1

THE SIGNS SOURCE IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL

A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE SEMEIA HYPOTHESIS
IN RECENT RESEARCH (1994-2013)
Work in Progress – Only for Private Usage

G. VAN BELLE (KU Leuven)

INTRODUCTION

Twenty years have now passed since my study on the origin and development of the
semeia hypothesis appeared, under the title The Signs Source in the Fourth Gospel: Historical
Survey and Critical Evaluation of the Semeia Hypothesis (1994)1. The premise of this
monograph was based on an overview of the history of research on the signs source, which I
published in August 1975 at the time of the Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense on the Fourth
Gospel. Without doubt, the shmei'a/signs source has been the most important literary theory
of the Fourth Gospel since the appearance of R. Bultmann’s commentary on the Gospel of
John. In reference to my overview, H.-P. Heekerens wrote in 1984: “The broad agreement
with Bultmann’s hypothesis is striking. The list of authors who concur is impressive by its
length and the number of well-known names. The spread of the hypothesis, …, is like the
description of a triumphal procession. The consensus is interconfessional as well as
international”2. However, critical voices against the assumed self-evidence of the source
increased gradually and even R.T. Fortna, who went further and defended a pre-Johannine
Gospel of Signs, conceded in 1992 that “despite wide acceptance, the hypothesis has never
been universally accepted”3.
My study of 1994 appeared in the midst of a battle of methodologies between Johannine
scholars, which included synchronic approaches being set against the diachronic reading. In
2004, K. Scholtissek, speaking of a “Renaissance of the Gospel of John”4, described the
research on the Fourth Gospel as follows5:
New ways of asking questions lead to new and highly interesting discoveries in the text and its
interpretations. Exegetical perspectives that have lasted for decades are closely questioned by these new
approaches: for example, increasingly it is assumed that the evangelist John did have some knowledge of the
Synoptic Gospels. The classic literary criticism applied to the Gospel of John has severe difficulties in
defending itself. Attempts to assign the Johannine Gospel to specific religious contexts (typically gnosticism)

1
Gilbert VAN BELLE, The Signs Source in the Fourth Gospel: Historical Survey and Critical Evaluation of the
Semeia Hypothesis (BETL, 116), Leuven, Peeters, 1994. See also ID., Het Johannesevangelie en zijn
voorgeschiedenis, in ID. (ed.), Het Johannesevangelie: Woorden om van te leven. Verslagboek
Vliebergh-Sencie-leergang Afdeling Bijbel 1993, Leuven, Vlaamse Bijbelstichting; Leuven – Amersfoort, Acco,
1995, 9-32; ID., De semeia-bron in het vierde evangelie: Ontstaan en groei van een hypothese (SNTA, 10),
Leuven, Universitaire Pers, 1975.
2
Hans-Peter HEEKERENS, Die Zeichen-Quelle der johanneischen Redaktion: Ein Beitrag zur
Entstehungsgeschichte des vierten Evangeliums (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien, 113), Stuttgart, Verlag Katholisches
Bibelwerk, 1984, pp. 11-12.
3
Robert T. FORTNA, Signs/Semeia Source, in David Noel FREEDMAN et al. (eds.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary
Vol. 1, New York – London, vol. 6, 1992, 18-22, p. 20.
4
See Klaus SCHOLTISSEK, Eine Renaissance des Evangeliums nach Johannes: Aktuelle Perspektiven der
exegetischen Forschung, in Theologische Revue 97 (2001) 267-287.
5
ID., The Johannine Gospel in Recent Research, in Scot MCKNIGHT – Grant R. OSBORNE (eds.), The Face of
New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research, Grand Rapids MI, Baker Academic, 2004, 444-472, pp.
445-446.
 2

have turn out to be unreliable. Clarifying the characteristics of the Johannine language, narration, and
theology is understood more and more as a special task and a challenge for the interpretation of this Gospel.
The exegetical focus on a hypothetically reconstructed basic document, the so-called Semeia-Quelle (Signs
Source), or changes in the order of the chapters of the Johannine Gospel are no longer viable. The canonical
text of the Gospel of John reaches authority again and is discovered anew and taken seriously as the primary
subject of exegetical interpretation.
Yet the signs source has not disappeared from Johannine research. This is evident in the
publication of the first part of the Kompendium der frühchristlichen Wundererzählungen
(2013) in which R. Zimmermann and U. Poplutz indicate that the shmei'a source is still being
defended6. This will be my topic in this seminar paper. I wish to describe and evaluate the
prevalence of the semeia hypothesis in recent research, covering the period between 1994-
2013. This will be done in three steps. First I will provide a concise overview of the most
important proponents and opponents of the hypothesis (I), thereupon I will discuss the
reasoning of the semeia hypothesis (II), and to conclude I will evaluate the significance of the
semeia hypothesis for literary-critical research of the Fourth Gospel (III).

I. PROPONENTS AND OPPONENTS OF THE SEMEIA HYPOTHESIS

A. THE PROPONENTS

As with the overview of 1994, we can categorise the defenders of the semeia hypothesis in
this overview according to the extent that they acknowledge the source. Some authors defend
the model of R. Bultmann and advocate for a source consisting of principally miracles (“signs
source”). Others follow the model of R.T. Fortna and expand the source with the passion and
resurrection narratives (“Gospel of signs” or “Signs Gospel”). Further, certain authors assume
a very short source: for example R.E. Brown proposes a source containing the two narratives
on Cana (2,1-11.12; 4,46-54); and H. Thyen argues that the source contains 21,1-14 besides
the miracles of Cana. Recently a fourth model has been proposed: the expansion of the Signs
Gospel to include discourse material.

1. First Model: The Signs/ Shmei'a Source Hypothesis

In 1921 A. Faure described the pre-Johannine narrative source as a “Wunderbuch” and this
formed part of a complex literary theory on the origin of John’s Gospel in R. Bultmann’s
commentary7. Bultmann described the origins of the present canonical gospel in three phases.
He distinguished between the sources, the gospel, and the ecclesial redaction. According to
him, the canonical gospel of John is the reworking of an original gospel by an “ecclesial
redactor” who is responsible for a number of interpolations (with regard to the future
eschatology and sacraments), the addition of chapter 21 and the present sequence of the
gospel. The original gospel itself was put together on the basis of three sources: the narrative
6
Ruben ZIMMERMANN, Frühchristliche Wundererzählungen – eine Hinführung, in ID., in collaboration with
Detlev DORMEYER – Judith HARTENSTEIN – Christian MÜNCH – Enzo Edzard POPKES – Uta POPLUTZ (eds.),
Kompendium der frühchristlichen Wundererzählungen. Band 1: Die Wunder Jesus, Gütersloh, Gütersloher
Verlagshaus, 2013, 5-67, pp. 20-21; Uta POPLUTZ, Die Wundererzählungen im Johannesevangelium.
Hinführung, in ibid., 659-667, p. 662.
7
On the “Antecendents of the Theory”, “Alexander Faure” and “Rudolf Bultmann”, see VAN BELLE, Signs
Source, 1998, pp. 1-18, 18-24, 24-40.
 3

segments in chapters 1–12 hark back to the signs source (shmei'a-Quelle), the Johannine
discourses to a pre-Christian Gnostic source (the Offenbarungsreden), and the suffering and
resurrection narratives to a pre-Johannine passion source. In addition to these sources, the
evangelist also made use of other traditions.
According to Bultmann the signs source principally contained the seven miracles from
chapters 1–12 of the Gospel of John: the wine miracle, the healing of the son of the king’s
official, the bread miracle, the walking on water, the healing of the lame man, the healing of the
man born blind, and the raising of Lazarus. The source also included other narrative material
from chapters 1–12. Notably, two passages where Jesus’ supernatural knowledge is a feature,
which can be compared to Jesus’ ability to perform miracles. These are the calling of the
disciples and Jesus’ meeting with the Samaritan woman. In the source, the healing of the lame
man is introduced by 7,2-10 and concludes with 7,19-23. Presumably the source also includes
vv. 40-42 of chapter 10, which tells about the relation between John the Baptist and Jesus. The
source then closes with 12,37-38, followed by 20,30-31.
Subsequent to Bultmann, most of the authors limited the source to the seven mentioned
miracles, but there was no consensus between the commentators of the Fourth Gospel. For
example, R. Schnackenburg (1966) included the story of the great catch of fish (21,1-14)8. In
turn, other authors restricted the number of miracles. Along the lines of Bultmann, some authors
tended to incorporate other material from chapters 1–12, as proposed by J. Becker in his
commentary (1978, 1981)9. In addition to the passages that Bultmann included, Becker ascribed
the testimony of John the Baptist (1,19-34) as well as the pericope on Jesus and John the Baptist
(3,22-30) to the source. Becker then strongly defended this form of the signs source in his
monograph Johanneïsches Christentum (2004)10, a book without scientific apparatus, and
intended for a broader readership. Two years previously he had written a comprehensive
justification of his literary criticism under the title “The Fourth Gospel and the Question about
its External and Internal Sources”11.
C. Dietzfelbinger reasons in his commentary (2001) that the evangelist used a Wunderquelle
along with other traditions and sources. He emphasises, however, one should not necessarily
think of a polished written source that one could reconstruct literarily. Instead we should think
of Traditionsgut of the community, which the evangelist could not ignore when writing his
gospel. He adopted this tradition of miracles but used it in service of his own Christology12.
The commentary of M. Theobald (2009) needs closer attention. Referring to Bultmann,
Becker and Dietzfelbinger, he assumes that the evangelist used three different sources and oral

8
On Rudolf Schnackenburg, see VAN BELLE, Signs Source, 1994, pp. 94-99, 171-172, 177.
9
On Jürgen Becker, see VAN BELLE, Signs Source, 1998, pp. 166-134.
10
Jürgen BECKER, Johanneisches Christentum: Seine Geschichte und Theologie im Überblick, Tübingen, Mohr
Siebeck, 2004.
11
Jürgen BECKER, Das vierte Evangelium und die Frage nach seinen externen und internen Quellen, in Ismo
DUNDERBERG – Christopher C. TUCKETT – Kari SYREENI (eds.), Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early
Christianity: Essays in Honour of Heikki Räisänen (Supplements to Novum Testamentum, 103), Leiden, Brill,
2002, 203-241.
12
Christian DIETZFELBINGER, Das Evangelium nach Johannes. Teilband 1: Johannes 1–12 / Teilband 2:
Johannes 13–21 (Zürcher Bibelkommentare: NT, 4/1-2), Zürich, Theologischer Verlag, 2001. See esp. vol. 1,
pp. 19, 141-142, 344, 399; vol. 2, p. 349.
 4

traditions13: (1) an oral tradition consisting of words of the Lord (Herrenworte)14 and a Christ
hymn for the prologue15; (2) a written source containing especially miracles (the Zeichenquelle
or Semeiaquelle [SQ]); (3) a passion or Easter narrative (= PEJoh). The original gospel was
subjected to a redaction in his community. Note that Theobald deliberately avoids speaking of
an “ecclesiastical” redactor, as this would give the impression that the Grosskirche adapted the
unique gospel to suit its needs. Presenting his case for the source, Theobald uses formal
arguments (the counting of the signs 2,11 and 4,54; the gospel’s conclusion; the Semiticising
style); structural arguments (to differentiate between the interpretation of the miracles in the
source and that made by the evangelist); and arguments of internal coherence (an increase –
Steigerung – of the miraculous; the reality of the miracle; the Christology). The content and
structure of the source would be as follows:
0. Title (incipit) (has been lost)
1. Prehistory: John the Baptist and the first disciples of Jesus
Opening (1,6-7; v. 7a a response to 20,31, the source’s ending!)
Baptismal activity?
Questioning of the Baptist (1,19-28)
Baptism of Jesus (?)
The Johannine disciples become disciples of Jesus (1,35-50)
2. Jesus’s first works in Galilee. Between Cana and Cana
The wedding in Cana (2,1-11)
Itinerary (2,12)
Exchange of words between the Baptist and his disciples with scene setting (3,23.25-30)
Itinerary (4,1.3)
Jesus “arrives in a city of Samaria” (4,5-42)
Itinerary (4,43.46a.b)
The second Kana-miracle: The healing of the son of the royal official
3. At the sea of Galilee
Itinerary (6,1.2a)
The feeding of a Galilean multitude (6,3-15)
Jesus walks on the water (6,16-21)
Itinerary (6,22-25)
Hinge between the Galilee and Jerusalem sections (7,3b-4: a fragment)
4. In and around Jerusalem
Itinerary (5,1)
The healing of the lame man at the pool of Bethesda and a conflict about the Sabbath (5,2-16; 7,22-23[?])
The healing of the man born blind and further conflict about the Sabbath (9,1-34)
Itinerary (10,40-42)
The awakening of Lazarus (11,1-44)
Itinerary (11,1-44)
5. The Conclusion (12,37-38+20,30-31)
Theobald emphasises that SQ has the structure of a book. The incipit has been lost, because
the evangelist replaced it with 1,1-5. But both the distinctive ending (20,30-31) and the
beginning (1,6-7+19) are in accordance with the conventional rules of a book. In addition the
miracle narratives are linked together creatively through the itinerary of Jesus and the people

