-
Irish Theological Quarterly2014, Vol. 79(2) 97 –111
© The Author(s) 2014Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI:
10.1177/0021140013517530
itq.sagepub.com
1 Francis J. Moloney, ‘The Gospel of John as Scripture’,
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 67 (2005): 454–68. This study is also
available in Idem, The Gospel of John: Text and Context, BibIntS 72
(Boston/Leiden: Brill, 2005), 333–47. Further references will be to
this version. I had already
‘For As Yet They Did Not Know the Scripture’ (John 20:9): A
Study in Narrative Time
Francis J. Moloney, SDB, AM, FAHAInstitute for Religion and
Critical Inquiry, Australian Catholic University, Australia
AbstractReference to ‘the Scripture’ that Peter and the Beloved
Disciple do not ‘yet’ understand in John 20:9 remains a problem for
interpreters of John. Which passage from Israel’s Sacred Scriptures
lies behind this conclusion to the episode of the two disciples at
the empty tomb? This essay argues that John 20:9 is part of a
larger narrative and theological strategy (see also 2:22; 12:16;
20:30–31) that presents the Gospel of John as ‘Scripture.’ The
disciples, players in the story, do ‘not yet’ know this Scripture.
A later generation, those who have the Gospel of John in hand, who
have not seen yet believe (v. 29), have access to a Scripture
‘written’ that they may go on believing (vv. 30–31).
Keywordsbelieving without seeing, Beloved Disciple, Gospel of
John, narrative time, ‘Scripture’, ‘written’
Almost a decade ago I published a study suggesting that the
author of the Gospel of John regarded his story of Jesus as
‘Scripture.’1 I returned to this question some years later, in a
reflection that further suggested that the author of the Fourth
Gospel
Corresponding author:Francis J. Moloney, SDB, AM, FAHA,
Institute for Religion and Critical Inquiry, Australian Catholic
University, Melbourne, Fitzroy Victoria 3065, Australia. Email:
[email protected]
517530 ITQ0010.1177/0021140013517530Irish Theological
QuarterlyMoloneyresearch-article2014
Article
-
98 Irish Theological Quarterly 79(2)
made this suggestion, more tentatively, in Idem, Glory not
Dishonor: Reading John 13–21 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1998),
162–63, and The Gospel of John, SP 4 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical,
1998), 520–21, 523. Without intending to determine the historical
figure(s) that produced the Fourth Gospel, I will use the
traditional ‘John’ to refer to an author.
2 Francis J. Moloney, ‘The Gospel of John: The “End” of
Scripture,’ Interpretation 63 (2009): 356–66.
3 D. Moody Smith, ‘When did the Gospels become Scripture?’ JBL
119 (2000): 3–20. On John, see pp. 12–14. Andreas Obermann, Die
Christologische Erfüllung der Schrift im Johannesevangelium: Eine
Untersuchung zur johanneischen Hermeneutik anhand der
Schriftzitate, WUNT II.83 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996).
4 See Moloney, ‘John as Scripture,’ 343–45; ibid., ‘The “End” of
Scripture,’ 364–65. 5 My most important guide in this is Gerard
Gennette, Narrative Discourse: An Essay in
Method, trans. Jane A. Lewin (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press, 1980), 86–160. See also Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative
Fiction: Contemporary Poetics, New Accents (London: Methuen, 1988),
43–58.
6 See, for example, Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New
Testament, 2 vols; trans. Kendrick Grobel (London: SCM, 1955),
2:56: ‘If Jesus’ death on the cross is already his exaltation
claimed to be bringing the Scriptures to their te,loς: their
chronological and qualitative ‘end.’2 I had been initially drawn to
this suggestion by Dwight Moody Smith’s SBL Presidential Address in
Boston in 1999, and further influenced by the little-noticed but
important study of Andreas Obermann on the Johannine hermeneutic at
play in his use of Scriptural citations.3 These works focused upon
the way John used citations from Israel’s Scriptures. My work
presupposed the narrative unity of the Gospel as we have it. On
that basic narrative critical principle I interpreted the enigmatic
statement from the narrator in 20:9, drawing the story to closure,
as an indication that the Beloved Disciple and Peter were not as
yet able to recognize the story in which they were players as ‘the
Scripture’ (tὴn grafήn).4 The reflection that follows takes that
argument further, initially locating v. 9 and vv. 30–31 within
their narrative setting, bringing into play a further narrative
critical tool: the use of ‘time’ in stories.5
Reading John 20:1–31
It has been claimed that so much happens in the Johannine
passion account that there is little need for a story of the
resurrection. Jesus has been exalted as universal king by means of
his being ‘lifted up’ (especially 18:28–19:16a), the community has
been founded (18:1–11; 18:12–27; 19:25–27), the Scriptures have
been fulfilled as Jesus has perfected his task and poured down the
Spirit (19:28–30). The ongoing presence of the crucified Jesus in
Baptism and Eucharist has been granted so that later generations
might also believe, even in his absence (19:31–37). The nascent
community exits bravely from its former obscurity (19:38–42), and
all who accept the revelation of a God of love in this man who laid
down his life because of his love for his friends will gaze upon
the pierced one (19:37; see also 15:13). As Jesus stated in his
final prayer: ‘This is eternal life, that they know you, the one
true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent’ (17:3). Bringing to
perfection the promise of the Prologue (see 1:18), the crucified
Jesus Christ has made God known. What more is needed?6
-
Moloney 99
and glorification, his resurrection cannot be an event of
special significance. No resurrec-tion is needed to destroy the
triumph which death might be supposed to have gained in the
crucifixion’ (emphasis in original). My understanding of John
20:1–31 is available in several places. Most recently, see Francis
J. Moloney, The Resurrection of the Messiah: A Narrative Commentary
on the Resurrection Accounts in the Fourth Gospel (New York/Mahwah,
NJ: Paulist, 2013), 101–36.
