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

Fortress, 2011). Reviewed by Jim West

This section of my review covers

Part Three: Interpreting the Johannine Riddles

8. The Christ of Faith and Johannine Theology 175

Johannine Christology: Is Jesus Human, Divine, or Both? / 175

The Father-Son Relationship: Egalitarian, Subordinate, or Neither? / 179
Signs Faith versus Blessed Faith / 181
The Way to Salvation in John: Particular or Universal? / 183
Johannine Dualism: Jewish or Greek? / 186
The Ioudaioi in John: Pro-Semitism, Anti-Semitism, or Neither? / 190

Conclusion / 193

9. The Jesus of History in John: A Fourth Quest for Jesus? 195

The Historical Realism of the Fourth Gospel / 196

Time and Space in the Ministry of Jesus / 199
The Passion of Jesus / 204
The Works of Jesus / 208
The Words of Jesus / 213
The Revelatory Prophet / 216
Conclusion / 218

10. The Life of the Church: Johannine Ecclesiology 221

A Vision of Relational Connectedness to Jesus / 221

Fluid and Dynamic Images of the Church / 223
Gospel Ministry: Compassionate, Empowered, Inclusive / 225
On Worshiping in Spirit and in Truth / 227
An Incarnational Sacramentology / 228
Peter, the Beloved Disciple, and the Ongoing Leadership of Christ
through the Holy Spirit / 231
Conclusion / 234
Summation of Part Three / 237

There’s nothing in this segment of the book that doesn’t interest me. The Historical
Jesus as he can be discovered in John (the very idea will cause apoplexy in many
contemporary New Testament scholars), though, is a core issue and probably the one
which will be of interest to many readers here as well. And the reason I find it so
interesting is because so little has been made of John’s Gospel in terms of the quest for
the Historical Jesus. Rightly or wrongly, the fact that John has been treated like the ugly
duckling or the wicked step-sister of Jesus studies is simply odd.

Even more odd is the fact that the so called ‘Gospel of Thomas’ is frequently treated with
more respect than the canonical John. And some people talk about the canonical texts
being ‘privileged’! To borrow a phrase that many young people use, ‘as if!’

So what does Anderson make of it all? That’s the question with which I approach the
central concern of this part of my review- is a ‘Fourth Quest’ needed, which takes
seriously the Fourth Gospel?

So, concerning taking the 4th Gospel seriously, Anderson rightly suggests

John is highly theological and different, but that does not mean that all, or
even the majority, of John’s differences reflect the theologizing interests of
the Evangelist. The differences [between John and the Synoptics] must be
evaluated case by case (p. 196).

Is it possible that any honest academic could argue with that? So why do the differences
exist? Anderson may very well be on to the real answer, writing

… if (as argued above) we regard the first edition of John as having

acknowledged Mark and appearing to augment it with non-duplicative
material, the enumeration of the first two signs in John 2 and 4 reflects a
filling out of the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in Mark, and the other three
signs (in chaps. 5, 9, and 11) fill out the southern ministry of Jesus, which is
largely missing in Mark. Therefore, John is different on purpose (p. 196).

Could the Johannine mystery really be that simply solved? John, edition two, the Gospel
filling in the blanks which Mark left in the story of Jesus which John felt needed to be
filled in? Anderson recognizes the problems and in one of the most astute pair of
sentences in all Johannine literature he says

While it is impossible to demonstrate that all of John comes from firsthand

observation, it cannot be claimed that none of it did. John’s citing of
empirically derived impressions is an empirical fact; until it is falsified
historically, can it be denied critically? Positivism must be applied to
falsification as well as verification, if it is to be employed with critical
adequacy— another oversight of modern critical scholarship (p. 197).

Perhaps it’s time to confess that New Testament scholarship really has been ‘playing
favorites’ with the Synoptics to the detriment not only of a serious study of John but also
to the detriment of historical Jesus studies itself. And that, in my estimation, is precisely
why Anderson’s study is so important: he offers interested persons not simply or merely
an ‘introduction to John’; he offers a rationale for accepting John as legitimate and too
long ignored source for the life of Jesus. He challenges scholars to reconsider their long
held prejudices and biases. And that’s a very good thing indeed. Especially since
scholars can be very good at grabbing on to presuppositions and never letting them go.

Our final installment comes next and will consider the closing segment of this important
volume.