13
Michael THEOBALD, Das Evangelium nach Johannes: Kapitel 1–12 (Regensburger Neues Testament),
Regensburg, Pustet, 2009, pp. 32-44; for the signs source, see esp. 32-42 and 260-361. See also his collected
essays: Studien zum Corpus Iohanneum (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 267).
Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2010.
14
ID., Herrenworte im Johannesevangelium (Herders Biblische Studien, 34), Freiburg – Basel – Wien, Herder,
2002.
15
ID., THEOBALD, Die Fleischwerdung des Logos: Studien zum Verhältnis des Johannesprologs zum Corpus des
Evangeliums und zu 1 Joh (Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, NF 20), Münster, Aschendorff, 1988.
 5

that reoccur in it (John, the disciples of Jesus, the brothers of Jesus and his mother, the
Pharisees, and the people).
According to Theobald, it is best to compare the literary form of the Zeichenquelle to the
collection of miracles that we find in the Old Testament (Exod 7–12; 2 Kgs 4,18–5,27), the
Synoptics (Mark 1,21–2,12; 4,35–5,43; Matt 8–9), and the apocryphal gospels. The structure
also agrees with a broadly distributed early Christian scheme pertaining to the activities of the
Baptist, the baptism of Jesus, the calling of the disciples and Jesus performing miracles (cf. Acts
10,37f.; Mark; and the Sayings Source Q). That the Wunderquelle does not contain any passion
kerygma, does not suffice as an argument against the existence of such a literary form.
Similar accounts to the traditional onsets are also found in Q; where SQ narrates miracles, Q
provides especially the words of Jesus (with the exception of Luke 7,1-10 par. Matt 8,5-10.13
and Lk 11,14-15 par. Matt 8,5–10,13). SQ is clearly a missionary propaganda document. This is
clear, not only from 20,30-31, but also from the emphasis placed on the immensity of the
miracles. Thus the author wanted to surpass all the other competitors, because as messianic
prophet Jesus surpassed all the other miracle workers.
According to Theobald, the redactors of SQ and the community were still members of the
synagogue, because Jesus declares pertinently in 4,22 that salvation comes from the Jews and
Nathanael is called a true Israelite. The breaking of the Sabbath in chapters 5 and 9 happens in
conflict with the Pharisees, the official representatives of the synagogue whom the majority of
the community, in which SQ originated, considered to be enemies. This does not mean that they
had abandoned Israel. Rather, SQ was written as propaganda for the whole of Israel, but not just
for Israel. Theobald believes that the source originated in Palestine or in its vicinity (Southern
Syria). Considering the rivalry with the Baptist movements, one could contemplate the region
around the Jordan Valley.
Along with the commentaries, certain monographs and other contributions defend a source
consisting principally of seven miracles.
In his monograph, Kerygma und Autopsie, J. Rinke (1997)16 asks how the Johannine
community had made the transition “from seeing for one’s self” (autopsy) and “believing” to a
“faith based on the kerygma”. In other words: how does the author of the gospel and the first
Johannine epistle communicate with his readers? Rinke analyses the following five texts from
the gospel, in which the author communicates directly with his readers17: the evangelist’s
epilogue (20,30-31); the redactor’s epilogue (21,24-25); the true witness under the cross
(19,35); the crux exegetica in the dialogue with Nicodemus (3,11); and lastly Jn 1,14-18. This
last text clearly demonstrates how the privilege of the autopsy, formulated in 1,14 using “and
we have seen” (kai; ejqeasavmeqa), is retained on the one hand, and corrected on the other
through the kerygma; thus making it “all seen” to accord with “we have all received” (hJmei'"
pavnte" ejlavbomen) in 1,1618. Such a correction evidently formed part of the evangelist’s
strategy: no longer are the signs just signs indicating the Messiah’s coming, but they are also the
works through which the Son of God manifests himself19. Likewise in the Johannine epistle,
16
Johannes RINKE, Kerygma und Autopsie: Der christologische Disput als Spiegel johanneischer
Gemeindegeschichte (Herders Biblische Studien,12), Freiburg – Basel – Wien, Herder, 1997. Diss. Würzburg,
1996 (promoter: Hans-Josef Klauck).
17
Ibid., pp. 30-78.
18
Ibid., p. 69.
19
Ibid., pp. 79-136 and 137-168.
 6

which was written after the gospel (similarly 2–3 John), “seen” has a central role. This is
deductible from the prologue (1,1-4) as well as 4,15 and 3,2-320. It is clear from an analysis of
the Christological titles that the letter was written after the gospel. Rinke determines that the
titles for Jesus in 1 John – saviour of the world, true God, Messiah, and Son of God – point at a
later evolution21. He demonstrates this by employing three texts which confess that Jesus is the
Messiah and Son of God, and in which their soteriological significance is indicated: 2,18-27
(the community in the end-times); 3,23–4,21 (the earthly existence of Jesus as guideline); and
5,1-13 (the unity of the Messiah and Son of God title).
Based on his research, Rinke distinguishes between three phases in the history of the
community’s theology: the theology of (a) the sources and traditions of the evangelist; (b) the
evangelist himself; (c) 1 John and further redaction of the gospel by a later redactor. He
describes this evolution in eleven paragraphs in his concluding chapter, as follows22:
(1) Christology is the steadfast theme in the literature of the Johannine community. After the
break from the synagogue, the evangelist designed a kerygmatic model to pass the tradition onto
the next generation. In it he criticises a group within his community that holds onto the privilege
of the autopsy. The kerygmatic model emphasises the Son of God title, which is anchored in the
community’s baptismal confession.
(2) The evangelist utilised several traditions from the community in his work, including the
Semeiaquelle and the Passionsgeschichte, which had been set in writing previously. The two
sources formed the basis for the structure of the gospel: the “Book of Signs” and the “Book of
Glory”. The signs source contains a tradition of miracles that had been edited in the Johannine
school prior to the evangelist’s redaction. As shown through the explicit references with
disciples in 2,1-11, the miracles were modified into stories of faith. Furthermore an epilogue
(12,37-38; 20,30-31) was added along with a prooemion containing the baptismal pericope
(1,32-34). The evangelist used additional material to develop the content of the source, and he
criticised the sensory-contingent presentation of faith in the source. The evangelist then applied
the epilogue, distinguishing between none-believers (12,37-38) and believers (20,30-31), as a
conclusion to the “Book of Signs” and the “Book of Glory”. Thereby the positive implications
of the shmei'a could be conveyed onto the resurrection narratives. Neither the tangibility of the
miracles, nor the sensory view, but the resurrection became the foundation for faith in Jesus as
Messiah and Son of God. This is explained through the macarism in 20,29. The miracles are
explained by the evangelist against the background of mission-christology. Only those who
already came to believe are able to interpret the miracles correctly: the miracles lost their
shmei'a-character, and linked to the words of Jesus they have acquired theological significance
as e[rga.
(3) The Christological titles (Messiah, Son of God), which are mentioned in the epilogue, are
given specific narrative and substantive importance by the redaction. The Messiah-title is used
in the confessions of faith as well as in the controversies about the “Messiah-doctrine”; the son
of God title occurs in the confessions of faith and elsewhere in the contexts of the passion and
eschatology. The evangelist thereby interprets the Son of God title as a correction to the
messianic activities of Jesus.

20
Ibid., pp. 170-195 and 196-203.
21
Ibid., pp. 204-241.
22
Ibid., pp. 316-319.
 7

(4) The sociological background for this change is to be found in the controversy over the
privilege of autopsy in the Johannine community. The discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus
(3,1-21) presumably reflects a discussion that took place in the school at the time of the
evangelist. It is argued that a theology founded on soteriology (ta; ejpouravnia) is preferred
above a sacramental theology in the baptism, that is, a sense perceptible sign-Christology
(ta; ejpivgeia).
(5) The evangelist’s kerygmatic intention was lifted from its narrative and its context by a group
within the Johannine school. Based on the evangelist’s adaptation (1,32-34), the baptism of
Jesus became reduced to an eternal gift of the spirit in which those baptised become
participants. It is then emphasised that the consequence of this gift of the spirit is that those who
are baptised essentially no longer sin and are in direct contact with God. The elimination of the
earthly Jesus from the soteriology reflects this tendency, in so far as the kerygma of the Son of
God alone is applicable to the apostates (secessionists) as a baptismal confession.
(6) It is clear that the protagonists of this apostate movement should be localised in the
Johannine school. They convinced a large section of the community, including the rich.
Additionally their influence was even greater because they based themselves on the baptismal
confession and the Gospel of John as accepted parameters of the (entire) community. Since this
kerygmatic relecture of the community traditions by the Evangelist was designed to create a
theology that would bridge the generations, one could assume that these secessionists
presumably belonged to a younger generation of the community.
(7) The Johannine school spilt into two groups, the first a group of secessionists that exhibited
ultra-Johannine traits, and the second a group that defended Johannine orthodoxy, as shown in 1
John.
(8) The Johannine orthodoxy has limited room to manoeuvre in its reaction to the split: on the
one hand the secessionists’ interpretation of the evangelist’s work must be refuted, and on the
other, it is impossible to return to the previous original Christology and theology, which the
evangelist had revised. Therefore the privilege of the autopsy becomes relevant once more in 1
John (1,1-4), but any substantiation on the privilege disappears almost entirely. Based on the
baptismal confessions and the traditions derived from the work of the Evangelist, which became
points of contention and gave rise to the separatist interpretation, a theology was developed.
Due to the work of the Evangelist, this theology emphasised new accents. The significance that
the earthly existence of Jesus holds for the soteriology and Christology is condensed in the
Messiah/Christ title. In line with the work of the evangelist, who had only Jesus’ biographic
activities on which to base his kerygmatic Christology, the Johannine Orthodoxy emphasises
the unity of Jesus’ physicality and pneumatic identity.
(9) In reaction to the schism, the Johannine orthodoxy requests a readctor to perform a relecture
of the traditions. The redactor works cautiously and enriches the gospel with further reflections
on ecclesiology and ethics.
(10) The inclusion of the figure of the beloved disciple as eyewitness in the context of the death
and resurrection of Jesus is the most creative redactional intervention. This disciple is identified
with the author of the whole gospel, thus with the Evangelist, meaning that the revised Gospel
of John, the autopsy privilege, and the kerygmatic intention are indistinguishable. According to
the orthodoxy, an authentic interpretation of the Evangelist’s kerygmatic Christology is only
possible against the background of the eyewitness.
 8

(11) The redaction employed the conventional methods utilised in the Johannine school and by
the Evangelist. There is therefore more continuity than discontinuity between the work of the
evangelist and that of the redaction. It is not the redaction’s intention to correct, but in a
dynamic process, reflect on its own situation by appropriating the tradition. Thereby the
redaction retains the normative function of the Evangelist’s work.
In his study from 1997, under the title Zeichen und Herrlichkeit, H. Riedl strenuously
defended the existence of the Semeiaquelle by indicating the Christological relevance of this
source based on the two Cana miracles (2,1-11 and 4,46-54)23. In his first chapter he describes
how nine proponents of the semeia-hypothesis defend it, and in each case discusses the source’s
content as they had envisaged it, paying attention to their arguments, and views on the source’s
Christological relevance. The authors he treats are: A. Faure, R. Bultmann, R. Schnackenburg,
W. Nicol, J. Becker, J. Gnilka, R.T. Fortna, J. Ashton, and H. Weder24. In addition he provides
two excursions. The first excursion concerns the hypothesis of a Grundevangelium25. He rejects
not only the Grundschrift hypothesis of G. Richter and his students (J. Hainz, H.-J. Kuhn, J.
Wagner and A. Link), but also the hypothesis of R.T. Fortna, who assumes that the fourth
evangelist (= 4E) made use of the Signs Gospel (= SG) in his gospel (= 4G), where the Signs
Source (= SQ) and the Passion Source (= PS) were already associated in the Signs Gospel. In
his second excursion, Riedl discusses my study from 199426. He completely disagrees with my
assessment of the criteria employed by the defenders of the semeia hypothesis. Riedl proceeds
in the next chapters with a communication orientated, text linguistic method. Three elements are
distinguished: text syntax, text semantics, and text pragmatics27. From his analysis of the text’s
syntax (demarcation of the text using colometric divisions, inventory of the compositional and
narrative motifs, analysis of the personages and structuring) and the text’s semantics (notably
the words shmei'on, dovxa and w{ra), he is able to determine the source text of the first two
Johannine signs. Riedl himself warns us to be very cautious, evident in the countless different
results that can be drawn from the diachronic analyses. For the study of the text’s syntax and
semantics, synchronic analysis forms the foundation. But, because Riedl wants to reconstruct
the source text, he cannot escape from a diachronic reading28. He assumes that the synchronic
and the diachronic can be complimentary. Moreover it is necessary to apply both approaches in
order to reconstruct the development of Johannine Christology. According to Riedl, the two first
stages, text syntax and text semantics, form the basis for the text pragmatic analysis, in which it
is inquired to what extent the intention (Wirk- und Mitteilungsabsicht) of the source text (SQ)
presents a innovatorische Sprachhandlung in light of Christology. Riedl concludes that his
research29 on the Christological relevance of SQ in the two Cana stories indicates that the two
signs reveal the intentions of SQ: Jesus’ messiahship and his divinity is indicated narratively
through the signs. The author of the source achieves this through various means. On the one
23
Hermann RIEDL, Zeichen und Herrlichkeit: Die christologische Relevanz der Semeiaquelle in den
Kanawundern Joh 2,1-11 und Joh 4,46-54 (Regensburger Studien zur Theologie, 51), Frankfurt am Main –
Berlin – Bern, Lang, 1997. Diss. Regensburg, 1996 (promoter: Hubert Ritt). On Riedl, see VAN BELLE, The
Meaning of Shmei'a in Jn 20,30-31, in ETL 74 (1998) 300-325, esp. pp. 302-303.
24
RIEDL, Zeichen und Herrlichkeit, 1997, pp. 19-121.
25
Ibid., pp. 76-84.
26
Ibid., pp. 105-117.
27
Ibid., pp. 123-188, 189-261, 263-311.
28
Ibid., pp. 17-18.
29
Ibid., pp. 313-314.
 9

hand he explains the messiahship of Jesus by interpreting elements from the text symbolically
and which establish links with Elijah and Moses. On the other he emphasises Jesus’ divinity
by describing the sign as theophany and he stresses its highly miraculous character. He finds
support for this view in the use of the word dovxa in 2,11b. Riedl maintains that the two
foundational Christological elements (Messiah and Son of God), which explicitly come to the
fore in a narrative form, are also expressed in the source’s conclusion (20,30-31). At the same
time, the Christological significance of the two Cana stories is connected implicitly to
soteriological and eschatological components. The two miracles are highly innovative, but
they incorporate traditional elements to help convey the Christological message of SQ. Riedl
assumes that the author of SQ wrote for a Jewish-Christian public. He does not utilise the
Hellenistic qei'o" ajnhvr typology, rather seeing the fulfilment of the Jewish messianic
expectation in Jesus. Calling Jesus the Son of God shows that the author fully accepts the
divinity of Jesus. According to Riedl, the wine miracle was a clear reaction against the cult of
Dionysus, and the two miracles of Cana correspond to the miracles of Elijah (1 Kgs 17,8-
16.17-24). The Christology of SQ provides an important basis for the further development of
Johannine Christology. The evangelist was not completely negative towards SQ, but
integrated the narrative theology of SQ into his gospel. Like SQ he sees Jesus as Messiah and
Son of God (20,30-31). But as seen in his additions to the two Cana stories (2,4d; 4,48), he is
sometimes critical of the signs. He points out that faith in the signs holds dangers (6,15) and
that the signs are not uniform (6,26). The evangelist emphasises that Jesus has words of
eternal life (6,68) and that those people that do not see and still believe are blessed (20,29).
The evangelist thus wants to guide the development of his readers’ faith through the
corrective change in emphasis. Where people came to faith based on the signs that Jesus is the
Messiah and the Son of God in SQ, the evangelist wants to lead the people from a faith based
on the signs to a faith in the word and name of Jesus. The miracles in SQ signify the power of
Jesus, who performs miracles independently from his Father. Therefore the marvel has the
character of an epiphany of God, and therefore the miracles reveal the dovxa of Jesus. But for
the evangelist the decisive hour (w{ra) of Jesus’ self-revelation is not set in the signs, but in
the hour of the exaltation and glory. The whole of Jesus’ mission is directed at this salvific
hour and its purpose is to grant eternal life to people. At the same time, the evangelist is
emphasising the unity of father and son, whereby Jesus’ acts and hour correspond with the
will of the Father. Riedl emphasises that SQ and the gospel cannot be ascribed to the same
theologian, and concludes from his study that the tensions in content, the shifts in
Christological emphasis, and the corrections, indicate that the same author could not have
been responsible for both of them.
That Riedl only analyses the two Cana stories in detail does not mean that he limits the
Zeichenquelle to them. In reference to Riedl’s work, in 1996 his promoter defended that the
evangelist had a written Wunderanthologie containing seven miracles at his disposal30. This
anthology of miracles is called a Semeiaquelle due to the summation of the first and second sign
(shmei'on):

