The following is a paper I submitted for my introduction to the Gospels class at Fuller Theological Seminary's Seattle campus.
Introduction
He saw and believed: a simple statement with profound implications. How are we to understand these words, which fall in the center of John's resurrection account? And then, how are we to understand the entire resurrection narrative? It is not enough to offer a theological explanation. In order to fully grasp the depth and significance of the resurrection, it is necessary to explore the text from several perspectives. A historical analysis is needed to place the text in source, form and redactional context. A literary discussion facilitates understanding of the ebb and flow of the narrative. Finally, a theological study brings out the themes and main ideas of the story. This paper seeks to employ historical, literary and theological tools to explore the depths of Jesus' resurrection account found in John 20:1-18.
Historical Background
To undertake a comprehensive historical study of the John's gospel is beyond the scope of this paper. Thus, my aim is to focus as closely as possible on the particulars of the passage, John 20:1-18. I will critically examine John's resurrection account from a source, form and redactional perspective. In undertaking this task from such a narrow scope, I assume a base knowledge of the current historical convictions associated with John's gospel as a whole. My hope is to provide historical criticism which both informs and builds upon John's literary and theological themes for this particular passage.
Source Criticism
Like the rest of his gospel, John's account of the resurrection brushes against the Synoptic account. There is enough overlap of the stories, however, to engage in meaningful, though perhaps indecisive, source criticism. The first eighteen verses of chapter twenty can be separated into three separate stories: 1) the women who found the empty tomb, were deeply disturbed, and reported it to the apostles; 2) the encounter of Peter and the beloved disciple with the empty tomb and folded garments; 3) the appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene. (Remember this three-fold breakdown for further discussion later.) The first and third stories can be roughly traced with Synoptic comparison. John does share many details with the Synoptics, but it remains unclear, and even doubtful, whether John used a direct source, such as Mark or Luke. Indeed, R. Bultmann argues that the Synoptic Gospels are not the source behind the Fourth Gospel. He sites inconsistent details and differing motifs as reasons to disassociate John's account with the Synpotics. Most compelling to him is Mary Magdalene's solo appearance in the narrative. "[The Evangelist's account] differed from the latter above all by the fact that it did not give an account about several women, but only of Mary Magdalene. [...] [A]nd that is not at all surprising, since at this point the tradition was very variable." Bultmann credits an inconsistent oral tradition with providing differing details. He also suggests the focus on Mary perpetuates the motif of establishing a new relationship with the risen Jesus. (This theme will be further explored in the paper.) If John were using a Synoptic source, there would not be such abrupt literary and thematic differences.
Other scholars have different perspectives. John Ashton, for example, suggests John shared a source with Luke and used it as a basis for a story of his own. This is not to say John used Luke as a source. We know Luke compiled information from many trustworthy sources; John may have shared with Luke such a source. John also connects with Luke 24:12, 34 and the Peter-tradition. Also, the singular account of Mary does not rule out Synoptic sources. Mary says "we" in 20:2 when telling the disciples about the empty tomb. This is consistent with the Synoptic tradition of several women being with her. The twentieth century brought opposing views as to the dependence of John on the Synoptics. Some advocate John's use especially of Mark and Luke. Others say the differences between the Synoptics and John have been underestimated and show independence, not adaptation. There is compelling evidence on both sides of the argument. At the least, it is safe to say even if John "did not use the Synoptics as his sources, neither did his Gospel take shape apart from them."
Form Criticism
There are elements of several forms of pericopes in John's resurrection account. One could make a case the events depict a pronouncement story; Jesus' resurrection leads to the climactic pronouncement that he is indeed the risen Son of God. The resurrection is also an obvious miracle story. This, the greatest of miracles, serves as the culmination and validation of Jesus' ministry. John's account is, however, above all, a historical narrative. "John is concerned to emphasize the testimony of the empty Tomb. Not only the women, but Peter and the Beloved Disciple can attest to the fact, and not only so, but they can attest to the position in which the grave-clothes were found (xx. 2-10)." John provides a more apologetic, and less theological, account for the purpose of showing the factual circumstances of the resurrection. John's concern is to relate events which actually occurred. The resurrection really happened, and thus John continues a narrative which could have ended with "It is finished" (19:30). That this is an historical narrative does not diminish the apostolic message, though. The fact of the risen Christ serves as the crowning emphasis to the evangelist's historical and theological aims.