7 On the claims of this paragraph, see the remarkable essay of
Sandra M. Schneiders, ‘The Resurrection (of the Body) in the Fourth
Gospel: A Key to Johannine Spirituality,’ in Life in Abundance:
Studies in John’s Gospel in Tribute to Raymond E. Brown, ed. John
R. Donahue (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2005), 168–98.
8 See especially the work of George Mlakhuzhyil, The
Christocentric Literary Structure of the Fourth Gospel, 2nd edn,
AnBib 117 (Rome: Gregorian and Biblical Press, 2011).
9 See Francis J. Moloney, Belief in the Word: Reading John 1–4
(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993), 192–99.
The readers of the Gospel of John would have been well aware of
the tradition that Jesus had been raised from the dead, and they
wanted to hear that ending. But there is more to John 20 than the
continuation of the resurrection tradition. John tells the
res-urrection story for his own purposes. There are two major
elements in the Johannine resurrection narratives: the consequences
of the completion of the ‘hour’ for Jesus, and the consequences of
his death, resurrection, and ascension for believers of all times.7
A study of John 20 as a whole must devote attention to the way in
which this original dénouement of John’s story of Jesus developed
both of those elements. What follows focuses particular attention
upon the consequences for believers of all times.
The Fourth Evangelist has a literary tendency to ‘frame’
episodes. A number of exam-ples of this practice can be found
across the Gospel. The oneness between God and the Logos in 1:1 and
the oneness between Father and the Son in 1:18 opens and closes
1:1–18; the Mosaic law is used by ‘the Jews’ to put Jesus on trial
in 5:16–18 and at the end of his discourse that runs from 5:16–47,
Jesus claims that Moses accuses them in 5:45–47; a miracle happens
at Cana in 2:1–12 and Cana is again the location for a miracle in
4:46–54; the passion narrative begins with a scene in a garden in
18:1–11, and closes with another in 19:37–42. The same feature
appears at a macro-level across the Gospel. The most well-known
‘frame’ is created by the often identified parallels between 1:1–18
and 20:30–31.8
A feature of the Cana to Cana section of the Gospel, that traced
a series of responses to the word of Jesus from the Mother of
Jesus, ‘the Jews,’ Nicodemus, John the Baptist, the Samaritan
woman, the Samaritan villagers, and the Royal official (2:1–4:54),
has been the presentation of differing responses to Jesus by a
number of char-acters in the story. Reading these successive
episodes leads the reader/listener through a catechesis on true
faith by means of examples of the non-faith of those who rejected
Jesus (‘the Jews’ and the Samaritan woman in a first instance),
partial faith from those who accepted him on their terms (Nicodemus
and the Samaritan woman in a second moment), and true faith from
those who unconditionally accept Jesus and his word, cost what it
may (the Mother of Jesus, John the Baptist, the Samaritan
villagers, and the royal official).9 As this ‘journey of faith’
began the story (2:1–4:54; after the
-
100 Irish Theological Quarterly 79(2)
10 For a more detailed presentation of what follows, see
Moloney, Glory not Dishonor, 153–81; Idem, The Gospel of John,
515–45.
11 As Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John, NCB (London:
Oliphants, 1972), 595, says of John 20: ‘All that remains now is to
explain more clearly the nature of the act of faith by which the
life in Christ may be appropriated.’
12 The English word ‘yet’ in v. 29 is part of the meaning of the
adversative kaί, set between the two aorist participles mὴ ἰdόnteς
and pisteύsanteς: not seeing, yet believing. See Friedrich Blass
and Albert Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1961), 228, para. 442.1.
Prologue [1:1–18] and the call of the first disciples
[1:1–1:51]), a parallel ‘journey of faith’ closes the story
(20:1–29).10 At the end of the story, however, a well-schooled
reader/listener finds that the journey of faith is not made by
different characters, but by the same character, and each character
involved is a foundational figure for the Johannine Church: the
Beloved Disciple (20:2–10), Mary Magdalene (vv. 1–2, 11–18), and
Thomas (vv. 24–29). Apart from Jesus, the only other characters who
appear in John 20 are the disciples assembled in a locked room (vv.
19–23). They receive Jesus’ gifts of peace and joy, the Spirit, and
their commission from the risen Jesus. The Easter message has
already been proclaimed to them by Mary Magdalene. As she saw ‘the
Lord’ (v. 18), so they have also seen ‘the Lord’ (20).
The focus of the narrative upon three foundational characters
who will bridge the gap between the story of Jesus and subsequent
generations of Johannine disciples (2–10; 11–18; 24–29), along with
the founding community represented by the gathering in the upper
room (vv. 19–23), opens with the initial faith of the Beloved
Disciple, who believes without seeing the risen Jesus (v. 8). It
closes as Jesus’ final words point the reader and hearer of the
story beyond the confines of the narrative with his final words: a
blessing of all future disciples who believe without seeing (v.
29). In closing his original resurrec-tion story, the fourth
evangelist explicitly mentions the reason for his ‘writing’: ‘Now
Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples which
are not written (oὐk evstὶn gegramme,na) in this book (evn tw/|
biblὶῳ toύtῳ), but these are written (tau/ta de. ge,graptai) that
you may go on believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,
and that believing you may have life in his name’ (20:30–31, AT).11
Following hard on the heels of Jesus’ blessing of ‘those who have
not seen and yet believe,’ does this ‘writing’ relate to an earlier
disciple who believed without seeing Jesus (see v. 8), but who did
not yet know the Scripture (tὴn grafήn) (v. 9)?12
The ‘Times’ of John 20:9, 30–31
As is common to most narratives, ancient and modern, all four
Evangelists use different aspects of ‘time’ to generate a dramatic
impact. For example, the Synoptic Gospels stud their narrative with
three (or more [Matthew]) passion predictions. Even before the
death and resurrection of Jesus has been narrated, the readers and
listeners are aware that the Son of Man will be slain, and on the
third day rise again (see Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:32–34 and parallels).