30
Hubert RITT, Vom Wunderglauben zum Bekenntnisglauben, in Heinrich PETRI – Georg SCHMUTTERMAYER,
KARL HAUSBERGER – Wolfgang BEINERT – Georg HILGER (eds.), Glaubensvermittlung im Umbruch. Festschrift
fur Bischof Manfred Müller, Regensburg, Friedrich Pustet, 1996, 63-82.
 10

Place Contents Literary Form

Cana in Galilee 1. Changing water in wine (2,1-11) Gift miracle
Cana in Galilee 2. The son of the royal official (4,46-54) Miracle from distance
Sea of Galilee 3. The Great Feeding Miracle (6,1-13) Gift miracle
Sea of Galilee 4. Jesus walking on the sea (6,16-21) Epiphany
Jerusalem 5. The crippled man at the pool of Bethesda (5,1-9) Healing miracle
Jerusalem 6. The man born blind (9,1-12) Healing miracle
Bethany (Jerusalem) 7. The raising of Lazarus (11,1-44) Resuscitation story
According to Ritt the source ends at Jn 20,30-31a, where its apologetic intentions are
clearly demonstrated. The author indicates that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God by
emphasising the miraculous nature of the signs. The evangelist corrects the author’s view on
the shmei'a by adding: kai; i{na pisteuvonte" zwh;n e[chte ejn tw'/ ojnovmati aujtou'. The term
shmei'on has a deeper meaning for the evangelist: people must not only base their belief that
Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God (as in the source) on the signs, but they must also believe
in the life-giving word of Jesus and they must enrich their faith in Jesus, who is the Son of the
Father. The evangelist explains this particularly in the great revelation discourse in 6,25-51b,
where Jesus is presented as the Living Bread (cf. the important self-revelation formula ejgwv
eijmi in Joh 6,35.40.41.48.51) and in the conversation between Jesus and Martha in 11,22-27.
Whoever believes in the “eternal life”, that is whoever prevails over the experience of death in
Christ, has already accomplished the “passing through” from the realm of death to the
kingdom of the living, that is to say, he has crossed over to the indestructible, divinely gifted,
eternal life.
We may also make mention of R. Nordsieck (1998)31, who keeps count of a
Zeichenquelle” in his enquiry into the author and origin of the Fourth Gospel. He maintains
that Lazarus is the beloved disciple. Several texts are offered as proof to substantiate this
assertion. It is mentioned pertinently in the gospel that Jesus loved Lazarus (John 11,3.5.36).
This claim is also made of the rich young man (Mark 10,21) and the youth who is raised by
Jesus in Bethany according to the Secret Gospel of Mark. Nordsieck reconstructs the source of
the story in John 11 from this last text. According to Nordsieck, Lazarus stems from the
aristocracy of the high priest, and he was a former disciple of the Baptist, and he must be
identified with the presbyter called John. This disciple had firstly written a Grundschrift (a
basic writing) compiled from different sources. Besides a Zeichen-Quelle and a
Passionsquelle, he used especially a Discourse- or Zoe-Quelle. The Grundschrift, which also
contains the passages about the beloved disciple, originated between 64 and 70. The same
author revised the Grundschrift, added the prologue and Chapter 21, and consequently wrote
the three Johannine letters. This happened in Ephesus between 100 and 110. After the
presbyter’s death, a disciple or a group of disciples published the gospel anew in its current
order.

31
Reinhard NORDSIECK, Johannes: Zur Frage nach Verfasser und Entstehung des vierten Evangeliums,
Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1998. See also ID., Zum Geheimnis des Lazarus: Zur Frage nach
Verfasser und Entstehung des Johannes-Evangeliums, Münster, LIT Verlag, 2010.
 11

2. Second Model: The Gospel of Signs or The Signs Gospel

R.T. Fortna’s two monographs on “The Gospel of Signs” (1970) or the “Signs Gospel”
(1988) are undeniably mile stones in Johannine research32. To my knowledge his hypothesis
that the source of the Fourth Gospel was a lengthier writing and contained miracles and a
passion narrative has been adopted in three commentaries since 1994.
D. Moody Smith, who previously had been rather reserved about the semeia hypothesis33,
was less sceptical after reading Fortna’s The Gospel of Signs. He too acknowledges Fortna’s
hypothesis in his commentary (1999), seen where he discusses the sources of the evangelist:
“Quite possibly the author drew upon an earlier collection of miracle stories already joined to
a passion narrative (Fortna 1970, 1988)”34. In his commentary on 4,54, he indicates the
hypothetical nature of the source35:
The statement that this is the second sign is curiously qualified: “after coming from Judaea to Galilee” (v.
54). Are we to think that Jesus had done a previous sign just now in Galilee that is not recounted? Moreover,
why are these signs numbered, while others in the Gospel are not? Has the evangelist perhaps incorporated
these signs form a sign source (Bultmann 1971,113) or Sign Gospel (Fortna 1970, 1988)? If so, this would
explain the source of John’s miracle tradition without recourse to the other Gospels. Also, at two crucial
points, the end of Jesus’ public ministry (12:37; cf. also 11:47) and the end of the Gospel proper (20:30), the
ministry is described simply as the performance of signs, as would befit the conclusion of a Sign Gospel or
sign source, but seems odd as a characterization of Jesus’ ministry in the Fourth Gospel as we have it. On the
one hand, it is quite difficult to imagine that these and other Johannine miracles stories were constructed on
the basis of the synoptic narratives. On the other, the search for a source within a single document, with few
if any external points of comparison, is bound of various theories, some more probable than others, but none
capable of eliciting the kind of following that Markan priority (and the use by Matthew and Luke) demands.
The source-critical task is daunting. …
Similarly in his commentary on 20,30-31, he points out that the reconstruction of the source is
a challenging undertaking36:
Both statements [i.e. 12:37; 20-30-31)] have been construed as the ending, or part of the ending, of a signs
source, a collection upon which the evangelist drew (see Bultmann 1971, 452, 698). (That John drew on a
source of miracle stories different from the Synoptics is an entirely plausible hypothesis, but the delineation
of the source material within the Gospel has proved a daunting task.) …
Whatever the origin of the statement of 20:30, however, it is best taken as a summation of the entire Gospel,
and not of Jesus resurrection appearances only. In that case the use of “signs” fits better, if not perfectly. Of
course if the present form of the Gospel were based on an earlier Signs Gospel (Bultmann 1971; Fortna 1970;
1988), such a summation would be quite appropriate.
There are two other commentaries that have embraced the semeia-hypothesis of Fortna in
their rather more complex literary theories on the origins of the gospels.
In preparation for his commentary (2008), F. Siegert published a booklet on his literary
theory in 2004 detailing his views on the first redaction of the Fourth Gospel, under the title
32
Robert T. FORTNA, The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth
Gospel (Society for New Testament Studies MS, 11), Cambridge, University Press, 1970. Diss. New York, Union
Theological Seminary, 1965 (dir. J. Luis Martyn); ID., The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor: From Narrative
Source to Present Gospel, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress Press, 1988.
33
See Van BELLE, Signs Source, 1994, pp. 53-55, 165-166,184-197. On D.M. Smith, see Robert KYSAR, The
Contribution of D. Moody Smith to Johannine Scholarship, in R. Alan CULPEPPER – C. Clifton BLACK (eds.),
Exploring the Gospel of John. In Honor of D. Moody Smith, Louisville KY, Westminster John Knox, 1996, 3-17;
Frans NEIRYNCK, The Question of John and the Synoptics: D. Moody Smith 1992-1999, in ETL 76 (2000) 122-
132; = ID., Evangelica III: 1992-2000. Collected Essays (BETL, 150), Leuven, Peeters, 2001, 616-628.
34
D. Moody SMITH, John (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), Nashville TN, Abingdon, 1999, p. 32.
35
Ibid., p. 124; see also p. 83 (on John 2,11).
36
Ibid., p. 385; see also p. 242. See also ID., The Theology of the Gospel of John (New Testament Theology).
Cambridge – New York, Cambridge University Press, 1995, p. 108; ID., John among the Gospels, Columbia SC,
University of South Carolina Press, 22001, passim.
 12

Der Erstenwurf des Johannes37. According to the author38, the Fourth Gospel is “a monument
in pieces”, which has come to us like “an overstuffed bag that is bursting at its seams”. Using
the proverbial literary seams, which E. Schwartz (1907/08) had labelled “aporias”, several
authors have attempted to reconstruct an earlier stage of the clearly revised gospel. But all
such attempts – like that of R. Bultmann for example – according to Siegert, end up in an
aporia themselves, where once the piece had been cut, it could no longer be reconnected.
According to Siegert the current gospel would have developed in three phases, where each
phase would correspond with a generation of early Christianity in Asia Minor39.
1. In the pre-Johannine, non-synoptic, traditional material (vorjohanneisches
nichtsynoptisches Traditionsgut or VNT, dated before A.D. 70), the main focus falls on Jesus
who performs the “signs” of the Messiah. Reactions to Jesus are divided, but amongst the
public he has no adversaries. From the beginning to the conclusion he is presented as the Son
of God. There are no traces yet of a theology or a Christology as found, for example, in the Q
source. VNT consists of a Zeichenquelle (= SQ) as well as a pre-Johannine passion narrative
(= SQ), for which Siegert depends on the “Gospel of Signs” (“Zeichen-Evangelium” or
“Sèmeia-Evangelium”; = SE), which Fortna reconstructed in French in 1970 and Siegert had
now translated into German (Siegert took note of the modifications that Fortna had effected
over the years)40.
2. The first version of John or the Johannine Gospel (= Joh. I, written before A.D. 117)
appeared some time later. The Jewish Logos is personified in Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus’
adversaries are the “Judeans”, described by Flavius Josephus as a de facto aristocracy in
Jerusalem. The Pharisees, represented in Nicodemus, continue to be interested in Jesus, but
none of them become a witness of a meeting with the resurrected Lord. The first edition of the
Fourth Gospel carried many authentic Jewish characteristics and is thus Jewish-Christian.
According to Siegert the external as well as the internal sources indicate that “the evangelist
John” was not the apostle John, son of Zebedee, but more probably was “the Elder” of the
community in Ephesus, who presents himself in the gospel as the beloved disciple and the
other disciple. He is also the author of the second and third Johannine letters. Moreover, he
used the synoptic gospels of Matthew and Luke. After the first pagan-Christian versions of
Mark (from a Roman perspective) and Luke (from a Greek perspective), came the Gospel of
Matthew, who being a Jewish Christian, and wished to correct the Gospel of Luke. Matthew
is therefore the first Jewish-Christian gospel and Joh. I, then, is the second Jewish-Christian
example of the canonical gospels.
3. Multiple epigones are responsible for a few additions and the current arrangement of the
present Fourth Gospel or the deutero-Johannine work. (= Joh. II, written ca. 130 A.D.). The
canonical gospel as we now have it is a dualistic-pessimistic construct (compare 1 Jn 5,19), in
which it is not possible for either the world (more or less synonymous for the Jews) or the
Jews to accept the Logos. The Pharisees have now become the sworn adversaries of Jesus,

37
Folker SIEGERT, Der Erstentwurf des Johannes: Das ursprüngliche, judenchristliche Johannesevangelium in
deutscher Übersetzung vorgestellt nebst Nachrichten über den Verfasser und zwei Briefen von ihm (2./3. Joh.)
(Münsteraner Judaistische Studien: Wissenschaftliche Beiträge zur christlich-jüdischen Begegnung, 16),
Münster, LIT, 2004.
38
Ibid., p. 7-8.
39
Ibid., pp. 10-11.
40
Ibid.., pp. 92-106.
 13

which is also the case of Jewish Christians who are now described as children of the devil
(8,1-45). The synthesis between Judaism and Christianity, formulated with Jesus as the Word
become flesh and as the risen Lord, is terminated. The anti-Jewish obscenities stems from this
period.
Siegert’s commentary of 2008 is foremost a commentary on the original form of the Fourth
Gospel (Joh. I). He develops his hypothesis on the origins of the Fourth Gospel41. One year
later, in 2009, Siegfried Bergler studied the two Cana stories using Siegert’s literary theory as
a guideline42. He asked what significance Cana held for the Jewish-Christian community and
determined common points of contact with Cana in both the Cana miracles. The wine miracle
(John 2,1-11) reminds of the Dionysus cult, which was very active in the direct vicinity of
Cana; the healing of the son of the royal official refers to the healing from a distance by the
Jewish miracle worker Hanina ben Dosa in ‘Arav, near Cana. Berger offers the following
German reconstruction of the Zeichen-Quelle (verses marked with an asterisk* contain shorter
or longer adaptations from Jn. I or Jn. II)43:
1. The witness of the Baptist in Bethany/Perea: 1,6*.7*.19*.20-23.28;
2. The first disciples: 1,35*.36-37.38*-40.41*.42*.43-48.49*;
3. Jesus as the Baptist in Judea: 3,22-24;
4. Jesus in Samaria: 4,4-7.9.16-19.28-30; 4,40.42*.43.
5. The first sign in Cana: 2,1*.2.*3*.6*.7-10.11*;
6. The second sign in Cana: 2,12*; 4,46*.47*.50*.51-52.53*.54*;
7. The first sign at sea of Tiberius: 6,1*.5.7-10.11*.14*;
8. The second sign at the sea of Tiberius: 6,16.17*.19-21.22*.25;
9. The third sign at the sea of Tiberius: 21,1.2*.3.4*.5-6.8*.11.14*;
10. Journey to Jerusalem: 7,1*.2*.10*;
11. The entry into Jerusalem: 12,12-15;
12. The actions in the temple: 2,14-16;
13. The first sign in Jerusalem: 5,2.3a.5-7.8*.9*.14;
14. The second sign in Jerusalem: 9,1.2*.6*.7*.8-9;
15. A delay in Bethany/Perea: 10,40-41;
16. The third sign in Jerusalem: 11,1.3.17-19.21.23.26*.27.38*.39*.41*.43*.44;
17. The conclusion of the signs source: 20,30*.31.
What is prominent is that the Zeichenquelle and Jn. I, which follows the Zeichenquelle,
knows of only one journey to Jerusalem.
Bergler’s reconstruction of the Zeichenquelle was incorporated by Siegert in his “Synopsis
of the Pre-canonical Jesus traditions” (Synopse der vorkanonischen Jesusüberlieferungen) in
201044, which served as a basis for his “Life of Jesus” of the same year45. According to
Bergler one should not combine the two sources of the Fourth Gospel, as done by Fortna and
Siegert, but they should be placed alongside each other: the Zeichenquelle, which begins at
the Jordan, leading over Samaria and Galilee to Jerusalem, offers a wholly unproblematic link