Redaction Criticism
Earlier, I mentioned the three stories which make up these eighteen verses - Mary and the empty tomb, Peter and the beloved disciple and Jesus' appearance to Mary. Now I will turn to redactionally placing these stories. The first question to ask is whether all three stories came originally as one account, or if they came from separate traditions and were edited together into one narrative. Ashton has strong feelings regarding the matter:
To attempt to make sense of 20:1-[18] as a continuous narrative as, for instance, Dodd does, is to enter an Alice-in-Wonderland world where one event succeeds another with the crazy logic of a dream. In such a world one is not surprised to find Mary Magdalene, last seen running off in search of the disciples, standing once again by the tomb. Had she seen the two disciples enter the tomb? We are not told. But when she does enter she finds, not the burial clothes, but 'two angels sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the foot' (20:12). Had they just arrived or had they been hiding quietly in the corner until Mary's arrival, their business being with her and not with Peter and 'the other disciple'? These, it may be said, are not very sensible questions to ask. Indeed not; their unanswerability is a very good reason for taking each of the stories independently.
And if these stories reach John as originally distinct elements in the tradition, "some of the difficulties in interpreting the present narrative would be understandable." In short, it just makes more sense to look at these stories as three accounts which John chose to edit together for his particular purpose. Taking this account as one complete tradition provides too much opportunity for skepticism and unanswerable questions. The tradition of the Synoptics further our case. Our stories find their matches in the Synoptics, yet the order of occurrence and specific details vary significantly. It can then suffice that early tradition carried with it several resurrection and empty tomb accounts. John combined these with the personal account of 'the other disciple' to produce an original and compelling resurrection narrative.
Literary Analysis
In this section, I will conduct a verse-by-verse analysis of John 20:1-18. My method of exploration will be a quasi-conversation with four leading commentators, each representing a different age in Christian thought. From the ancient Christian tradition, I will employ the Homilies of St. John Chrysostom. John Calvin will represent the Reformation era. R. Bultmann and C. K. Barrett will provide comments from 20th century thought. My role will be one of mediation; I will also provide personal comments to add to the discussion.
20:1 - Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb.
Himes: In this first verse, we are confronted with two main ideas: Mary coming to the tomb and then finding the stone rolled back from the tomb entrance.
Chrysostom: For He arose while both stone and seals lay over Him; but because it was necessary that others should be fully satisfied, the tomb was opened after the Resurrection, and thus what had come to pass was confirmed. This then was what moved Mary. For being entirely full of loving affection towards her Master, when the Sabbath was past, she could not bear to rest, but came very early in the morning, desiring to find some consolation from the place. But when she saw the place, and the stone taken away, she neither entered in nor stooped down, but ran to the disciples, in the greatness of her longing; for this is what she earnestly desired, she wished very speedily to learn what had become of the body. This was the meaning of her running.
Barrett: Mary is running, though, because she not unnaturally suspects activity on the part of the enemies of Jesus, or of tomb robbers.
Himes: So it is important to understand that Mary does not yet know the implications of the empty tomb. She comes to the tomb to mourn, and when she finds it has been disturbed, her immediate thoughts are not of resurrection, but of disruption of the body. And yet John is careful to set up a complete and witnessed account of the following activities.
Calvin: As the resurrection is the most important article of our faith, and without it the hope of eternal life is extinguished, for this reason the Evangelists are the more careful to prove it, as John here collects many proofs, in order to assure us that Christ is risen from the dead. It may be thought strange, however, that he does not produce more competent witnesses; for he begins with a woman. There certainly was nothing more of earthly grandeur in the disciples than in the women who followed Christ; but as Christ was pleased to reckon them the principle witnesses of his resurrection, on this single ground their testimony is entitled to the greatest deference, and is not liable to any objection.
Himes: If the Gospel writers were so careful to prove the account through accurate witnesses, why the discrepancies as to who was present? John mentions only Mary Magdalene; Matthew mentions Mary Magdalene and the other Mary; the two Mary's and Salome are mentioned in Mark; and Luke only says that women came.