They make their way through the story, waiting for the fulfilment
of what
-
Moloney 101
13 See Moloney, The Resurrection of the Messiah, 33–68. See
further ibid., ‘Matthew 5:17–18 and the Matthean use of
dikaiosύnh,’ in Unity and Diversity in the Gospels and Paul, ed.
Christopher W. Skinner and Kelly R. Iverson, Early Christianity and
Its Literature 7 (Atlanta: SBL, 2012), 35–54.
14 See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An
Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1996), 583.
15 See Wallace, Greek Grammar, 557: ‘The aorist normally views
the action as a whole, taking no interest in the internal workings
of the actions. It describes the action in summary fashion, without
focusing on the beginning or the end of the action specifically.’
Wallace describes this as ‘by far the most common use of the
aorist’ (italics in original).
has been promised by the predictions. Spectacularly, Matthew’s
Jesus prohibits mission outside Israel, and beyond the lost sheep
of Israel (see Matt 10:5–6; 15:24), asking that every aspect of the
Law be observed ‘until heaven and earth pass away’ (5:17–18). In
the Matthean passion and resurrection narrative, heaven and earth
pass away (27:45, 51–54; 28:2–4), and Jesus’ final commission of
the Twelve to ‘all nations’ indicates that the Christian community
is now in a ‘new time.’13 The two-fold use of the expression
‘until’ in 5:18 (e[wς) generates a narrative tension between the
‘time’ of Jesus and the ‘time’ of the commissioned Twelve. The
readers and hearers of Matthew’s Gospel belong to the latter
time.
Within a much closer narrative framework, and thus a briefer and
subsequently denser passage of time, different moments of time are
used in John 20:1–31.
• Looking back to record the experience of Peter and the Beloved
Disciple (vv. 3–10), what they saw and their response to that
experience is recorded as some-thing that happened in the past. The
use of the pluperfect tense (ᾒdeisan) looks back to a point in
time, after which much has happened. But at that time ‘they did not
yet know the Scripture.’14 The expression contains the hint of a
promise that one day they will come to that knowledge.
• As the narrative closes, on the basis of the experience of
Thomas, who moves from absence and a deeply conditioned faith to a
confession in Jesus as his Lord and God, Jesus contrasts his
arrival at faith on the basis of ‘sight’ with those ‘who have not
seen and yet believe’ (vv. 24–29). The use of aorist participles to
refer to ‘those who have not seen (ὁi mὴ ἰdόnteς) and yet believe
(kaὶ pisteύsanteς)’ indicates that Jesus’ words are directed to
believers who live in the time after the return of Jesus to his
Father (see 17:5; 20:17). This aorist indicates habitual seeing and
believing.15 Those who are blessed belong to a later generation
living in the period of the absence of Jesus. In other words,
Jesus’ blessing within the narrative is directed forward, into a
time and a situation that lies beyond the limitations of the
narrative.
• Peter and the Beloved Disciple are characters in the story,
and must suffer from the time constraints that such a role places
upon them. As yet they cannot know the Scripture (tὴn grafὴn), as
they are part of it. However, those who believe without seeing, for
whom this Gospel was written (v. 31: ge,graptai), do not have
-
102 Irish Theological Quarterly 79(2)
16 The temporal aspect of the perfect tense of the verb ‘has
been written’ also plays into the author’s use of time. This book
has been written in the past, but the perfect tense of the verb
ge,graptai indicates that it is still available, in use, and
providing access to faith in Jesus, and the life that comes from
faith in his name. See Wallace, Greek Grammar, 573–74.
17 For helpful reflections on these practices in early
Christianity, see Pieter J. Botha, Orality and Literacy in Early
Christianity, Biblical Performance Criticism 5 (Eugene, OR:
Cascade, 2012).
18 For a very negative assessment of this action, see Ignace de
la Potterie, The Hour of Jesus: The Passion and Resurrection of
Jesus according to John: Text and Spirit (Slough: St Paul, 1989),
205–7. He regards their action in v. 10 as a return to the darkness
with which the pas-sage opened in v. 1, a ‘reditus ad sua’ in the
sense of a turning back on themselves. As will be briefly mentioned
in the conclusion to this essay, the disappearance of these
foundational disciples from the scene in 20:10 is one of the
reasons John 21 was added to the original story as an epilogue.
19 Other recent scholars, on somewhat different grounds, have
suggested this possibility. See Klaus Scholtissek, ‘‘‘Geschrieben
in diesem Buch” (John 20,30) – Beobachtungen zum kanonischen
Anspruch des Johannesevangeliums,’ in Israel und seine
Heilstradition im Johannesevangelium: Festgabe für Johannes Beutler
SJ zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Michael Labahn, Klaus Scholtissek, and
Angelika Strottman (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2004), 207–26, esp.
219–24; Oberlinner, Christologische Erfüllung, 409–22, esp.
418–22.
those constraints.16 They are the readers and hearers of this
Gospel. They have it in hand; they are hearing it recited, or
watching its performance.17
Also significant is the fact that the latter are recipients of a
‘blessing,’ while the former are not. Peter and the Beloved
Disciple disappear from the narrative as they return to their
respective homes (v. 10).18 In order to locate v. 9 and vv. 29–31
within the narrative, I will reflect briefly upon the episodes that
lead up to and include v. 9 and vv. 29–31. Is it possible that John
may be giving a unique status to his writing, a fact that the
charac-ters in the story are not yet able to know (v. 9), while the
recipients of the story may be aware—or are instructed—that they
are hearing the Scripture (tήn grafήn), written (ge,graptai) that
they may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and
believing have life in his name (vv. 30–31)?19
The Time of the Beloved Disciple (vv. 2–10)
The Beloved Disciple is with Peter when Mary Magdalene brings
the bad news of the empty tomb along with the claim that the body
has been stolen (v. 2). He is explicitly named as ‘the other
disciple whom Jesus loved’ in v. 2, even though throughout the
remainder of this episode he is spoken of as ‘the other disciple’
(vv. 4, 8). The storyteller has singled out this figure for major
roles at crucial moments earlier in the narrative: at the supper
(13:23) and at the Cross (19:25–27). Unique to this disciple is the
love he shares with Jesus. This fact is a key to understanding the
blessing of all future disciples in 20:29. The text of v. 2 makes
it clear to the reader/listener that an earlier version only
referred to ‘the other disciple’ (tòn ἄllon maqhtήn), a disciple
who also played an important role under that title in 18:15–18. The
crucial role that this disciple plays in
-
Moloney 103
20 There are many features that indicate the late addition of
‘whom Jesus loved’ to ‘the other disciple’ in 20:2. Not the least
of them is the change of the Greek verb ‘to love’ from ἀgapάw
(13:23; 19:25–27) to file,w, heavily used in 21:15–17. If the
storyteller went to this trouble in editing 20:2, it was important
to him that the reader/listener be aware of the identity and the
role of the disciple in question: the Beloved Disciple.
21 See the remarks of Urban C. von Wahlde, The Gospel and
Letters of John, 3 vols., Eerdmans Critical Commentary (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 2: 851–52.
22 Some claim that the Beloved Disciple does not come to
resurrection faith. See, for exam-ple, Godfrey C. Nicholson, Death
as Departure: The Johannine Descent–Ascent Schema, SBL Dissertation
Series 63 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 69–71; Dorothy A. Lee,
‘Partnership in Easter Faith: The Role of Mary Magdalene and Thomas
in John 20,’ Journal for the Study of the New Testament 58 (1995):
39–40. For a summary of the discussion, and strong support for the
position taken above, see Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel According
to Saint John, Black’s New Testament Commentaries 4 (London:
Crossroad, 2005), 490–91.
23 F. W. Danker, W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich,
Greek–English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 3rd edn (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2000), 735, s.v oὐde,pw: ‘the
nega-tion of extending time up to and beyond an expected
point.’
20:1–29 leads the storyteller to clarify the earlier tradition
that ‘the other disciple’ in 18:15–18 and 20:2 was also ‘the other
disciple whom Jesus loved’ (tòn ἄllon mάqhthς ὃn evfίlei
ὁ’Ihsou/ς), already well known to the reader from 13:23 and
19:25–27 as ‘the Beloved Disciple’ (ὁ maqhtὴς ὃn ἠgάpa
ὁ’Ihsou/ς).20
Both Peter and the Beloved Disciple return to the tomb that Mary
Magdalene has just left. She ran away from the tomb, but they run
back there. Nothing is said about their acceptance or rejection of
her message; they are going to see for themselves (v. 3). However,
even though Peter initially leads the way, the other disciple
outruns him and arrives first. Given his description as the Beloved
Disciple in v. 2, the reader/listener is already aware that there
is something special about the other disciple, but there is no
indication of faith, even though he looks into the tomb and sees
the clothes of death empty, and waits for the arrival of Peter (vv.
4–5).21 Peter arrives, and sees the linen cloths and the further
sign of the head cloth rolled up and laid in a separate place. The
empty cloths (‘folded’ and ‘placed’) are a sign of the presence of
God who has entered Jesus’ story and raised him from death. The
clothing of death has been emptied. However, we are told nothing of
Peter’s response to this sight (vv. 6–7). Only now does the other
disciple enter the tomb and see the signs of victory of God over
death, and the narrator announces: ‘He saw and he believed’ (v. 8).
This is an important moment. The other disciple, described in v. 2
as ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved,’ did not see the person of
Jesus; he saw the signs of the victory of God and believed.22
The episode closes with an acknowledgement that the two
disciples as yet (oὐdevpw gάr) did not know the Scripture that he
must rise from the dead (v. 9). Commentary on this troublesome
verse devotes little attention to the element of time indicated by
the oὐdevpw gάr (‘for as yet … not’).23 The narrator reports that
the Beloved Disciple comes to belief without seeing Jesus (v. 8).
However, he does this without, as yet, knowing the Scripture that
would inform him that Jesus must rise from the dead (v. 9).
Which ‘Scripture’ is being referred to here? The use of the
singular noun, with its defi-nite article (tὴn grafήn), suggests
that a definite passage of Scripture is in question.
-
104 Irish Theological Quarterly 79(2)
24 See Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, 2 vols.,
AB 29–29A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966–70), 2: 987–88.
25 See Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2
vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 2: 1184–85. The citation is
from p. 1184. As a brief indication of the confusion sur-rounding
the interpretation of v. 9, Von Wahlde, Gospel and Letters, 3: 851,
claims that the Beloved Disciple realized the importance of the
Scripture that spoke of Jesus’ rising, but that is not what the
text says; de la Potterie, The Hour, 202–7, argues that the Beloved
Disciple comes to faith (v. 9), but that faith is yet to be
illuminated (v. 10), while Raymond E. Brown, in ‘The Resurrection
in John 20: A Series of Diverse Reactions,’ Worship 64 (1990):
197–98, argues that v. 9 indicates the supremacy of the Beloved
Disciple’s faith. He did not need the Scripture for Easter
faith.
26 See, for example, Jean Zumstein, L’Évangile selon Saint Jean
(13–21), Commentaire de Nouveau Testament, Deuxième Série 4b
(Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2007), 273; Frederick D. Bruner, The
Gospel of John: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012),
1143. Zumstein (273) gives a brief account of suggestions that
explain the origins of this verse as a ‘gloss.’
27 For reference to the Emmaus story, see, among many, Lincoln,
Saint John, 491; Zumstein, Saint Jean, 273; Bruner, John, 1144.
28 On this question, see D. Moody Smith, John Among the Gospels,
2nd edn (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2001).
29 For example, see Lincoln, Saint John, 491; Keener, John,
1184–85 (to which he adds a col-lection of texts regularly found in
Christian apologetic: Ps 2:7; 110:1; Isaiah 9:7; Dan 2:44;
Necessarily, many suggestions have been made by commentators,
but the question remains unresolved. In 1970 Raymond Brown reviewed
the many positions taken by scholars and commentators to that
point, but found none of them satisfactory.24 The recent commentary
of Craig Keener still indicates that ‘the Scripture to which John
refers is unclear here.’25 Vague questions about the possibility of
this statement being a gloss are not helpful in an appreciation of
the narrative as it stands.26 If the narrator had spoken more
broadly of ‘the Scriptures,’ there would be less difficulty. The
New Testament wit-nesses to common belief, beginning with a very
early tradition handed on by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3–7, that
Jesus’ resurrection responded to prophecy of the Scriptures. This
belief has been communicated exquisitely in the Lukan account of
the walk to Emmaus (Luke 24:13–35).27 But what single ‘Scripture’
is in the mind of John as his narrator makes this remark?
Whatever one makes of the literary dependence of the Fourth
Gospel upon the Synoptic tradition, the author does not infer that
the Beloved Disciple and Peter were unaware of the passion and
resurrection predictions from that tradition (Mark 8:31; 9:31;
10:32–34, and parallels), nor that John was using one or other (or
all) of them as ‘Scripture.’28 A reference back to possible
references to resurrection in the Scripture of the Old Testament
should also be avoided, despite John’s recognition of Israel’s
Scriptures (see 7:42; 10:35; 13:18; 17:12; 19:24, 28, 36–37).
Recourse to Psalm 16:10 is common: ‘For you do not give me up to
Sheol, or let your godly one see the pit’ (AT).29 But this
‘Scripture’ plays no part in John’s theological argument, and did
not play a role in early Christian reflection upon the
resurrection.
The Johannine use of the Greek expression ἡ grafή is carefully
plotted. It is rarely used across the ministry (2:22; 5:39; 7:38,
42; 10:35). These references are never associated
-
Moloney 105
7:14), Bruner, John, 1143. I am using the fine commentaries of
Keener, Lincoln, Zumstein, von Wahlde, and Bruner as examples of
current discussion as they all appeared since I first articulated
my alternative suggestion (further developed here) in 1998.
30 Among many, see Maarten J. J. Menken, Old Testament
Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form, Biblical
Exegesis and Theology 15 (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996).
31 The verb grάfw appears in 1:46; 2:17; 5:46; 6:31, 45; 8:17;
10:34; 12:14, 16. Although outside the range of our interest here,
as our focus is upon the noun ἡ grafή, no explicit reference to a
biblical text is ever made (as, for example, in Mark 1:2: ‘As it is
written in Isaiah the prophet,’ and elsewhere in the Synoptic
tradition). On this, see Anthony T. Hanson, The Prophetic Gospel: A
Study of John and the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1991), 245–47. Some are clear: Psalm 69:10 (2:17), Deuteronomy 17:6
(8:17), Zechariah 9:9, Isaiah 35:4; 40:9 (12:15), or not so clear:
Psalm 78:24, or Exodus 16:4, or Exodus 16:15 (6:31), Isaiah 54:13
or Jeremiah 31:33–34 (6:45)? The referral point of 10:34 defies
solution. See Keener, John, 1:828–29. On their function in the
narrative, see Moloney, ‘John as Scripture,’ 335–36. The verb is
not used directly in relation to the Jewish Scriptures, as some
would automatically claim, without suf-ficient consideration of the
overall narrative context. Indeed, it could be argued that (in
compari-son with the Synoptics) it is never used in relation to the
Jewish Scriptures.
32 On this use of an epegetical kaι to join ‘the Scripture’ and
‘the word which Jesus had spoken,’ see Moloney, ‘John as
Scripture,’ 343. In this grammatical practice, the first expression
(‘the Scripture’) is explained by the second (‘the word’).
33 See Moloney, ‘John as Scripture,’ 341.
with any specific biblical text, although much ink has been
spilt over which text the author has in mind, and perhaps which
Vorlage (Hebrew, Old Greek, LXX, Targumic versions, etc.) lies
behind the reference.30 However, never do these passages refer to
‘fulfilment’ of the Scriptures. With the exception of 2:22, they
function as background to the claims that Jesus is making for
himself at that stage of the narrative.31 However, once the
critical nar-rative moment of Jesus’ turn toward the cross arrives
(see 12:23), every use of ‘the Scripture’ (ἡ grafή) claims that it
is to be fulfilled (13:18; 17:12; 19:24; 19:28, 36; the verbs
tele,w and teleίw are used throughout), until Jesus cries out in
death: ‘It is fulfilled’ (19:30: tete,lestai). The remaining uses
look back upon that fulfilment (19:37; 20:9). It is Jesus’
consistent forward looking promise of an ‘end’ (te,loς: see 13:1
and then 4:34; 5:36; 17:4, 23; 19:29) that has been fulfilled, not
the Jewish Scriptures.
