Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Its Unity and Disunity in the Light of John 6, The

The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Its Unity and Disunity in the Light of John 6. By Paul N. Anderson. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996. 352 pp. $25.00 (paper).

Anderson's work is a revision of the dissertation submitted in 1988 to the University of Glasgow. It focuses on John 6 because Anderson sees that chapter as a proving ground for source-critical theories about the gospel as a whole. Bultmann, Fortna and others have concluded that the fourth evangelist borrowed material from a "signs source" and a "speeches source" in composing the first edition of his work. An ecclesiastical redactor later made additions to the work intending to make it more palatable to the church. Therefore the gospel now shows widely varying views on christology, eschatology and sacramentology because of its multiple authorship.

Anderson examines this reconstruction and finds it deficient. The material assigned to the signs and speeches sources shows no significant difference in style and vocabulary in comparison to the evangelist's own contributions. Thus he concludes that the entire chapter is from a single author, although it did undergo a revision late in the first century.

Nevertheless John's gospel contains concepts which appear to be in tension with one another. There is a messiahship based on the "prophet like Moses" notion of Dt. 18:15-22 and another along the lines of David Redivirus. The same gospel that emphasizes Jesus' equality with God also teaches subordinationism. It maintains both realized and futuristic eschatology. Anderson's explanation for such polarities is that the evangelist was a dialectical thinker. He believed that theological truth is best expressed by juxtaposing concepts that are at least in tension with one another if not in direct conflict. He was also a critical thinker who was engaged in dialogue not only with other groups and individuals, but also with himself He was more tolerant of ambiguity than he was of monodimensional attempts to express divine truth. His Christology was a living one that was still in the process of being explored and formulated. So he was capable of considering an idea first from one angle and then another. The Christological unity and disunity in chapter 6 and elsewhere may be traced to tensions within the evangelist's own thinking.

The fourth evangelist hoped to engage several groups in dialogue: leaders of the local synagogue (Jewish Christians were being excommunicated from the synagogue), followers of John the Baptist, mainstream Christianity (often symbolized by Peter), and docetizing Christians. The latter group reasoned that because Jesus did not really suffer, his believers therefore need not suffer. This argument was an appealing temptation to Christians living in the reign of Domitian when a Christian confession could meet with the severest penalties. Verses 66-69 are an admonition to hold firmly to Christ the Bread of Life regardless of the cost. Only through solidarity with Christ in his suffering may his disciples hope to be raised with him to eternal life. So the chapter closes with an appeal for christocracy.

In the forward of Anderson's book, D. Moody Smith suggests that conservatives will welcome this work because it sees the fourth gospel standing close to an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus. That is probably true, although they may have trouble accepting Anderson's conclusions about John's dialectical method. This is a book that does not fit easily into any standard category.

SIDNEY G. SOWERS

Salem, Oregon

Copyright Anglican Theological Review, Inc. Spring 1998
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved