In spite of my hesitation to agree with talk of eyewitness testimony and historical

underpinnings, I have to say that Anderson’s insight shines brightly when he opines

While the Jesus of history probably never uttered the I-am

discourses as presented in the Fourth Gospel, it cannot be said
that any of these themes are missing from the Synoptics. And,
while the Jesus of history probably never claimed to be the
preexistent deity, the burning-bush motif is developed by the
Markan Jesus, who also declares several times “I am.” The
Johannine paraphrase developed these motifs further,
representing the convictions and experiences of the Evangelist,
 but not entirely truncated from Jesus’ ministry. Therefore, as an
alternative Jesus tradition, John’s is also a developed tradition,
presenting Jesus’ work and words in the Evangelist’s theological
framework, addressing the needs of his emerging situation
accordingly (p. 164).

Two major segments remain. To them we will turn next, in our final installments. For
now, if I may, I’ll simply observe that Anderson’s tome is turning out to be extraordinarily
impressive. Such an introduction has not appeared before and Anderson is clearly well
suited to do it.