On arrival at 20:9, the reader (but not the Beloved Disciple or
Peter) can look back upon such enigmatic sayings as 2:22 (‘When
therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered
this, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they
believed the scripture [ἡ grafή] and the word which Jesus had
spoken’), and 12:16 (‘His disciples did not understand this at
first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remem-bered that
this had been written [gegramme,na] of him and had been done to
him’). It is incorrect to claim that John assumes his readers will
understand ἡ grafή as a reference to the Jewish Scriptures. Indeed,
in 2:22, ‘the Scripture’ and ‘the word which Jesus had spoken’
could be understood as one and the same thing: ‘the Scripture’ =
‘the word of Jesus.’32 After all, for John the Word existed in the
beginning, in a unique oneness with God (1:1–2). It has entered the
human story in the person of Jesus Christ (vv. 14–17), and makes
God known (v. 18).33
-
106 Irish Theological Quarterly 79(2)
34 On the importance of 2:22 and 12:16 for an overall
appreciation of John’s assessment of his writing as ‘Scripture,’
see Moloney, ‘John as Scripture,’ 342–45.
35 The theme of Jesus’ ‘departure’ dominates John 14:1–31 and
16:4–33.36 On the ‘narrative tension,’ pointing the reader/listener
to the dénouement of the Johannine
version of Jesus’ death and resurrection, see Francis J.
Moloney, Love in the Gospel of John: An Exegetical, Theological and
Literary Study (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 71–98.
37 They return as major players in 21:1–25. It could be assumed
that they were at the gathering in 20:19–23. However, v. 10 states
that they returned to their homes (plural), not to the disciples
locked in the room for fear of ‘the Jews’ in v. 19.
Perhaps the readers of the Gospel of John accept that ‘the word’
they hold in their hands is ‘the Scripture.’ As well as the
fulfilment of ‘the hour’ (see 2:5; 7:20; 8:30; 12:32; 13:1; 17:1;
19:30), the Johannine Jesus consistently prophesies his future
resurrection with considerable subtlety. It is associated with the
double meaning of the verb ὑywqήnai (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32). There
are the cryptic references to the future resurrection from the
narrator in 2:22 and the future glorification in 12:16.34 Other
references to Jesus’ eventual glorification in his return to the
glory which was his before the world was made, point to
resurrection and vindication (see, for example, 13:31–32; 17:1–5).
Jesus’ own words about laying down and taking up his life in the
Shepherd discourse (10:17–18) point the reader/listener toward the
expected resurrection. As the narrator opens 13:1–38 and Jesus’
words open 17:1–26, the reader/listener is informed that ‘the hour’
of Jesus’ departure from this world to the Father has come (13:1;
17:1–5).35 There is abundant material within gegramme,na of the
Gospel of John that indicates that Jesus ‘must rise from the dead’
(20:9). This is something that the Beloved Disciple and Peter, key
players in the drama of the narrative, ‘as yet’ were not able to
understand (20:9). Such under-standing will be provided for the
readers of the story ‘later.’36 That will be made clear in vv.
29–31.
For the moment, a possible candidate for the ‘Scripture’ that
Peter and the Beloved Disciple did not yet know is the Johannine
story (v. 9: tὴn grafήn). It was impossible for them to know this
Scripture, because they are still characters in the story and thus
not yet (oὐde,pw) readers or hearers of the story. As such, the
‘Scripture’ of the Gospel of John is not available to the Beloved
Disciple. But he has been presented as the first dis-ciple to come
to belief in the risen Jesus, even though he does not see Jesus.
Both disci-ples are dismissed from the scene as they return home,
not to appear again in 20:1–31.37
The response of the two other foundational disciples, one a
woman (20:1–2, 10–18) and the other a man (vv. 24–29), is
strikingly different from that of the Beloved Disciple. They seek
to establish a ‘fleshly’ contact with the Jesus they can see and
touch (see espe-cially 20:16–17, 25, 27). The disciples, who have
been informed that Jesus is now the risen Lord, are to be his sent
ones, the bearers of his word (see 18:21), and whoever receives
them will receive Jesus, and the one who sent him (13:20). As
Sandra Schneiders argues:
How are post-paschal disciples to encounter the risen Lord? The
negative answer from the first two scenes is that it is not through
physical sight or touch of his earthly body, that is, not in
the
-
Moloney 107
38 Schneiders, ‘The Resurrection,’ 184 (italics in original,
parentheses added). See also Rekha M. Chennattu, Johannine
Discipleship as a Covenant Relationship (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
2006), 159–61.
flesh, but somehow in his disciples. Scene three [vv. 19–23]
narratively explores this cryptic answer.38
They are commissioned as sent ones of Jesus, just as he was the
sent one of the Father (v. 21), and they receive the gift of the
Spirit as they are commissioned to repeat Jesus’ criti-cal and
judging presence in the world during his absence (vv. 22–23). It is
to that ‘later’ world, touched by the witness and the critical
presence of the disciples (vv. 19–23), that Jesus directs his final
blessing as he closes his encounter with Thomas (v. 29).
The Time of Those Who Have Not Seen and Yet Believe (vv.
29–31)
Mary Magdalene has come to love, life, and faith because she saw
Jesus, and the same must be said of Thomas. But what of later
generations of disciples who are reading and hearing this story of
Jesus? They too are summoned to a future determined by the love and
the life of the crucified and risen Jesus. It is at this point that
Jesus says his final words, blessing future generations: ‘Have you
believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not
seen and yet believe’ (v. 29). Comparisons must be drawn between
these blessed ones, and the other characters in John 20. Mary
Magdalene does not even imagine resurrection as the explanation of
an empty tomb (20:1–2, 11–15), Peter and the Beloved Disciple run
to the tomb in puzzlement and perhaps hope (vv. 3–7), while Thomas
will only believe if he is granted a physical experience of Jesus’
crucified and risen body (vv. 24–29). Mary Magdalene is led to
belief in the risen Lord by means of an appearance, a desire to
touch, and a commis-sion (vv. 16–18); Thomas believes in Jesus as
Lord and God by means of an appear-ance, a desire to touch, and a
challenge (vv. 26–29), while the Beloved Disciple sees and
believes, but he does not see the risen Jesus, nor does he seek
physical confirma-tion of a risen body (v. 8).