Calvin: The difficulty is easily solved in this manner. As Matthew inserts the names of two women who were best known, and had the highest reputation among the disciples, so John satisfies himself with mentioning the name of Mary Magdalene alone, but yet does not exclude the others; and, indeed, it is evident, from viewing his words in the connection, that she was not alone, for shortly afterwards, Mary Magdalene says, in the plural number, WE know not where they have laid him.
Bultmann: There are also discrepancies among the Gospel accounts as to the time of Mary's visit. Mary Magdalene comes to the grave on Sunday morning as is reported of the women in Mk 16:2; only here it is stated that it is still dark, while according to Mark the sun has risen.
Barrett: Yes, John must mean early on Sunday morning, not at the beginning of the day according to Jewish reckoning. According to Mark the first visit to the tomb was at dawn; Luke gives the same sense; Matt. 28:1 is very obscure and might possibly refer to Saturday evening.
Calvin: The discrepancy as to the time may be easily solved. When John says that they came before daybreak, we must understand, that they had set out on their journey during the darkness of the night; that, before they came to the sepulcher, the day had dawned; and that in the evening, after sunset, when the Sabbath was ended, they had bought the spices; and thus the narrative of the other Evangelists must be reconciled.
20:2 - So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him."
Bultmann: Mary sees that the stone has been removed and from that draws the conclusion that the body has been carried away, and - without looking into the grave? - she hastens, shocked and perplexed, to Peter and the beloved disciple in order to bring the news to them.
Himes: Mary is so shocked that she immediately bolts to find the leading disciples; and she remains unaware of any definitive answer regarding the resurrection. Yet, Mary is credited with being the initial witness to the empty tomb.
Chrysostom: True. The Evangelist hath not deprived the woman of such a praise, nor thought it shame that the disciples should have learnt these things first from her who had passed the night in watching. Thus everywhere doth the truth-loving nature of his disposition shine forth.
20:3-5 - So Peter and the other disciple went forth, and they were going to the tomb. The two were running together; and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter and came to the tomb first; and stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not go in.
Calvin: There being so little faith, or rather almost no faith, both in the disciples and in the women, it is astonishing that they had so great zeal; and, indeed, it is not possible that religious feelings led them to seek Christ.
Himes: But wouldn't it be their faith which brought forth such a reaction? If faith were not at issue, why would Peter and the other disciple not travel together? It was the unthinkable anticipation of what would be found at the tomb that led each disciple to run as fast and as hard as possible.
Barrett: Perhaps John had something else in mind. If the beloved disciple ran more swiftly than Peter, of course he ran before him; in these places the unnamed disciple seems to take precedence of Peter.
20:6-10 - And so Simon Peter also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the face cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb then also entered, and he saw and believed. For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. So the disciples went away again to their own homes.
Chrysostom: Seeing the clothes lying there was a sign of the resurrection. For neither, if any persons had removed the body, would they before doing have stripped it; nor if any had stolen it, would they have taken the trouble to remove the napkin, and roll it up, and lay it in a place by itself; but how? they would have taken the body as it was. On this account John tells us by anticipation that it was buried with much myrrh, which glues linen to the body not less firmly than lead.
Himes: The orderly arrangement of the linen clothes in essence serves as another witness to the resurrection.
Barrett: It is impossible to say with certainty how John thought the resurrection had taken place. At the raising of Lazarus the body, after being quickened, was drawn out of the tomb still wrapped in, and confined by, the bandages which had been used in preparing it for burial. Here however it seems that the body had in some way disappeared from, or passed through, the cloths and left them lying as they were.
Chrysostom: But why do the clothes lie apart, while the napkin was wrapped together by itself? That thou mayest learn that it was not the action of men in confusion or haste, the placing some in one place, some in another, and the wrapping them together. For this they believed in the Resurrection.
Himes: But it was the beloved disciple who believed. Aren't we still left unsure as to Peter's state of belief?
Bultmann: When the beloved disciple enters the tomb after Peter, he looks, and faith is kindled. Clearly, it is presupposed that Peter before him was likewise brought to faith through the sight of the empty grave; for if the writer had meant otherwise, and if the two disciples were set against each other with respect to their belief, it would have had to be expressly stated that Peter did not believe.