41
ID., Das Evangelium des Johannes in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt: Wiederherstellung und Kommentar
(Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum, 7), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008.
42
Siegfried BERGLER, Von Kana in Galiläa nach Jerusalem: Literarkritik und Historie im vierten Evangelium
(Münsteraner Judaistische Studien: Wissenschaftliche Beiträge zur christlich-jüdischen Begegnung, 24),
Münster, LIT, 2009.
43
Ibid., pp. 427-441.
44
Folker SIEGERT – Siegfried BERGLER, Synopse der vorkanonischen Jesusüberlieferungen: Zeichenquelle und
Passionsbericht, die Logienquelle und der Grundbestand des Markusevangeliums in deutschen Übersetzung
gegenübergestellt von Folker SIEGERT. Rekonstruktion der Zeichenquelle von Siegfried BERGLER (Schriften des
Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum, 8/1), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010.
45
Folker SIEGERT, Das Leben Jesu: Eine Biographie aufgrund der vorkanonischen Überlieferungen (Schriften
des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum, 8/1), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010.
 14

to the passion message. Notably Bergler assumes that the Zeichenquelle had been recorded in
writing and that the Message of Passion (Passionsbericht) in the Johannine Community was
still delivered orally to the evangelist John. Apart from SQ and PB, the synopsis also provides
the Logienquelle of Q and the core or Grundbestand of the Gospel of Mark. All these “pre-
canonical traditions” are translated into German. It is not possible to discuss this complex and
for some questionable literary approach of Siegert here in detail, certainly it requires closer
attention.
U.C. von Wahlde, who had previously described and reconstructed “The Gospel of Signs”
in his monograph, “The Earliest Version of John’s Gospel” (1989)46, further developed his
hypothesis on the Gospel and the Johannine letters in his three-part commentary of 201047. He
offers a detailed account of his method and literary theory in its first part. In the Introduction
he pays attention to the “aporias”48. These aporias as “literary seams” are “the features that
suggest that the present Gospel has undergone editing”. They are recognisable in their
“Wiederaufnahme” and other resumptive devices. Further, von Wahlde presents the results of
his research. He assumes that the Gospel had known three editions, and he situates these
within the five stages of the literary, theological and social history of the Johannine
Community. We will trace his description closely49.
(1) The first edition of the Gospel (ca. A.D. 55-65?) contains a complete narrative of the
ministry of Jesus including all the miracles from the Gospel, and includes the narrative of his
passion, death and resurrection. This first edition was constructed around the ever increasing
miraculous presentation of the wonders and ever increasing faith of the people. This is
contrasted by the ever increasing animosity of the authorities. The source uses the words
Pharisees”, “chief priests”, and “rulers” to designate the religious authorities, and it uses the
word “signs” for miracles. The Christology is traditional Jewish: Jesus is presented as being
greater than Moses. The description of the events is generally accepted to be historically
accurate and is meant to preserve the traditions that are not found elsewhere in the gospels.
The theology is similarly traditional Jewish and the community was Jewish Christian. The
text reveals a noteworthy knowledge of the places where Jesus appeared and was presumably
written in Judea before the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. The text certainly originated
in Judea, considering the fact that this region is so central. We do not have precise
information on the author and the dating is also speculative.
(2) In the period that followed the first edition, the community reflected on the significance of
Jesus’ appearances and thus developed a deeper theological understanding that brought it into
conflict with Judaism. Although the most important reason for the conflict was that the
majority of the Jews did not recognise Jesus as the messiah, the “high Christology” became a
unique point of discussion. This evolution led to expulsions from the synagogue and even
deaths. The second edition (A.D. 60-65) resulted from this conflict with the Jews in the
46
See VAN BELLE, The Signs Source, 1994, pp. 243-249.
47
Urban C. VON WAHLDE, The Gospel and Letters of John. Vol. 1: Introduction, Analysis, and Reference; Vol.
2: Commentary on the Gospel of John Vol. 3: Commentary on the Three Johannine Letters (Eerdmans Critical
Commentary), Grand Rapids MI – Cambridge UK, Eerdmans, 2010.
48
VON WAHLDE, John, 2010, vol. I, pp. 10-12: “The Features that Suggest the Present Gospel Has Undergone
Editing: The Aporias”; pp. 12-16: “Past Attempts to Deal with Aporias”; 16-22: “The Criteria Used in Earlier
Analyses” (esp. p. 17); pp. 22-34: “The Approach Employed in This Analysis” (esp. pp. 23-25).
49
Ibid., pp. 50- 55: “An Overview of the History of the Johannine Community Together with an Overview of the
Documents it Produced”.
 15

synagogue, and it was particularly interested in the debate with the “official Judaism”, for
which the term “the Jews” was used. The debate concerned the claims Jesus made about
himself: he gave himself to those whom the Father sent to do the work of the Father and for
the Son of God. “The Jews” accused Jesus of blasphemy because he called God his own
father and claimed that he was equal to God. An important element of the second edition’s
theology is the conviction that Jesus is the eschatological outpouring of God’s Spirit and that
those who believe in Jesus will receive the Spirit after his glorification. The prerogatives for
receiving the Spirit consist – as told in the Old Testament – in the believer being radically
renewed and that he will know eternal life in the present times, he will not experience
judgment, will have direct knowledge of God, and will have no need for ethical or religious
rules. Accepting the claims of Jesus was very important, because the receiving of the spirit
depended on this faith. Note that this faith was more comprehensive than that reported in the
first edition, not only pertaining to the signs but also to the witnesses on Jesus that the
Christian believed: the witness of the Baptist, of the “works” (the characteristic word for
miracles in the second edition), of Jesus self (through the word of Jesus) and the witness of
the Scriptures. The author of the second edition used a lot of material from the first, but he
concentrated more on the complex theology and the theme of witnesses to Jesus. At the onset
of the Gospel, the apostles answer positively to these witnesses. But as the Gospel progresses,
when these witnesses are presented to the Jews in chapters 6–10, the Jews do not believe.
The second edition blended the horizon of Jesus’ appearances with the horizon of the later
Johannine community. The Jews and others, who did not believe during Jesus’ public life and
misunderstood the words of Jesus, were found to be guilty, because within the horizon of the
community, the Spirit had already been poured out and unbelief was a sin. Therefore too, the
people who came to believe during Jesus’ public life were driven from the synagogue,
because this expulsion occurred in the Johannine community. While the first edition carried
accurate historical knowledge of Jerusalem, Palestine, and Jewish customs, the second edition
contained a few elements that were anachronistic regarding Jesus’ appearances; though they
reflect the theology and historical situation of the community from the latter third of the first
century. This community was Jewish-Christian and indeed was located in Judea. The dating is
speculative.
(3) After the traumatic events of its severance from the synagogue, the Johannine community
experienced another crisis: internally opinions were divided on the essence of their own
tradition: one group in the community based their view on a literal interpretation of the second
edition of the gospel regarding the promise of the outpouring of the Spirit and the associated
prerogatives. This led to a conflict and resulted in this group being cut from the community;
the departure took place just prior to the writing of the first Johannine letter. In reaction to this
conflict, the presbyter (“the Elder”), who was the eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry and as
eyewitness lies behind the Johannine tradition as it is preserved in the canonical Gospel, wrote
the first Johannine letter (A.D. 65-70?) to clarify the tradition. He corrects the views of his
opponents in the letter by formulating a statement on the tradition. He is seeking a balance
between the role of Jesus and the role of the Spirit so that he can retain the significance of
both. The Elder consequently introduces an apocalyptic worldview for the events that have
taken place and those that must still happen. While the second edition of the gospel found
support in the conceptual background and worldview of the Jewish Scriptures, the conceptual
 16

background of 1 John is apocalyptic and has remarkable similarities with the background of
the Sectarian Documents from Qumran (= SQD) and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
(= T12P). Within the Johannine theology of 1 John, the themes of “light” and “love” play
prominent roles and dominate respectively the first and second parts of the epistle. Some time
later, the author, who was very advances in age and thus called himself “the Elder”, sent 2 and
3 John to deal with problems that had risen in outlying communities.
(4) The elder died in ca. A.D. 80-90 (?) between the time that 3 John and the third edition of
the gospel was written. During this time the Johannine community felt it necessary to explain
how it relates to the Great Church, regarding both the tradition of the gospel and the
leadership of Peter.
(5) Shortly after the death of the Elder, a final edition of the gospel was prepared that had a
dual intention. Firstly this edition was to enshrine the tradition as it was described by the
Elder of 1 John, whom the community now call “the Beloved Disciple” in the Gospel. The
author of this last edition thus sees the authentic tradition of Jesus in this tradition. Secondly
this edition emphasised new themes and explained other points of faith in the community.
These are: faith in the bodily resurrection of the dead, the meaning of rituals like Baptism, the
Eucharist and forgiveness of sins. Thereupon it also attempts to clarify the relation between
the Johannine and the synoptic traditions and between the authority of the Johannine
community, which could be traced back to the witness of the Beloved Disciple and the
leadership of the great Church, symbolised in the person of Peter. The third edition provides
the same apocalyptic worldview as 1 John and reveals similarities with SQD and T12P. A
thematic arrangement that corresponds to the structure of 1 John was implemented in the third
edition. The themes that Jesus is the “light” and that he is “loving” thus dominate the
narratives of the public appearances and the passion. The community was located in Asia
Minor, presumably in Ephesus. Here too the dating is uncertain, but the three editions of the
Gospel were certainly completed before P52.
When discussing the three editions of the gospel, von Wahlde follows the same pattern50.
First he provides a general overview, then he analyses the criteria he used to identify the
editions, and thereupon he offers a synthesis. In the synthesis of the first edition, for example,
he pays attention to the structure, the theology, the literary genre, the world view, the identity
and social location of the community at that time, the historicity of the material, and the
relation to the Synoptics. After reconstructing the three editions of the gospel, he provides a
history of the development of Johannine theology, and in a fifth part, the texts of the gospel,
the Fourth Gospel and a comprehensive bibliography. In the text of the Fourth Gospel, the
first edition is indicated in regular type, the second edition in italic typeface, and the third
edition in bold. The following verses belong to the Signs Source (an asterisk indicates that
words or clauses were added in the second or third edition)51:

50
Ibid., pp. 57-135: “Part 1: The First Edition of the Gospel”; pp. 137-227: “Part 2: The Second Edition of the
Gospel”; 229-393: “Part 2: The Third Edition of the Gospel”; pp. 395-560: “Part 4: A History of the
Development of Johannine Theology”.
51
For this reconstruction in English, see “The Text of the Gospel” (pp. 561-609), where “The material of the first
edition is indicated by regular type face. The material of the second edition is indicated by italic typeface. The
material of the third edition is indicated by bold typeface. In the Prologue and in Chapter 21, the material of
othere sources is indicated by SMALL CAPITALS”.
 17

I. “The Wondrous Signs of Jesus: The Belief of the People and the Unbelief of the Pharisees, Chief Priests and
Rulers”: 1,19*.22*.2-24.27-28.35*.36*.37-39.40-42.46-49 | 2,1*.2-3.5-10.11*.12 | 2,13.23; 3,1-2 | 3,22-23; 3,25-
26 | 4,1*.3 | 4,4-9.16-18.25-30.39| 4,43*.45 | 4,46.47*.49-54| 6,1*.2 | 6,3-5.7-14 | 6,16.17*18-21 | 5,1-3a.3-9 |
7,26*.27.31-32.40*.41-52 |
9,1.6*.7-17.24-34 | 10,19-21 | 10,40-41 | 11,1.3.11*.12-14.17-22.28*.29-31.32-37.38-39.43*.45-46.47-50.53 |
11,54 | 11,55-57 | 12,1.2* | 12,9-11 | 12,17-19 | 12,20-22
II. “The Passion and the Resurrection of Jesus”: 18,1*.2-3.4*.5.10-11 |18,19-24.25*.26-27 | 18,28-29 | 18,33-35 |
18,38b.39-40 | 19,1-3 | 19,5-6 | 19,13-16a | 19,16b-22 | 19,25 | 19,31*.39-42 | 20,1.11*.12-13.14-16 | 20,30-31a |
The content of the first edition has remained relatively unchanged from von Wahlde’s
work in 1989. Regarding the criteria, he distinguished between four categories (characteristic
terminology, characteristics of narrative orientation, theological characteristics, features of the
first edition) and now offers a total of 28 criteria52, thus more than in 1989. It is noteworthy
that he does not use the designation “the Gospel of Signs” when discussing the first edition. In
the scope of this seminar it is not possible to analyse his commentary further. But I do wish to
emphasise that his detailed and comprehensive attention to the criteria – in which he
distinguishes between “characteristics” and “features”53 – for the demarcation of different
literary layers, is unique in recent scholarship of the Fourth Gospel.
In JBL of 1996 R.T. Fortna wrote a stern review on my study of 1995. I cite the first
paragraph54:
This work attempts a massive refutation of the signs-source hypothesis. As its chief target, I hardly know
whether to be flattered or simply puzzled by its publication. It is twenty-five years since my version of the
signs-source hypothesis appeared, reviving and refining Bultmann’s theory, and most scholars have long
since made up their minds about its validity and usefulness. One reason for this work’s appearance only now
is the prodigious effort that has gone into it; virtually every study that somehow discusses the hypothesis has
been read, criticized, and infinitesimally cross-referenced. Another, and perhaps the controlling, reason is the
role this work seeks to play in the ongoing campaign of the Leuven school to establish Johannine dependence
on the Synoptic Gospels. It is curious, however, that such a study should be needed. The signs-gospel
hypothesis is an attempt inter alia, to account for the synoptic-like matter in the Fourth Gospel if, as many
believe, it made no significant use of the Synoptics. But if such use is maintained, as above all at Leuven, the
hypothesis – of a non-extant document, reconstructed solely by internal analysis of the text of the Fourth
Gospel – need not to be refuted, it is simply obviated. In more ways than one, then, this book is an exercise in
scholarly overkill.
In my conclusion below I will to return to this evaluation of my work. It needs to be
remembered that Fortna paid further attention to the signs-source hypothesis in numerous
subsequent publications. Here I will discuss just two of these contributions.
The first contribution appeared in 2004, in a volume entitled Jesus in Johannine
Tradition55. Several authors contributed and it was edited by Fortna himself and T. Thatcher.
In the Introduction, T. Thatcher, clearly describes the aim of the volume: “This book is about
the Johannine Jesus tradition, the oral and written materials the Fourth Evangelist (FG) used
to create the Gospel of John. Its purpose is not to outline that tradition or to establish its inner
or outer limits, but rather to take a serious look at the issues and questions to be addressed in