The disciples, gathered in a room with the doors tightly closed
for fear of ‘the Jews,’ are full of joy when they see the risen
Jesus among them, bearing the signs of his cruci-fixion in his
hands and his side; they see, but they do not seek to touch the
risen body of the Lord, or the marks of crucifixion (20:18–20).
These disciples are the only characters in 20:1–29 who have no
hesitation in accepting that God has raised Jesus from the dead.
But they have been prepared for their encounter. They have already
heard of the resur-rection, and of Jesus’ proximate return to his
Father and God, who is now their Father and God, from Mary
Magdalene. She has done as the risen Jesus instructed her: she has
returned to the new family of God (v. 17: ‘go to my brethren’ … ‘I
am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God’)
and informed them that the transform-ing moment of his return to
the Father is at hand (vv. 17–18). As across the Gospel
resur-rection narratives, also in John, resurrection produces
confusion and puzzlement (see Mark 16:8; Matt 28:17; Luke 24:1–11,
13–35).
-
108 Irish Theological Quarterly 79(2)
39 On this, see Brendan Byrne, ‘The Faith of the Beloved
Disciple and the Community in John 20,’ Journal for the Study of
the New Testament 23 (1985): 83–97. See also Lindars, John, 602:
‘He (the author) is concerned that the reader should believe, and
sets the Beloved Disciple before him as the first example for him
to follow. His kind of faith will be commended by the risen Jesus
himself in verse 29.’
40 Sherri Brown, Gift Upon Gift: Covenant through Word in the
Gospel of John, Princeton Theological Monograph Series (Eugene, OR:
Wipf & Stock, 2010), 225. See also Lindars, John, 616; Udo
Schnelle, The Human Condition: Anthropology in the Teachings of
Jesus, Paul, and John, trans. O. C. Dean, Jr. (Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress, 1996), 121.
But the concerns of this ‘writing’ are not limited to telling
the story of the characters in the narrative. Turning away from
Thomas to speak to generations of readers and hear-ers, those who
have not seen Jesus but still believe (v. 29), John closes his
‘writing’ (grάfή, see 21:24, where the author is described as the
one who ‘wrote these things’ [ὁ grάysaς tau/ta]) by telling those
readers why he wrote this book (vv. 30–31). He points to subsequent
generations. Looking back across the faith journeys recorded in the
episodes of the Beloved Disciple, Mary Magdalene, and Thomas, there
is an important link between Jesus’ final blessing of those who do
not see and yet believe, and the experi-ence of the Beloved
Disciple: he did not see, yet he believed (v. 8). This is what it
means to be a beloved disciple. The author, in fact, suggests that
later generations, those who do not see and yet believe (v. 29),
have an advantage. They have been provided with ‘the Scripture’
that the Beloved Disciple did not know (v. 9).
Jesus did many signs, but they have not been written
(gegramme,na) in this book (v. 30). There is a purpose behind the
selection of the signs that have been reported in writ-ing. It has
been written (ge,graptai) ‘so that you (later generations of
disciples who have not seen, but have this Gospel, this “writing”
[see v. 9: tὴn grafήn]) may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the
Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name’ (v.
31). This was not yet available for the Beloved Disciple (v. 9),
but it is available to those who are reading John’s story of Jesus
and in the ears and hearts of those who are hearing it or seeing it
performed. The Beloved Disciple believed without seeing Jesus, but
he did not yet have the Scripture (vv. 8–9). All subsequent
disciples are to become beloved disciples by imitating the original
Beloved Disciple, believing without seeing. But they have an
advantage over him. They believe without seeing (v. 29), but also
have access to the Scripture of the Gospel of John.39 They know
from this Scripture that Jesus ‘must rise from the dead’ (v. 9).
For this reason they are ‘blessed’ (v. 29) in a way that exceeds
the blessedness of the Beloved Disciple. This blessing is part of
John’s rhetoric of persua-sion. Living in the time of the absence
of the physical Jesus, they are in a more advanta-geous position
than those who had access to his bodily presence, Mary Magdalene
and Thomas. They also have an advantage over Peter and the Beloved
Disciple, who returned to their homes, not yet knowing ‘the
Scripture’ (tὴn grafήn) that Jesus must rise from the dead (vv.
9–10). Those who believe without seeing have the Scripture of the
Gospel of John, written for them (vv. 30–31).
‘The rhetorical purpose of this Gospel is to bring the narrative
tradition of the Bible to a culmination in Jesus.’40 But the
crucial issue is that these disciples, like the first Beloved
Disciple to believe without seeing, are also beloved disciples who
do not see. It is only through loving disciples that the love and
the life of the crucified and risen Jesus
-
Moloney 109
41 Dorothy A. Lee, Flesh and Glory: Symbolism, Gender and
Theology in the Gospel of John (New York: Crossroad, 2002), 48.
42 A brief note is called for on what might be meant when we
raise the question of ‘Scripture’ in a document from the end of the
first Christian century. This note could be the subject of further
interesting debate. A contemporary reader and scholar, on meeting
the expression ἡ grafή thinks immediately of the fixed texts of
Tanakh: the Torah, the Nevi’im (the Prophets), and the Khetuvim
(the Writings). But this was not the case as the Johannine story
was being told and developed across the second half of that first
century. The Torah and the Prophets had already been accepted as
sacred books (although the Prophets were not normative) before the
Christian era. But there was no clarity on the place of the
Writings. The debates are still recalled in The Mishnah, where what
should be read as Scripture is recalled, especially on the feast of
Purim when Esther was read (see, for example, mMegillah 3.1–4.10).
See also the debate between significant and early Rabbis (Yehudah,
Yosé, Shim’on, Shammai, Hillel, El’azar, Yechonan ben-Yehoshu’a,
and ben-Azzai) over the Song of Songs and Qohelet in mYadayim 3:5.