Barrett: On the other hand, it is implied that Peter had not been convinced of the resurrection by the sight of the empty tomb and grave-clothes.
Himes: John does explicitly state the other disciple "saw and believed." Perhaps, however, John simply wants to emphasize who came to faith first.
Barrett: This could readily be explained if we suppose that John wished to emphasize that the beloved disciple was both first to see the empty tomb (he is not in this gospel preceded by Mary) and the first to believe in the resurrection.
Calvin: Peter's faith cannot be minimized. When we find that Peter, though he made less haste, is the first to enter into the sepulcher, let us learn from it that many persons have more given to them in the end than appears at the beginning. And, indeed, we sometimes see many, who were full of fervour at the commencement, give way when they come to the conflict; while others, who appeared to be slow and indolent, assume new courage when danger is ahead.
Himes: And it is now, when the disciples experience the empty tomb, that faith begins to take root. They still lack complete understanding, and yet they return home with a strange new hope.
Calvin: Yes, being now warned by the sight of a strange spectacle, they begin to think of Christ as having something Divine, though they are still far from having a clear and accurate knowledge of him. John, therefore, accuses himself, when he acknowledges that the first time he believed was, when he beheld the proofs of Christ's resurrection.
Himes: It is interesting to think of John emphasizing himself as being the first to believe and yet accusing himself at his lack of belief. Had he held Jesus' words and the Scripture closer, though, he and the other disciples may have been more prepared for the resurrection. I believe their lack of faith is precisely your point.
Calvin: He represents more strongly his own guilt and that of his brethren, by adding, that they not only had forgotten the words of Christ, but that they did not believe the Scriptures; for to this ignorance lie ascribes the deficiency of their faith. Hence, too, we may draw a useful instruction, that we ought, to ascribe to our carelessness, when we are ignorant of what we ought to know about Christ, because we have not profited as we ought to have done by the Scriptures, which clearly reveal the excellence of Christ.
Himes: I wonder, too, if there is any significance to the back and forth race of faith between Peter and the other disciple. Does John record the intricate details to perpetuate a specific message to his contextual readers, or are we simply receiving the inside knowledge that comes from a first-hand account?
Bultmann: Some scholars say John wrote down what happened the way he did because that is the way things actually happened. I hold there is significance in the relation of the two disciples to one another, who race to the grave, and each in his way achieves precedence of the other. If Peter and the beloved disciple are the representatives of Jewish and Gentile Christianity, the meaning manifestly then is this: the first community of believers arises out of Jewish Christianity, and the Gentile Christians attain to faith only after them. But that does not signify any precedence of the former over the latter; in fact both stand equally near the Risen Jesus, and indeed readiness for faith is even greater with the Gentiles than it is with the Jews: the beloved disciple ran faster than Peter to the grave!
20:11-12 - But Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping; and so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white standing, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying.
Himes: We now turn our attention back to Mary. As before, she is at the tomb, though now she is weeping. She is absolutely perplexed. She came to anoint the body and finds only an empty tomb. I can picture her pacing back and forth, crying, wondering what to do, looking for help. Finally, through her curiosity, she musters up the courage to peek into the tomb. What she saw must have shocker her.
Chrysostom: And she received no small reward for this her great zeal. For what the disciples saw not, this woman saw first, angels... Since the mind of the woman was not sufficiently elevated to accept the Resurrection from the proof of the napkins, something more takes place, so as to raise her thus awhile from her passionate sorrow, and to comfort her.
Barrett: It is possible she did not even notice the grave-clothes, but remains at the tomb overcome with grief.
Calvin: Indeed, as to the women remaining at the sepulcher, while the disciples return to the city, they are not entitled to great accommodation on this account; for the disciples carry with them consolation and joy, but the women torment themselves by idle and useless weeping. In short, it is superstition alone, accompanied by carnal feelings, that keeps them near the sepulcher.
Himes: But what of the appearance of the angles? Does God reward superstition?
Calvin: One purpose, certainly, which Christ had in view in selecting the women, to make the first manifestation of himself to them, was, to fill the apostles with shame, for the stupidity of the apostles was less excusable because they had profited so little by the valuable and careful instruction which they had received.