52
Ibid., pp. 63-104: “Section Two: The Criteria Used for the Identification of the Material of the First Edition”.
53
Ibid., p. xliii: “Characteristics: These are traits of the Gospel that are used in the identification of the material
from the variations editions. Features: These are traits of the Gospel that emerge from the analysis and can be
seen to appear consistently in a given edition. However, this consistency appears only later and so is
distinguished from the characteristics”.
54
Robert Thompson FORTNA, in Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (1996) 748-750.
55
Robert T. FORTNA – Tom THATCHER (eds.), Jesus in Johannine Tradition, Louisville KY, Westminster John
Knox, 2001.
 18

reconstructing the process that produced our Fourth Gospel (FG)”56. In a short overview, T.
Thatcher notes that “academic interest in the Johannine Jesus tradition has increased
considerably in the last decades” and that “recent studies in this area may be divided into four
categories, based on their conclusions about the kind of the materials the Fourth Evangelist
used and create the Fourth Gospel”57. These are58: the oral tradition theory (C.H. Dodd, B.
Lindars, D.A. Carson, T. Thatcher), the written source theory (R. Bultmann, R.T. Fortna, W.
Nicol, S. Temple, U.C. von Wahlde), the synoptic dependence theory (F. Neirynck and the
“Leuven School”, W.G. Kümmel, C.K. Barrett, T. Brodie), and the developmental theory
(J.L. Martyn, R.E. Brown, J. Painter). With the volume the editors hoped to reflect on the
tensions between these theories, and for this reason they solicited thirty essays, which
represent numerous differing perspectives. Twenty-eight authors were selected on the basis of
their expertise, though a number of them were not Johannine scholars. All agreed to explore
the Johannine Jesus tradition. The volume is divided into three parts, dealing with (1) “The
Fourth Gospel and Jesus”; (2) “The Fourth Evangelist’s Sources”; (3) “The Fourth Gospel and
Noncanonical Literature”. For Part 2, “the authors have been asked to focus their discussion
not only on specific sources that the Fourth Evangelist may have used, but on the ways he
may have used them and how this has shaped the presentation of Jesus in the Fourth
Gospel”59. This part itself is divided into three sections: (1) “John and the Synoptic Gospels”,
(2) “The Signs Gospel”, and (3) “Oral Tradition”. In the second section of Part 2, four articles
are devoted to The Signs Gospel. One was written by R.T. Fortna; for the three other articles,
written by T. Thatcher, T. Felton and S.C. Winter, see below.
R.T. Fortna discusses the Jesus Tradition in the Signs Gospel in two steps60. First he deals
with “the hypothesis”, where he confesses that he still believes in his Signs Gospel. For him,
“the hypothesis is, and no less clearly than before, the best way to understand a major stage in
the development of the Fourth Gospel”61. Neither the defenders of the Fourth Gospel’s
stylistic unity, neither the defenders of John’s dependence on the Synoptics, nor the
application of folkloristics to New Testament studies could radically alter his thinking62.
(a) He considers the so-called stylistic unity of the Fourth Gospel63 as “a chimera” and
referring to Tom Stoppard’s Arcadia (1993), he notes: “It can’t prove to be true, it can only
not prove to be false yet”64. According to Fortna: “FG’s stylistic unity can be asserted only so

56
Tom THATCHER, Introduction / Conclusion: New Directions, in Robert T. FORTNA – Tom THATCHER (eds.),
Jesus in Johannine Tradition, Louisville KY, Westminster John Knox, 2001, 1-9, 353-358, esp. p. 1.
57
Ibid., p. 2.
58
Ibid., pp. 2-7.
59
Ibid., p. 114.
60
Robert T. FORTNA, Jesus Tradition in the Signs Gospel, in Robert T. FORTNA – Tom THATCHER (eds.), Jesus
in Johannine Tradition, Louisville KY, Westminster John Knox, 2001, 199-208.
61
Ibid., p. 199.
62
Ibid., p. 199. With regard to the content of the Signs Gospel, Fortna notes: “It is true that since may first book
(1970) I have made several revisions in the reconstruction (I prefer, of course, to think of it as ‘recovery,’
however inexact). I no longer think that a source behind the stories of the Samaritan woman in John 4 or of
Jesus’ supper with his disciples (chap. 12) can be recovered. And following D. Moody Smith …, I now include
John12,37-40 in the Signs Gospel (SG) as both explanation for the officials’ plot against Jesus and transition to
the passion account”. For his most recent version of SG in English, Fortna refers to Robert MILLER (ed.), The
Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version. Revised Edition, Sonoma, CA, Polebridge, 1994, pp. 175-193;
see now also the Fourth edition, Salem, OR, 2010, pp. 185-202.
63
FORTNA, art. cit., pp. 200.
64
Tom STOPPARD, Arcadia, London, Faber & Faber, 1993, p. 94.
 19

long as no reconstructed source uses a style distinguishable from the rest of the FG”. Fortna is
convinced that the “SG does have such a distinct style”. This had been effectively indicated
by the stylometric research of T. Felton (see infra).
(b) Regarding the discussion on synoptic dependence65, Fortna concedes that the stories in the
Fourth Gospel are indeed synoptic-like, but are still different from the synoptic parallels and
according to him reflect a pre-synoptic tradition. If one were to accept that the fourth
evangelist used the synoptic gospels, then the usage of the Synoptics would be “intricate and
untraceable except by the most ingenious imagining”. In such a case redaction-criticism is
near impossible. But when one accepts that a proto-gospel like SG was used by the evangelist,
and if this source could in any way be reconstructed, then one could regularly discover how
the fourth evangelist used this source and what he was thinking when he made the changes.
Fortna concludes: “It is, then, the redaction-critical value of the source analysis of FG that
suggests (it does not prove) the existence of a narrative source as the vehicle by which the
synoptic-like material cam to FE [the Fourth Evangelist]. It came via an early, rather primitive
gospel, that was reshaped and amplified by the evangelist – but not obliterated, since it retains
its pre-Johannine character”66. (c) On the value of folkloristics67, which studies how the oral
tradition functioned and changed within the tradition, Fortna holds the opinion that this
discipline cannot explain when the oral transmission was recorded in writing. He determines
that “both the similarities to and differences from the synoptic tradition that are evident in the
stories of FG must accounted for. A fluid oral tradition at some point became more or less
fixed prose. That implies a written source behind FG”.
In a second step Fortna discusses especially the historical value of the Signs Gospel and
treats respectively “the signs of Jesus”, “the passion story” and “the sayings of Jesus”68.
(a) In response to the question: “Do we have … a hypothetical document that takes us back
closer to the deeds, especially the reported miracles, of the historical Jesus?”, he answers: “No
and Yes”. Fortna does not accept that “SG’s presentation of the miracles as ‘signs’ of Jesus’
messianic identity is not historical”. In reference to the historicity of the healings in SG self
(4,46-53; 5,2-9; 9,1-7 en 11,1-44) he points out that they are partially part of the synoptic
tradition of Jesus’ healings. To the degree that they can be ascribed to the historical Jesus –
and Fortna maintains that in some healings this is certainly the case – the stories have a
historical basis. But to what degree do these stories contribute more to the “synoptic evidence
about Jesus”? The miraculous nature of the healings in SQ is “heightened” (4,51-53; 5,5; 9,1)
in comparison to those recorded in the Synoptics. According to Fortna these could go back to
the oral tradition that wanted to show through these means that Jesus was the Messiah. With
the exception of Lazarus these healings thus have parallels with the Synoptics, and “the
element of extensive miraculous power attributed to Jesus in these healing stories, as
messianic proofs”, according to Fortna, is “not factual”. The story of Lazarus, which is clearly
a prefiguration of Jesus’ resurrection, shows similarities to Luke 16,19-31. Therefore Fortna
doubts the “independent historicity” of the story. When looking at the nature miracles, he
believes that the exaggerated details (2,6; 6,21b; 21,11) are not factual but should be

65
FORTNA, art. cit., pp. 200-201
66
Ibid., p. 201.
67
Ibid., p. 201.
68
Ibid., pp. 202-208, resp. pp. 202-203, 203-207, 207-208.
 20

attributed to the oral tradition. Though, certain topographical details could be factual (e.g.,
Cana, Capernaum, the Sheep Gate at Bethesda, the Seas of Tiberius, the pool of Siloam,
Bethany, etc.). Additionally, certain incidental data regarding the characters and the timing
could go back to a very early memory, e.g., the mother of Jesus, on the third day (2,1), the
seventh hour (4,52), Andrew (6,8), Lazarus, Mary, and Martha (11,1; 12,2-3), Peter, Thomas,
Nathaniel, and Zebedee’s sons (21,2). He concludes his discussion on the signs as follows:
“So we seem to have a certain amount of original, of sometimes only incidental, information
about Jesus’ deeds in SG”.
(b) Fortna arrives at the same conclusion in his study of the passion story. At one time the
passion story was a different tradition, written or oral, and the author of SG combined it with
the signs tradition to form a primitive “gospel”, comparable with the Gospel of Mark, which
indeed came later. Both gospels contain the miraculous deeds of Jesus and end with a story
about his death. According to Fortna, SG’s passion story was apologetic and developed from
traditional materials. It was written to counter the widely circulating criticism that the life of a
messiah cannot end on a cross, or be executed by the Romans. It is shown through the passion
stories that precisely this death was announced in the Old Testament. The passion story of SG
(or a comparative story) should be dated earlier than the passion story in the present Gospel of
Mark and offers “a rough idea what Mark’s passion source might have looked like”.
Regarding the historicity of SG’s passion story, Fortna notes in the first place that “it is driven
by apologetic impulses that its overall accuracy cannot readily be determined. SG’s
presentation of Jesus as a predestined victim is more naturally explained as an early Christian
creation, justifying the messiah’s death, than based on history”. Still Fortna believes that he is
in a position to say more about the passion than about the signs, because we have a
continuous story, while in the SG we can hardly say anything about the ongoing plot, “since
each episode is a brief pericope, originally unattached to any other”. Fortna assesses each
passage of SG. I will provide a few examples: 2,14-19 (“Hence, it is unlikely that the whole
event was created on the basis of two separate OT texts; rather, SG and the Synoptics
represent two later and separate attempts to justify the same event”); 11,53 (“So is it factual,
or was the conspiracy story created simply from an anti-Jewish motive? It’s hard to say”);
12,1-18 (“That such a dinner took place ‘six days before passover’ seems a gratuitous, and
therefore possibly factual, memory”); 12,12ff. (“The story is so thoroughly Christological that
I cannot confidently find any historical kernel within it”); Jesus’ final meal with his followers
(“it seems impossible to retrieve a source from the present account in John 13. … It shows no
hint of being a Passover meal. Beyond this I think nothing can be said”; 18,1-12 (“That Jesus
was officially arrested ‘across the Wadi Kidron … in a garden” [18:1] seems likely, but the
identify of those who made the arrest is not entirely clear. … Judas is somehow elusive in FG,
and so presumably in SG also. … The vivid picture of Peter’s impetuous attack on one of the
arresting party (18:10) and the giving of his name (‘Malchus’ – only in FG) is either skilful
enhancement of the tradition or a gratuitous memory. Jesus’ reply (‘I am’) seems a later
invention). On the “tortured question of Jesus’ resurrection”, he determines: “The accounts
vary notoriously. I hold that resurrection is by definition transhistorical and so not subject to
the historian’s investigation. The empty tomb (20:1) is a created legend, but the belief that
Jesus appeared to various disciples is certainly a fact”.
 21

(c) Regarding the sayings of Jesus, Fortna remarks that SG contains only a few words, notably
terse directives. This is also the case in the passion narrative. Fortna attaches little value to
such sayings: “Even if historically factual, these utterances tell us almost nothing about the
historical Jesus”. To query what relevance the sayings in SQ would have for the plot, he asks
the vital question: “But how is one to evaluate such remarks historically?”. He provides the
following explanation for the discourses in FG that do not come from SG. In 1970 he left the
question open on whether the fourth evangelist had used pre-Johannine saying material. He
maintains that it was not his intention to find “a purely narrative source”. However he could
establish that “the more a narrative source seemed to emerge, the less [he] could believe that
pre-Johannine sayings would yield to the same kind of analysis”. Fortna continues: “Simply
on the face of it, narrative and discourse in FG appear to stem from different origins; the one
is very synoptic-like, the other not at all”. Therefore Fortna also speaks “of a rather
fundamental distinction between story and saying in FG”. It is the evangelist who linked the
two genres. But this does not mean that the discourse material is completely the creation of
the evangelist.
Fortna’s second contribution we have interest in appeared in 2007, in What we Have Heard
from the Beginning, a publication that was orchestrated by T. Thatcher69. For this volume, in
which Thatcher wants to cast a view over the Past, Present, and Future of Johannine Studies,
he asked 19 senior professors to discuss their research on the Fourth Gospel, and he arranged
for junior scholars to respond to each contribution. He thus achieved “a virtual dialogue
between future students of the Johannine Literature and some of the living legends of a golden
era of scholarship”. It was also Thatcher’s intention “to provide a deep sounding of the
undercurrents that have made the field of Johannine Studies specifically, and New Testament
Studies generally, what it is today – to view the issues through the eyes of people who are in a
position to see above and beyond currents and trends”70. It was in this light that Thatcher
invited his friend R.T. Fortna to contribute to the volume71. In his contribution, entitled The
Gospel of John and the Signs Gospel, Fortna discusses the writing of his two monographs on
the Gospel of Signs (and Signs Gospel) and his further search for the source. He emphasises
that his first book containing the reconstruction of the Gospel of Signs was more than a source
critical study. A study of the possible documentary sources also needs to pay attention to:“(1)
the circumstances in which the text of the Fourth Gospel was produced, (2) its literary unity,
(3) it relationship to the Synoptics, and (4) the question of historicity”72. All these issues are
dealt with extensively in Fortna’s “principal redactional-critical work”, the sequel to his 1970
book, The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor. Furthermore Fortna stresses that he is “fairly
sure” that “a source once existed, a relatively brief written (or if still oral, firmly worded) text
containing virtually all the narratives in John that happen to be like the narratives”73. He
acknowledges that in The Gospel of Signs he “was rash enough to include a complete,
reconstructed Greek text of the source”, but now finds that such a reconstruction cannot be