There was considerable room for movement as to what could be
regarded as ‘Scripture.’ For detail, see Emil Schürer, The History
of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, rev. and ed. Geza
Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark, 1973–1987), 3: 705–45. Yet John may use such texts
as Psalm 60 (6:60–71), Psalm 6:4 (12:27), Psalm 41:10 (13:18), and
the Song of Songs 5:5–6 (20:14–18), etc., as background for his
narrative. See, for example, Hanson, The Prophetic Gospel, 246. If
our interpretation of 20:9 is correct, John’s claim to be leaving a
‘Scripture’ to those who have not seen yet believe (John 20:29–31)
is a bold claim. However, it is less bold if the author of the
Fourth Gospel sees his story as located as part of an ongoing
debate over what could be regarded as ‘Scripture.’
Christ will be made visible, experienced by those who hear of
Jesus through their word (see 17:20–23). As Dorothy Lee puts
it:
The whole narrative of John 20 functions to reassure the reader
that the incarnation is still palpable, even if in a different way,
through the life-giving presence of the Spirit-Paraclete activating
the eucharistic life, love and mission of the community.41
To which I would add: ‘and with the Gospel in hand.’ Originally,
the Gospel came to an end with this strong recommendation that all
subsequent disciples be ‘beloved disciples.’ The love-theme is
never far from the surface of the narrative that tells of Jesus’
‘hour.’ The command to love has been directed to the disciples
through the story (13:34–35; 15:12, 17), and it must continue to
play a role among all subsequent beloved disciples who believe
without seeing. In order to do this, however, they have recourse to
the pres-ence of the absent one in the ‘writing’ (v. 9: ἡ grafή)
that was ‘written’ (v. 31: ge,graptai) so that they might go on
believing.42
Conclusion
Only one disciple has been expressly identified as the disciple
whom Jesus loved (13:23; 19:25–27; 20:2–10). He played a crucial
role at the supper (13:23), at the Cross (19:25–27), and at the
resurrection (20:2–10). He is the model disciple, and the
characteristic of his
-
110 Irish Theological Quarterly 79(2)
43 See Francis J. Moloney, ‘John 21 and the Johannine Story,’ in
Anatomies of Narrative Criticism: The Past, Present, and Futures of
the Fourth Gospel as Literature, ed. Tom Thatcher and Stephen D.
Moore, SBL Resources for Biblical Study 55 (Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 2008), 237–51.
44 See Moloney, The Resurrection of the Messiah, 121–26.45 See
Moloney, Love in the Gospel of John, 176–87.46 For an assessment of
the later Johannine communities’ struggle to pass this test, see
Moloney,
Love in the Gospel of John, 191–210.
discipleship is that he is loved. Jesus has asked, however, that
disciples love as he has loved them (13:34–35; 15:12, 17). Jesus’
task of making known a God who loves does not come to an end with
the death of the Beloved Disciple (see 21:22–23). The founding
disciples, and the generations that follow, will be recognized as
Jesus’ disciples if they are obedient to Jesus’ love command
(13:34–35). Only in this way will they make known to the world that
the Father sent Jesus to give love and life to the world (3:16–17;
17:21, 23). This mes-sage, central to the so-called ‘ethics’ of the
Fourth Gospel, is directed to the Gospel’s recip-ients, those who
have not seen, yet believed (20:29). Their task is to continue the
revelation of the God and Father of Jesus who so loved the world
that he gave his only Son. To do this they, in their own turn, must
be beloved disciples.
For this reason, later in the history of the development of the
Johannine storytelling tradition, a further resurrection chapter is
added to an original that ended in 20:30–31. A number of themes
have been ‘left hanging’ by John 1:1–21 and call for resolution.43
One of these is the respective authority of the two disciples who
‘as yet did not know the Scripture’ (20:9). The story of the
subsequent Johannine Church must be based on more solid authority
than two disciples who did not know the Scripture and who had
returned home after their experiences at an empty tomb (20:9–10).
This is resolved in 21:15–24: Peter will profess unconditional
love, and eventually experience a death that will glorify God (vv.
15–18). The Beloved Disciple, who has also died, is the one who has
‘written these things’ (vv. 19–24). One is the authoritative
shepherd and the other is the witness.44
The challenge to love as Jesus loved, developed in 1:1–20:31, is
also grounded in the subsequent roles of Peter and the Beloved
Disciple, especially in the narrative presenta-tion of the
relationship between Jesus, Peter, and the Beloved Disciple. The
two disciples are to provide the foundational experience for
further disciples who are to make known the love of Jesus and the
love of God (3:16–17; 13:1–38; 17:1–26).45 Whether or not
subsequent ‘Johannine communities’ will bear fruit depends upon
their responding to Jesus’ command to love (15:12–17). The proof of
their ‘blessedness,’ the result of their access to Jesus through
‘the Scripture’ given to them in this Gospel (20:9, 30–31), will be
something else that can only be found and tested in the quality of
the lives of people whose story is found outside the confines of
the Johannine narrative.46 A careful selec-tion from the many signs
that Jesus did ‘in the presence of the disciples’ has been passed
on to them so that those who have not seen yet believed, in their
own time and place, will witness to the life that comes from belief
in the name of Jesus, the Christ and the Son of God (vv.
30–31).
-
Moloney 111
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency
in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author biography
Francis J. Moloney, SDB, AM, FAHA, is currently a Senior
Professorial Fellow at the Australian Catholic University,
Melbourne, Australia. He has a DPhil from the University of Oxford
(1975), and has been the Foundation Professor of Theology at the
Australian Catholic University, and the Professor of New Testament
and Dean at the School of Theology and Religious Studies at the
Catholic University of America, Washington, DC. He is the author of
over 50 books and numerous scholarly and popular shorter
studies.