Himes: Surely Jesus did not manifest himself to Mary first in order to shame the apostles. None of the Gospel accounts perpetuate this view. Rather, it seems, all the disciples, both the men and women, struggled with recognizing the resurrection event.
20:13-14 - And they said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him." When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus.
Himes: What a marvelous scene.
Chrysostom: By all these circumstances, as though a door were being opened for her, she was led by little and little to the knowledge of the Resurrection. And the manner of their sitting invited her to question them, for they showed they knew what had taken place; on which account they did not sit together either, but apart from one another... And by what kind of consequence is it, that she having spoken to them, and not having yet heard anything from them, turned back? Methinks that while she was still speaking, Christ suddenly appearing behind her, struck the Angels with awe; and that they beheld their Ruler, showed immediately by their bearing, their look, their movements, that they saw the Lord; and this drew the woman's attention, and caused her to turn herself backwards.
Himes: But as of yet, Mary remains unaware the figure is Jesus. Like the disciples on the road to Emmaus, Jesus' identity is withheld until a specific moment of intentional revelation.
Calvin: I think that the fault lay rather in the eyes of the women.
Himes: It would seem to suit the power of Christ to reveal himself when he saw fit.
20:15-16 - Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?" Supposing Him to be the gardener, she said to Him, "Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away." Jesus said to her, "Mary!" She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, "Rabboni!" (which means, Teacher).
Himes: How remarkable for Mary's moment of belief to be when Jesus calls her by name.
Bultmann: It is possible for Jesus to be present, and yet for a man not to recognise him until his word goes home to him. Now however Jesus calls Mary by her own name, and the spell is ended.
Barrett: Yes, the name alone is sufficient to convince Mary of the identity of the speaker. The good shepherd calls his own sheep by name and they recognize his voice, as in 10:3.
Calvin: And Mary immediately renders to Christ the honor which is due to him; for the word Rabboni is not only respectful, but involves a profession of obedience.
Himes: We also see Mary's level of devotion to the risen Christ. Although she has been seeking his body, upon finding him raised, she immediately dedicates her life to following him.
20:17 - Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'"
Himes: It is in this interaction that Jesus defines a new relationship with humanity, one that is based in the reality of the resurrection. And yet it is a curious interaction.
Barrett: This is a statement of some difficulty. It seems to be implied that it would be possible and permissible to touch Jesus after the ascension, though not before; and this is the reverse of what might have been expected. It was for John an essential act, completing what was done in the passion. It was moreover a condition for the coming of the Spirit.
Calvin: This appears not to agree with the narrative of Matthew; for he expressly says, that the women held him by the feet and worshipped him, (Matthew 28:9). Now, since he allowed himself to be touched by his disciples, what reason was there for forbidding Mary to touch him? The answer is easy, provided that we remember that the women were not repelled from touching Christ, till their eagerness to touch him had been carried to excess; for, so far as it was necessary for removing doubt, he unquestionably did not forbid them to touch him, but, perceiving that their attention was too much occupied with embracing his feet, he restrained and corrected that immoderate zeal.
Chrysostom: Methinks that she wished still to converse with Him as before, and that in her joy she perceived nothing great in Him, although He had become far more excellent in the Flesh.
Bultmann: This is a matter of establishing a new relationship and new understanding. The fellowship between the Risen Jesus and his followers in the future will be experienced only as fellowship with the Lord who has gone to the Father, and therefore it will not be in the forms of earthly associations. The real Easter faith therefore is that which believes this; it consists in understanding the offence of the cross; it is not faith in a palpable demonstration of the Risen Lord within the mundane sphere.
Himes: So John is careful to establish the culmination of the cross as the resurrection. On the cross, It is finished, and now, at the resurrection, it continues; new life and a new relationship with Christ must be understood.
20:18 - Mary Magdalene came, announcing to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord," and that He had said these things to her.
Bultmann: It is completely comprehensible that no further description follows Jesus' saying, whether it be of an answer from Mary or the cessation of the miraculous appearance.
Himes: Mary simply carried out her instructions.
Bultmann: And in contrast to Luke, no account is given of the impression that her
message makes on the disciples.