69
Tom THATCHER (ed.), What We Have Heard from the Beginning: The Past, Present, and Future of the
Johannine Studies, Waco TX, Baylor University Press, 2007, 149-158.
70
See Tom THATCHER, The Purpose and Plan of This Book, in ID. (ed.), What We Have Heard, 2007, xv-xix.
71
Robert T. FORTNA, The Gospel of John and the Signs Gospel, in Tom THATCHER (ed.), What We Have Heard,
2007, 149-158.
72
Ibid., p. 150.
73
Ibid., p. 150.
 22

determined in detail. He for example refers to D.M. Smith, who suggested seeing 12,37-40 as
the basis for the transition between the Signs Gospel and the passion story. Upon providing a
short overview of the content of the Signs Gospel, Fortna draws attention to five aspects of his
research74.
(1) He expresses the importance of J.L. Martyn’s hypothesis on the crisis in the Johannine
community: “Martyn’s approach is vital because it almost alone accounts for the creation of
our Gospel of John. It seems to me as likely as ever that official post-70 C.E. Judaism
disowned the Christian-Jewish movement within the synagogue, a movement that reflected
the type of faith in Jesus as the Jewish basis Messiah advocated by the Signs Gospel. This
crisis – the excommunication of the Johannine Christians because of their belief in Jesus
(ajposunavgwgo") appearing three times and only in John – led to a revising of the Signs
Gospel and, further to the creation or consolidation of the discourse material that so differs
from the third-person prose narrative”75. The aporias in the Johannine story supports a similar
compositional model.
(2) In reference to the problem of literary unity76, he points out that “the pronounced contact
contrast between brief narrative and the long discourses of Jesus of Jesus … seems to me to
be an obvious indication of at least a two-stage development of the text”77. The canonical
gospel reads almost like a Talmud: “relatively brief stories greatly interspersed with poetic
discourses that in some way or another comment on and widely differ from the prose
accounts”78. He goes on to state that the Signs Gospel “can more or less be lifted out of our
Gospel of John”79. It is not possible to uncover the stylistic unity of the Gospel, and referring
to the contributions of Felton en Thatcher, he believes that “it is nearly obvious that the
reconstructed Signs Gospel does have a distinct style”80. As a side note, he points out that his
reconstruction of a Signs Gospel has made redaction criticism possible. Speaking of the
discourse material, Fortna expresses his doubt whether the origins of the discourses can be
discovered, and expands on his views from his previous article: “In The Gospel of Signs, I
simply left open the question whether the Johannine Evangelist had used traditional sayings
material not included in the Signs Gospel. … Over time, as evident in The Fourth Gospel and
Its Predecessor, I came to recognize a rather fundamental distinction between story and
saying in John, with the stories coming from the signs source and the discourses essentially
added as theological commentary on the signs and the controversy with the synagogue. I now
see rather clearly that the late-first century crisis … may have given rise to the discourse, in at
least their final form, out of a more inchoate Johannine tradition; the crisis certainly
demanded addition to the Signs Gospel”81.
(3) Regarding the relations between John and the Synoptics, Fortna renews his conviction: “I
believe that the Fourth Evangelist did not make use of the Synoptics for three reasons that can
be succinctly stated. First, so far as I know, there is in John no evidence of patently

74
Ibid., pp. 151-158.
75
Ibid., p. 151.
76
Ibid., p. 152-154.
77
Ibid., p. 152.
78
Ibid., p. 152.
79
Ibid., p. 152.
80
Ibid., p. 153.
81
Ibid., p. 154.
 23

redactional matter from the Synoptics, the claims of Frans Neirynck and the Leuven School
notwithstanding. …. Second, it requires a very complicated game to explain just how the
Fourth Evangelist would have used the Synoptics. … Third, if the author knew and used the
Synoptics, this fact would tell us virtually nothing redaction-critically about its meaning”82.
Still Fortna indicates “some connection between John and Synoptics”83. Unlike the discourse,
it can be indicated that the stories are not unique to the New Testament. The stories have
synoptic parallels, but they differ because they sometimes have “a more primitive form” and
are “even more heightened” than the synoptic parallels84. The semeia hypothesis explains
these differences: “Such a source was dependent upon the same oral tradition that would
underlie Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Yet it uses this common tradition differently from the
Synoptics in a singular respect, attributing to Jesus’ working of miracles the claim that they
fundament evidence (‘signs’) of his messiahship”85.
(4) On the “tortured question of the Fourth Gospel’s value as a source for the historical
Jesus”, Fortna states that “there may be details in what I assign to the Signs Gospel that reflect
memory from the time of Jesus” and that “the question of John’s historicity is essentially a
question of the historicity of the Signs Gospel, from which virtually all the narrative material
derived”86. He offers a supporting discussion, similar to the one in his previous article87, and
concludes: “So we seem to have a certain amount of the original, if mainly incidental,
information about Jesus’ deeds in the Signs Gospel, some of which may reflect authentic
memory. John’s discourses have been developed, either from previously disconnected
traditions or wholesale, as a theological response to the crisis of excommunication. They tell
us virtually nothing about the historical Jesus. Emphatic as I am on this last point, and largely
convinced on the others, I look forward to the responses and dialogue that may ensue”88.
In his contribution entitled The Signs Gospel in Context in the volume Jesus in Johannine
Tradition, T. Thatcher provides a short historical survey of the signs-gospel hypothesis89. He
pays particular attention to the specific significance of Fortna’s two monographs and
compares Fortna’s hypothesis with Bultmann’s approach. He stresses in particular that in his
book from 1970, Fortna used a more precise source critical method than Bultmann. To
reconstruct The Gospel of Signs Fortna applied four criteria: three internal criteria (the
stylistic, the contextual and the ideological aporias) and one external criterion (comparison
with the synoptic gospels). Thatcher argues that Fortna’s Gospel of Signs was especially
based on ideological criteria, but subsequently in its Predecessor (1988) he had emphasised
the difference between the discourses to a far greater extent90. Thatcher notes the following

82
Ibid., p. 154.
83
Ibid., p. 155.
84
Ibid., p. 155.
85
Ibid., p. 155.
86
Ibid., p. 155-156.
87
Ibid., pp. 156-158.
88
Ibid., p. 158. – Other contributions of Robert T. Fortna: A Pre-Johannine Passion Narrative as Historical
Source: Reconstructed Text and Critique, in Forum. Foundations & Facets n.s. 1 (1998), n° 1, 71-94; The
Gospel of John and the Historical Jesus, in Roy W. HOOVER (ed.), Profiles of Jesus, Santa Rosa, CA,
Polebridge, 2002, 223-230; = Bernard Brandon SCOTT (ed.), Finding the Historical Jesus: Rules of Evidence
(Jesus Seminar Guides, 3), Santa Rosa, CA, Polebridge Press, 2008, 49-57.
89
Tom THATCHER, The Signs Gospel in Context, in Robert T. FORTNA – Tom THATCHER (eds.), Jesus in
Johannine Tradition, Louisville KY, Westminster John Knox, 2001, 191-197.
90
Ibid., pp. 194-195.
 24

similarities between Fortna and Bultmann91: (1) Both authors assumed that the signs source
was a document; (2) both were more interested in which sources the evangelist had used than
in what happened to the work after the evangelist’s redaction; (3) both were convinced that
the discourses were brought together with the semeia-source or the Gospel of Signs, for
Bultmann these discourses derived from another written source, the Offenbarungsreden, and
for Fortna these discourses should largely be ascribed to the theological reflections of the
evangelist. Thatcher reasons that Fortna’s “conclusions go far beyond those of Bultmann”92:
(1) Fortna assumed that the evangelist preserved the Signs Gospel carefully, making its literal
reconstruction possible; (2) According to Bultmann the source consisted mainly out of
miracles, while Fortna it was a rudimentary gospel, in which the Predecessor of the Fourth
Gospel brought SQ (the signs source) and PQ (the passion source) to form a Gospel of Signs.
In the same volume, T. Felton and T. Thatcher argue in their contribution Stylometry and
the Signs Gospel that it is “an inherently subjective topic”, because “[d]ifferent readers will
come to different conclusions about the key characteristics of a particular author’s style of
writing”93. Therefore source criticism needs to make use of those aspects of style that are
more objective and can be tested statistically. Against the style-critical method of E.
Schweizer and E. Ruckstuhl, Felton and Thatcher formulated the following critique: “The fact
that an investigation fails to distinguish between the styles of two texts, or to identify a
distinct alien style in a portion of a single text, may indeed indicate that the texts in question
were produced by the same author. Such failure may also, however, indicate that inadequate
criteria have been used to identify that inadequate criteria have been used to identify ‘style
characteristics,’ or that the statistical models employed are not sophisticated enough to result
in a significant conclusion”94. Therefore they apply a sophisticated stylometric model to
legitimate Fortna’s Signs Gospel. Stylometrics is “the application of statistical techniques to
the study of quantifiable features of style in a written or spoken text”95. Based on the
stylometric research they believe that “In the case of the Signs Gospel, stylometric analysis
adds further support to a theory that was developed on the basis of theological and narrative
considerations”96.

3. The Short Signs Source hypothesis

To the best of my knowledge, there are no authors that still expressly defend a “short signs
source”. Still, I wish to mention the “booklet” of S. Landis, which studies the relationship
between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics based on Matt 8,5-13; Luke 7,1-10; John 4,46-
5497. He reaches the conclusion that there is no literary dependence between John and the

91
Ibid., pp. 195-196.
92
Ibid., pp. 196-197.
93
Tom FELTON – Tom THATCHER, Stylometry and the Signs Gospel, in Robert T. FORTNA – Tom THATCHER
(eds.), Jesus in Johannine Tradition, Louisville KY, Westminster John Knox, 2001, 209-218, esp. p.208.
94
Ibid., p. 211.
95
Ibid., p. 211.
96
Ibid., p. 218.
97
Stephan LANDIS, Das Verhältnis des Johannesevangeliums zu den Synoptikern: Am Beispiel Mt 8,5-13; Lk
7,1-10; Joh 4,46-54 (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 74), Berlin New York, de
Gruyter, 1994.
 25

Synoptics (Matthew and Luke)98. It is a similar case for their respective sources, the Semeia-
Quelle on the one hand, and the Lukan Sondergut on the other. Landis was a student of Hans
Weder, a proponent of the semeia hypothesis. Landis emphasised in particular that the second
miracle at Cana is “eine starke Stütze” for the hypothesis of a source consisting of stories of
miracles. He adds in a footnote that it is not for him to comment in his booklet on the scope of
the source, which according to him has been called into doubt recently without valid
arguments. He refers briefly to H. Thyen and reasons that the Quellenthese is certainly not
brought into doubt, and at least not concerning the first two miracles99.

4. A Signs Source/Gospel with Discourses

In her contribution to the volume on Jesus in Johannine Tradition, S.C. Winter thinks that
“The unique role of dialogue in FG hints at the presence of discourse material in the Signs
Gospel as well” and she proposes “a technique for identifying Signs Gospel sayings
material”100. She determines that the whole of the Fourth Gospel indicates that “phrases and
clauses in which the perfect tense occurs belong to a stage of composition between the Signs
Gospel and the current text of John”101. Even though the usage of the perfect tense is
inconsistent, she manages to identify a pattern: “1) they function to mark the insertion of new
material; 2) the phrases in which they appear are close to SG theologically and predate FE’s
work”102. Based on this finding, she classifies the present tense as “glosses on the Signs
Gospel”, which originated in a stage of the history of the Gospel’s composition, somewhere
between SG and FG. These glosses on the SG function as “little flags marking SG
material”103. Winter identifies 180 such glosses104. Based on these “little” flags she
reconstructs the SG version of Chapter 17105. She concludes as following106:
Although this reconstruction is preliminary, it illustrates the potential of using the perfect tense glosses to
flag SG sayings, offers insights into early Jesus traditions, and opens up directions for further study.
Recovering the various strata of the Final Prayer reopens many questions scholars have posed about John 17,
allowing us to situate them in a historical context, presumably the 40s through 50s, and to explore them anew
in connection with early Jesus traditions. Many of FE’s additions concern “being one” and are therefore
consistent with other evidence of conflict in the later stages of the Johannine Community. Possible links
between SG’s concept of “the name” and, for example, Philippians 2:9 also show promise for further study.

98
Ibid., pp. 71-72.
99
Ibid., p. 28 n. 1: “Über den Umfang dieser Quelle, deren Existenz in letzter Zeit vermehrt – meist ohne
stichhaltige Gründe – in Zweifel gezogen wird, kann hier kein Urteil gefällt werden. Für die beiden ersten
Wunder mindestens scheint mir allerdings die Quellenthese kaum zu erschuttern (vgl. dazu Thyen, TRE 207f.). –
For a severe criticism of Landis’ analysis, see Frans NEIRYNCK, Jean 4,46-54: Une leçon de méthode, in ETL 71
(1995) 176-184; = ID., Evangelica III: 1992-2000. Collected Essays (BETL, 150), Leuven, Peeters, 2001, 590-600.
100
Sara C. WINTER, Little Flags: The Scope and Reconstruction of the Signs Gospel, Robert T. FORTNA – Tom
THATCHER (eds.), Jesus in Johannine Tradition, Louisville KY, Westminster John Knox, 2001, 219-235, esp. p.
219.
101
Ibid., p. 220.
102
Ibid., p. 222.
103
Ibid., p. 222.
104
Ibid., pp. 222-231.
105
Ibid., pp. 231-235.
106
Ibid., pp. 234-235.
 26

B. THE OPPONENTS

While the majority of Johannine exegetes prefer more synchronic methods or alternative
explanations than pursuing the origins of the Fourth Gospel, it remains remarkable that the
most still mention the semeia-source, whether to reject it or state that they have a different
theory. No expert on the Fourth Gospel – regardless of the elected methodology – can truly
ignore this hypothesis and maintain a silence of death. The proponents of the hypothesis are
known for their ability to describe the problems in the Fourth Gospel and provide answers,
meaning, whichever method one wished to follow, one would need to give them cognisance.
In this overview we restrict ourselves to commentaries, some monographs, and a few articles.

1. Commentaries

L. Morris (1995) does not soften his scepticism against source criticism in the revised
edition of his commentary: “And with all respect to those very capable scholars who have
argued for sources, that seems about as far as we can go. The writer of this Gospel may have
used sources, but if he did he has made them so thoroughly his own that untangling them now
seems impossible. Unfortunately, for any sources in this Gospel, the precise delineation is
very difficult. There seems little question but the style of the Gospel is uniform. If John did
use sources he has so reworked them and made them his own that in the judgment of many
competent scholars it is now impossible to discern which were sources and which was John’s
own material. … It seems much safer to take the Gospel as it stands and accept the view that
it comes from the Evangelist. There is no need to deny that he made use of sources (or
perhaps of ‘traditions,’ as Beasley-Murray suggests). He may have done so, but if he did he
reworded them in its own language and there is now no way of recovering them”107.
G.R. O’Day (1995) expresses herself critically on the signs source in her narrative
commentary of the Fourth Gospel: “The signs-source hypothesis, however, runs counter to the
insights about the role and diversity of oral traditions proposed by Dodd and also
overemphasizes the differences between Johannine and Synoptic miracles. When one
identifies the miracles in John … one notices that with the single exception of the wine
miracle, each of these miracles has some analogue in the synoptic tradition. Therefore, it
seems more credible to postulate the common oral traditions about Jesus as the source of these
stories than a fully formed signs source”108.
Referring to Bultmann and the two monographs of Fortna, B. Witherington III (1995)
notes: “There are some serious problems with this theory, not the least of which is explaining
why the evangelist was careful enough to record so much of this source, and yet not careful
enough to edit out the Christological and sign material with which he disagreed”109. With
reference to J. Painter, Witherington suggests that “the Fourth Evangelist began not with a

107
Leon MORRIS, The Gospel According to John. Revised edition (The New International Commentary on the New
Testament), Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1995, p. 50.
108
Gail R. O’DAY, The Gospel of John: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections (The New Interpreter’s Bible,
9), Nashville TN, Abigdon, 1995, 491-865, p. 503.
109
Ben WITHERINGTON III, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge, Lutterworth, 1995,
pp. 9-11, p. 9.
 27

signs Gospel, but with a loose collection of traditional stories and discourses which he has
edited and used”110.
In his concise commentary on the Fourth Gospel, M. de Jonge (1995) has renewed his
objections against the reconstruction of a signs source in a nutshell: “The vital question is
whether we are able to distinguish between pre-Johannine material and the Johannine
redaction anywhere with certainty. Of course older traditions were used in the composition of
the Gospel and cast in a typical Johannine framework, but reconstructing the scope and choice
of words of documents as pre-Johannine sources is a dubious task. The internal contradictions
and tensions that one comes across between 2,11; 4,15 on the one hand and 2:23; 4:45 on the
other, and the non-mention of any signs between 12,37 and 20,30 (arguments for the existence
of a signs source), are all explainable as inherent elements in the argument of the Gospel
itself”111.
G. Borchert (1996, 2002) rejects the hypothesis: “From my perspective the issue is not
whether the evangelist used sources but whether the sources themselves could not have been
written or oral (preaching) sources that the evangelist later formulated into a Gospel. If that
might be the case, then one might need to place some important caveats on such source study.
Indeed, one might begin to wonder about some of the presuppositions inherent in the
methodology”112. As the promoter of T. Thatcher’s dissertation, “The Riddles of Jesus in the
Fourth” (1996) he is objecting to an analysis of oral communication113.
In his commentary from 1997, U. Schnelle repeats his rejection of the existence of Semeia-
Quelle114. He by far rather believes that the evangelist himself had brought together highly
divergent miracle stories in his gospel. According to Schnelle, it is not a coincidence that he
has seven signs, because according to Gen 2,2 this is the number that signifies fullness and
finality. Moreover the number seven had particular significance in the environs of the
Johannine school (see Rev 1,4.12; 5,1; 8,2; 10,3f.; 12,3) and it is used by the evangelist as a
compositional device to emphasise the fullness of Jesus’ revelation. He had schematically
spread the miracles over Jesus’ public appearances, with the raising of Lazarus as climax. The
evangelist selected typical “Sondertraditionen” (special traditions) from his school (John 2,1-
11; 5,1-9ab; 9; 11) and miracle narratives that are dependent on the Synoptics (4,46-54; 6,1-
25), and strategically moulded them together along with his specific theology.
U. Wilkens (1998) dismisses the semeia hypothesis with the following arguments115. There
is no literary parallel of such a source containing miracle stories. The later apocryphal gospels
contain many stories of miracles with an “überdimensionaler Art”, but not one book narrates
an exclusive catena of miracles. It is thus far more probable that the evangelist of the Fourth
Gospel made use of miracle stories from the tradition of the community from his vicinity and

110
Ibid., p. 9.
111
Marinus DE JONGE, Johannes: Een praktische Bijbelveraling (Tekst en toelichting), Kampen, Kok, 1996, p.
22.
112
Gerald L. BORCHERT, John 1–11 / John 12–21 (The New American Commentary, 25A & 25B), Broadman &
Holman Publishers, 1996 , 2002; see vol. 1, p. 44.
113
Ibid., pp. 44-45. Cf. Tom THATCHER, The Riddles of Jesus in John: A Study in Tradition and Folklore (SBL
Monograph Series, 53), Atlanta GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2000.
114
Udo SCHNELLE, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament, 4),
Leipzig, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1998, pp. 14-15; 22000; 32004, pp. 15-16.
115
Ulrich WILCKENS, Das Evangelium nach Johannes. Übersetzt und erklärt (Das Neue Testament Deutsch, 4),
Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998, pp. 10-11.
 28

revised them using features from comparative synoptic miracle stories. Like the counting of
the signs, the conclusion of the Gospel stems from the evangelist. The evangelist himself
expresses the greatness and pleasure experienced in telling the miracles as realistically as
possible. Criticism against the miracles performed by the Johannine Jesus can be explained in
the matrix of this realism. Nowhere does the criticism question the miracle as such, but indeed
the wrong interpretations of those who experience them. For John the miracles of Jesus are in
fact “signs”, which point to Jesus and must lead to faith in him. It is a huge misunderstanding
when one stays put at the miraculous and one remains fixated with their usefulness (6,16.16).
Wilckens concludes that there are no convincing arguments in favour of the hypothesis of a
miracle source. Where a contradiction between this source and the evangelist is postulated, it
is in reality a literary “Verkleidung” of the evangelist’s own criticism against the miracles.
In his narrative commentary on the Gospel and Letter of John (1998), R.A. Culpepper
notes regarding source criticism: “The issue of sources is far from settled, however. Many,
especially those who maintain apostolic authorship, reject any notion that the Evangelist used
sources he did not compose. Others are reasserting the case for the influence of the Synoptics
on John, so that one can hardly speak of a consensus at this time”116.
F.J. Moloney (1998), who is particularly interested in the narrative design of Fourth
Gospel, rejects the semeia-hypothesis. He remarks on the numbering of the signs: “Whatever
its background, it will be argued that this numbering is more an indication of the passage’s
relationship to 4:46-54 than the clumsy remnant of an earlier source”. In his detailed
discussion of 2,23, where he treats the hypothesis based on Bultmann, he refers to U. Schnelle
for “a convincing recent critique of the Source theory”117.
In his commentary in which he evaluates “The Historical reliability of John’s Gospel”, C.
Blomberg (2001) rejects the semeia hypothesis in a short exposition on “Hypothetical
Documents”118. Recent literary studies have indicated that the aporias or seams “do not
require us to imagine slipshod redaction of sources (Van Belle 1985; Bjerkelund 1987;
Ruckstuhl 1987)”119. In agreement with Parker he reasons that “Unlike the various parts of
Matthew and Luke, the writings supposed to underlie John exhibit the same theology and the
same language and style throughout. It looks as though, if the author of the Fourth Gospel
used documentary sources, he wrote them all himself”120. He concludes his discussion with a
reference to my critical analysis of the five arguments propagating the semeia hypothesis and
he dismisses the hypothesis: “While it might seem to bolster the case for historicity to appeal

116
R. Alan CULPEPPER, The Gospel and Letters of John (Interpreting Biblical Texts), Nashville TN, Abingdon,
1998, p. 39.
117
Francis J. MOLONEY, The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina Series, 4), Collegeville, MN, Glazier – Liturgical
Press, 1998, p. 73; on the signs source, see also pp. 85-86, 544. By the same author: Belief in the Word: Reading
John 1–4, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1993; Signs and Shadows: Reading John 5-12, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress,
1996; Glory not Dishonor: Reading John 13-21, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1996. See also: The Gospel of John:
Text and Context (Biblical Interpretation Series, 72), Boston – Leiden, Brill, 2005 (his collected essays); Into
Narrative and Beyond, in Tom THATCHER (ed.), What We Have Heard from the Beginning: The Past, Present,
and Future of the Johannine Studies, Waco TX, Baylor University Press, 2007, 195-210.
118
Craig L. BLOMBERG, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues and Commentary. Downers Grove
IL, InterVarsity, 2002, pp. 44-46.
119
Ibid., p. 45.
120
Ibid., p. 45. On Pierson Parker, see below.
 29

to an early written source on which the Fourth Gospel drew, the evidence is too slight for us
to do so with any confidence”121.
K. Wengst (2001, 2002) does not pay attention to the source theories in his commentary122.
But like he does in his earlier work123, he rejects the semeia hypothesis. There are no
substantial arguments in support of it and it remains a hypothesis124.
C.G. Kruse (2003) sees “an interesting conjecture” in the semeia hypothesis and criticises
Fortna for using especially the aporias as point of departure: “While it is likely that the
evangelist made use of sources, both oral and written, in the composition of his Gospel,
Fortna’s suggestion concerning a pre-existing Gospel of Signs remains just an interesting
conjecture”125.
In his short discussion of “The Johannine Signs Source”, C.S. Keener (2003) rejects the
hypothesis: “The biggest weakness of the theory is that, despite arguments to the contrary, the
text betrays no evidence for it; the Fourth Gospel is a stylistic unity”126. Though he does point
out that “The single best argument for supposing the existence of a Johannine signs source is
the claim that such documents existed elsewhere in antiquity, for example as aretologies”, he
expands: “But an aretology as broadly defined could include a simple list of praises or boasts
by a divinity, aretologies were diverse in form, the proposed connections between aretalogies
and a ‘divine man’ have been found wanting, and collections of miracle-workers’ deeds as
appear in the OT as well (e.g., 2 Kgs 5; 20,1-11). Thus while a collection of miracle stories
behind the Fourth Gospel remains reasonable, the Hellenistic divine man concept frequently
associated with such a collection is without foundation”. Regarding the counting of the signs
he remarks: “Still, John’s recounting of signs, whether representing a particular pre-Johannine
source or not, functions as aretalogies generally functioned: to authenticate and publicize the
power of Jesus to do mighty works, the very works people where seeking. The question of a
specific signs source for the Fourth Gospel therefore should not detain us as we examine
literary and milieu questions more available for our investigation”127.
The revision of R.E. Brown’s Introduction to his commentary on John (2004), edited by
F.J. Moloney, offers a short overview of the hypothesis, and the following evaluation: “The
diversity shows how hard it is to do such pre-Johannine reconstruction. Bittner has done a
meticulous study of Johannine miracle tradition, rejects all signs-source proposals. This study
has now been further reinforced by the remarkable survey and negative assessment of Van
Belle. This Source is also rejected by Dschulnigg, Lindars, Noack, Schulz, Smalley, Schnelle
and Labahn, among others. Marguerat presents what I regard to be the most objective analysis
of the evidence: ‘The Johannine community was familiar with miracle stories of diverse

121
Ibid., p. 46. By the same author: The Historical Reliability of John: Rushing in Where Angels Fear to Tread?,
in Robert T. FORTNA – Tom THATCHER (eds.), Jesus in Johannine Tradition, Louisville, KY, Westminster John
Knox, 2001, 71-82.
122
Klaus WENGST, Das Johannesevangelium. 1. Teilband: Kapitel 1–10 / 2. Teilband: Kapitel 11–21
(Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 4/1-2). Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 2000, 2001.
123
See VAN BELLE, Signs Source, 1994, p. 186 n. 194.
124
WENGST, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 98 n. 65.
125
Colin G. KRUSE, The Gospel According to John: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale New Testament
Commentaries), Leicester, Inter-Varsity, 2003, p. 35; see also p. 20.
126
Craig S. KEENER, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Peabody MA, Hendrickson, 2003 (two volumes); see
vol. 1, pp. 252-253.
127
Ibid., pp. 252-253.
 30

provenance. The evangelist made a selection with an eye towards his gospel project, without
limiting himself to one source or one provenance’’’128.
A.J. Köstenberger (2004) pays limited attention to the semeia hypothesis. It is evident that
he is not a proponent of the hypothesis from his note at 4,54: “the numbering of the two Cana
signs has suggested to some the existence of “signs source” … However, this inference is not
a necessary one …”129.
A.T. Lincoln (2005) rejects the semeia hypothesis: “Linguistic and stylistic criteria are
particularly difficult to apply; since what can be seen as typically Johannine features are to be
found distributed throughout the Gospel. This point was underlined in the thorough summary
and critique of the signs source theory by G. Van Belle (1994)”130. Lincoln himself maintains
that John is dependent on the Synoptics: “the Fourth Gospel provides evidence that its writer
and editor not only knew Mark, to which it is most indebted, but also knew and used both
Matthew and Luke”131.
H. Thyen, who had gradually distanced himself from classic source criticism in several
earlier writings132, persisted with his rejection of a semeia hypothesis in his commentary
(2005). He defends with emphasis that the Gospel that has been handed down to us in the
canon (from John 1,1 to 21,25) should be seen as “einen kohärenten und hoch poetischen
literarische und auktorialen Text” (“a coherent and highly poetic literary and authorial
text”)133. After discussing source criticism and redaction criticism, he proposes that it is far
more likely that, apart from the Jewish Bible, the author of the Fourth Gospel is “playing”
with the Synoptic Gospels in their transmitted redactional form, rather than utilising an
anonymous, possibly oral tradition that is related to the Synoptics as source. This then implies
not just the Gospel of Mark but also Matthew and Luke134. He discusses the Semeia-Quelle in
the Parerga and Paralipomena of his Commentary on John and concludes with my words:
“On the basis of these remarks, I am inclined to refuse the semeia hypothesis as a valid
working hypothesis in the study of the Fourth Gospel”135.
J. Zumstein (2007, 2012), the most prominent proponent of the relecture model136, is more
negative than positive towards the semeia hypothesis137. He indicates that the hypothesis has
received less attention in recent exegesis, and that the counting of the shmei'a in 2,11 and 4,54