Theological Themes
Theology has always taken center stage in the Fourth Gospel. John presents themes and ideas which have become foundational to our faith. Among the leading and most important topics John explores are Christology, sotierology, eschatology, Pneumatology and ecclesiology. Regretfully, I do not have the means to explore the implications of all these themes in relation to the resurrection account. Rather, I have chosen to identify the two main theological concepts I see as having the most impact in John's resurrection narrative. In these eighteen verses, John most fully speaks to faith and belief and most drastically redefines proper relationship with Christ, through the promise of the Holy Spirit.
John explicitly links seeing with believing. In verse 8, we read simply, "and he saw and believed." The beloved disciple had only to see the linen wrappings in the empty tomb to believe in the resurrection of Christ; he had not yet even seen the risen Lord. The empty tomb and the linen enabled belief. And as such, the resurrection allows belief in the ultimate truth of Christ. "Because John sees the lifting up of Jesus on the cross as the supreme manifestation of the divine glory, he sees the resurrection not as the reversal of the passion, not as bringing glory out of defeat, but rather as the enabling of the disciples to believe and so to be brought into right relationship with him whom death cannot destroy - in other words to have life in his name." The resurrection event provided not the ultimate glory of Christ, but rather the ultimate means to belief. Seeing was believing; it had to be for the first disciples. They did not know what we now know. They had to be brought to a place of undeniable belief in order to perpetuate the love and commission of Christ.
Jesus revealed himself in varying degrees at different times, in different ways, to different people. The beloved disciple needed only to see the grave-clothes in the empty tomb. Others would require a post-resurrection appearance. Mary Magdalene was gifted with the first of such appearances. It is interesting that it was not seeing Jesus which led Mary to belief; it was his voice calling her name, "Mary!" With this account, John affirms an earlier teaching of Jesus, "the sheep follow him because they know his voice" (10:4). Jesus is the good shepherd, and it is his voice which pierces through to our heart and enables belief.
Jesus' interaction with Mary in this scene also establishes a new relationship. This new relationship is not of the earth, and Jesus must make clear Mary cannot interact with him in the same way as before. But nevertheless a relationship must exist. Jesus appeared to Mary and the other disciples not to cut off relationship, but to redefine it. "The faith of a Christian has not been fully described if it falls short of a direct and personal relationship of love and trust between the Christian and his Lord. But - as this narrative shows - the relationship is of a new kind, different from that of Jesus and his disciples in the days of his flesh. This new relationship will be mediated by the Spirit whose coming depends upon the completion of Jesus' journey to the Father." Jesus is careful to complete his mission of ascension; not even the resurrection is the end of the Father's plan for reconciliation. The Holy Spirit will mediate relationship through Jesus to, "My Father and your Father, and My God and your God."
Conclusion
What a journey this has been. I am in awe at the sheer historical, literary and theological depth with which John wrote the first part of his resurrection narrative. And I know I have barely scratched the surface of insight and reflection. Yet this task has brought me to a new level of understanding and appreciation of theological study. I see the value and even excitement in source, form and redaction criticism; I appreciate sitting at the table with the great literary commentators of the faith; and I marvel at the theological insight with which I can approach a text through proper use of these tools. And through it all, my passion for this Gospel did not grow dim. Intrigue and curiosity will only lead me to deeper discovery which can only be found in new and right relationship with the risen Christ.
Bibliography
Aland, Kurt. Synopsis of the Four Gospels: English Edition. New York: American Bible
Society, 1985.
Ashton, John. Understanding the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991.
Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to John, 2nd edition. Philadelphia: Westminster,
1978.
Brown, Raymond E. The Anchor Bible: The Gospel According to John. Garden City:
Doubleday, 1970.
Bruce, F. F. The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition and Notes. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1983.
Bultmann, R. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971.
Burridge, Richard A. Four Gospels, One Jesus? A Symbolic Reading. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1994.
Calvin, John. Commentary on the Gospel of John. 1 March 2006.
Chrysostom, John. Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homilies LXXXV and LXXXVI. 1
March 2006.
Dodd, C. H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: University Press, 1955.
Green, Joel B. and Scot McKnight, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers
Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.
Gundry, Robert H. A Survey of the New Testament, Third Edition. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1994.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999.
Newbigin, Lesslie. The Light Has Come: An Exposition of the Fourth Gospel. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.
Powell, Mark Allen. Fortress Introduction to the Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998.