128
Raymond E. BROWN, An Introduction to the Gospel of John. Edited, Updated, Introduced, and Concluded by
Francis J. MOLONEY (The Anchor Bible Reference Library), New York, Doubleday, 2003, pp. 46-58: “Theories
of Multiple Sources”, esp. p. 57. On Daniel Marguerat, see VAN BELLE, Signs Source, 1994, pp. 344-346.
129
Andreas J. KÖSTENBERGER, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), Grand Rapids, MI,
Baker, 2004, p. 172 n. 22.
130
Andrew T. LINCOLN, The Gospel according to St John (Black’s New Testament Commentaries), London – New
York, 2005, p. 30.
131
Ibid., p. 32.
132
On Hartwig Thyen, see VAN BELLE, The Signs Gospel, 1994, pp. 105 n. 167, 252-254, 262-266, and passim.
133
Hartwig THYEN, Das Johannesevangelium (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, 6), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck,
2005, pp. 1; see also p. V.
134
Ibid.., pp. 3-4, esp. 4. See also p. V.
135
Hartwig THYEN, Liegt dem Johannesevangelium eine Semeia-Quelle zugrunde, in ID., Studien zum Corpus
Iohanneum (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 214), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2007,
443-452, p. 452. Cf. VAN BELLE, The Signs Source, 1994, p. 452.
136
Jean ZUMSTEIN, Ein gewachsenes Evangelium: Der Relecture-Prozess bei Johannes, in Thomas SÖDING (ed.),
Johannesevangelium – Mitte oder Rand des Kanons? Neue Standortbestimmungen (Quaestiones disputatae,
203), Freiburg – Basel – Wien, Herder, 2003, 9-37.
137
On Jean Zumstein, see G. VAN BELLE, The Signs Gospel, 1994, 266 n. 89, 307 n. 347, 344 n. 553.
 31

is no “reliquat” (residue) of the signs/semeia source, because there is no contradiction with the
counting in 2,23 (cf. 4,45.48)138. Indeed, whoever so suggests does not take into account that
the two miracles that are counted, in contrast to 2,23 and 4,45, are in summary, narrated
miracles139.
In his new commentary, J.R. Michaels (2010) is principally interested in providing an
explanation of the current text and not so much in the history of the text. Therefore source
criticism is secondary: “The sources of John’s Gospel, whether one or more of the other
Gospels, the oral traditions behind them, or a putative ‘Signs Source,’ or ‘Revelation
Discourse,’ are of secondary interest, often consigned to footnotes. I do not assume that
something in the Gospel which is there by default, as it were, having been taken over from an
earlier source, is necessarily less important to the writer that the editorial work the writer has
brought to it. In the current jargon, the approach taken here is synchronic, not diachronic”140.
J.-A. A. Brant (2011) mentions the semeia source but in her view there is no place for it in
a synchronic reading (Fortna is not even mentioned). Though she does argue that aporias need
not necessarily lead one to diachronic readings: “While many aporias in the Gospel of John
can be explained away by presupposing multiple editors with different priorities, the
synchronic approach demonstrates that the Gospel’s interlocking and sustained themes and
rhetorical strategies render it a unified literary work and that, in many cases, aporias may
serve a literary purpose or simply be a feature of human thought”141.
The commentary of J. Beutler (2013) pays significant attention to the Old Testament
background of the Fourth Gospel142. As time passed by, Beutler showed less interest in source
criticism and more in the Synoptic Gospels, especially under the influence of the Louvain
school of F. Neirynck. From his discussions with Schweizer and other German colleagues,
who assume that a relecture of an earlier text lies behind the younger layers of the Fourth
Gospel, Beutler came to the insight, based on an interpretation of John 6 using a similar
lecture model, that this was the best method to interpret the Fourth Gospel. Thus like J.
Zumstein, A. Dettwiler and K. Scholtissek he applies a synthesis of synchronic and diachronic
readings of the Fourth Gospel, to which naturally belong the Old and New Testament
traditions. Towards the semeia hypothesis he is not too positive. He thus remarks on the
138
Jean ZUMSTEIN, L’Évangile selon saint Jean (1-12) / (13–21) (Commentaire du Nouveau Testament:
Deuxième série, 4a / 4b). Genève, Labor et Fides, 2013, 2007; vol. I, p. 28: “Les esprits se séparent, en revanche,
quand il s’agit de savoir si ces récits de miracles formaient une source cohérente aussi bien du point de vue
littéraire que théologique – on la nomme alors source des signes ou des “semeia” (ainsi R. Bultmann suivi p. ex.
Par J. Becker, R. Schnackenburg et M. Theobald) – , ou s’il faut plûtot penser à des miracles de provenances
diverses (p. ex. J. Frey, D. Marguerat, U. Schnelle)”.
139
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 172 n. 31. See also vol. II, p. 295. By the same author: Évangile selon Jean. Introduction et
traduction de Jean ZUMSTEIN (Collection Sources), Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 2008 (facsimile of
Papyrus Bodmer II); Évangile selon Jean, dans Camille Focant – Daniel MARGUERAT, Le Nouveau Testament
commenté. Texte intégral – Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Paris, Bayar – Labor et Fides, 2010, pp. 401-
509; see also his collected essays: Kreative Erinnerung: Relecture und Auslegung im Johannesevangelium. 2.,
überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage (Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 84),
Zürich, Theologische Verlag Zürich, 2004.
140
J. Ramsey MICHAELS, The Gospel of John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament),
Grand Rapids MI – Cambridge UK, Eerdmans, 2010, p. xii.
141
Jo-Ann A. BRANT, John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), Grand Rapids MI, Baker
Academic, 2011, p. 4; see also p. 10.
142
Johannes BEUTLER, In Search of a New Synthesis, in Tom THATCHER (ed.), What We Have Heard from the
Beginning: The Past, Present, and Future of the Johannine Studies, Waco TX, Baylor University Press, 2007,
23-34.
 32

“Semeiaquelle” that it is no longer taken for granted (he refers only to M. Theobald). The
reconstruction of a source, of which there are no direct witnesses, remains problematic,
because they are based predominantly on theological criteria143.

2. Monographs and Articles

In his monograph of 1994, J. Ashton144 maintains the same level of reservation towards the
hypothetical reconstruction of a signs source or signs gospel145 that he expressed in his
Understanding the Fourth Gospel of 1991. However, he is a firm defender of source criticism
and has mediated between proponents and opposition of the hypothesis. He is justified in
pointing out that the two monographs of R.T. Fortna “represent the most thorough and
sustained attempt ever made to reconstruct the alleged narrative source underlying John’s
Gospel, and to assess the theological purpose”146. However, there is no consensus about the
scope and nature of the source and some even question the source itself. According to Ashton,
proponents and opponents are engaged in “a dialogue des sourds of which the opposing
camps confront one another across an apparently unbridgeable divide and make little or no
attempt to respond to one another’s arguments”147. He poses the question: “How then are we
to amount for the fact that the most long-lived of all Johannine source theories, the signs
source, has neither gained the scholarly consensus that it advocates, deaf to all protests,
appear to take for granted, nor yet been consigned to inglorious oblivion?”148. For him, the
answer is clear: “One reason is the contrast between the instinctive distaste of conservative
scholars for anything that smacks of literary reconstruction and the irrepressible urge of the
more adventurous to keep on mounting expeditions in search of sources. But this differences
falls outside the sphere of rational discussion. For our purposes a more important reason is
that the proponents of the theory claim too much for it, while its opponents concede too little.
By expanding possibilities into probabilities and then treating these as if they were certainties
the advocates of what is still, after all, only a hypothesis present a relatively easy target for the
heavy guns of their adversaries. These, in consequence, are dispensed form the necessity of
doing battle on a less favourable terrain”149. Ashton discusses the dialogue in five parts, and
ends with a postscript.
Existence150. – After providing an overview of the literature on the signs source and setting
out the case of the source in detail, Ashton concludes that it is equally possible that “John
used a signs source and to maintain at the same time that it is virtually irrecoverable and
therefore of no practical use in exegesis”.
Extent151. – Regarding the contents of the source he posits: “The conclusion must be that
arguments of varying degrees of persuasiveness can be put forward for including particular
143
Johannes BEUTLER, Das Johannesevangelium. Kommentar, Freiburg – Basel – Wien, Herder, 2013, p. 175.
144
On John Ashton, see VAN BELLE, Signs Source, 1994, pp. 45 and 287-289.
145
John ASHTON, Studying John: Approaches to the Fourth Gospel, Oxford, Clarendon, 1994, pp. 90-113: “The
Signs Source”.
146
Ibid., p. 90.
147
Ibid., p. 90.
148
Ibid., p. 91.
149
Ibid., p. 91.
150
Ibid., p. 91-96.
151
Ibid., pp. 97-100.
 33

passages in the source, but that no agreement about its extent is likely to be forthcoming. Yet
the difficulty of determining how exactly the signs source was composed should not prevent
us from acknowledging the strength of the evidence for its existence”.
A Signs Gospel?152 – That the signs source before John was linked with the passion source
to form a signs gospel, Ashton does not accept: “It remains preferable, methodologically
speaking, to treat the two gospels separately, as is done by the majority of authors who adopt
a redaction-critical approach”.
Reconstruction153. – Upon discussing four passages from Fortna’s signs gospel (1,19-34;
2,1-11; 4,46-54; 11:1-45, Ashton states: “These examples are perhaps enough to show that it
is possible to take issue with Fortna at almost every point in his reconstruction. His
confidence in the ‘recoverability’ of the source is surely misplaced. This does not mean that
the attempt is not worth making, for the work of reconstruction throws up a large number of
incidental observations that cannot but enhance our understanding and appreciation of the
Gospel as a whole”. The most important question remains unanswered: “can we be
sufficiently confident of the general nature of source and redaction to make reliable inferences
about the theological purposes of both? This is what Fortna claims to do – but it is there that
he may appear most vulnerable to the arguments of his critics that his project is too ambitious
to be realised in a way that can carry conviction”.
Purpose154. – Since the reconstruction of Fortna is dubious at many places, it would be
expected that claims over the nature and purpose of the source would be limited and not so
clearly distinguished from the redaction of the evangelist. Here the gap between the
proponents and the opponents is “most widely”. Ashton treats the following points of
discussion: (1) “The first point to stress is the a priori unlikelihood that an author will take
over and adapt a document with which he wholeheartedly disagrees”. (2) “Where the
difference between source and redaction is marked by a genuine aporia, as in 4:48, the critic
can operate with some confidence. In many cases, however, where the seam is less obvious, it
is necessary to employ some other criterion; and here the risk of circularity is palpable”. (3)
“One of the greatest weaknesses of Fortna’s work is this failure to investigate the all-
important notion of Messiah in any depth or to place the source in the context in the
prehistory of the Johannine community”. (4) Lastly Ashton asks himself: “In the attempt to
understand the development of the Gospel can the signs-source theory be replaced without
loss?” He responds to this question by presenting four views. First, he sees that Fortna’s
insights on the theology of the evangelist “neither depend upon nor derive from the details of
his source theory”. Second, “Underlying Fortna’s two books is the assumption that the
evangelist had in front of him as he wrote – on the desk, so to speak – the work of his
‘predecessor’, and that he built his own book on and his own book on or around this in a
sustained burst of creative energy”. Fortna thus facilitates just two phases in the development
of the Fourth Gospel and Ashton wonders whether Fortna had taken account of the hypothesis
of multiple stages. Third, “No analysis restricting itself to the narrative sections of the Gospel
can do full justice to its conceptual richness, since it must omit at least a third, and probably
more, of the Gospel as we have it. And if we confine ourselves to the signs itself, including

152
Ibid., pp. 100-103.
153
Ibid., pp. 103-106.
154
Ibid., pp. 106-111.
 34

every passage that may be reasonably supposed to have belonged to it, we will have scarcely
more than a tenth of the Gospel to work with. … To see how John treated his sources we must
understand him already; and the results of any internal redaction criticism cannot, in the
nature of things bring any new revelation”. Fourth, he points out that his “notes may appear
dismissive, but they are not intended as such”. Ashton praises the work of Fortna, but remarks
directly: “But the value of his masterly summary of Johannine theology is not in his source as
such but in his analyses of individual passages”.
Postscript155. – Ashton closes the chapter with three important insights regarding literary
criticism of the Fourth Gospel. First, contrary to what he wrote in Understanding, he no
longer accepts that the Fourth Gospel “was published in a number of editions, and that
informed guesses may be made concerning the scope and purpose of each of these”.
According to him these ideas are now “if not entirely inappropriate, at least somewhat
misleading. The notion of successive editions fits readily enough in a culture accustomed to
printed books, but has only a limited application before the century”. Second, he
acknowledges that “it was possible in any age for an author to turn back to a work that he or
she had regarded as finished and to tinker with it, even to add to or subtract form it”. This is
certainly the case with “authors and composers with a creative life of more than a decade or
so that have been lying unused for many years”. Third, another reason why “we should be
wary of treating Fortna’s postulated pre-Johannine synthesis of signs and passion as a Gospel,
if it did exist it would have been at best a rough draft of what came later. Only when we can
point to complete reworkings, prompted by drastic alterations in the life of the Johannine
community, should we begin to think of a second edition”. He postulates: “That there were
two distinct editions of the Gospel in the strong sense remains a real possibility, one I myself
favour. But it is not the only possibility; and we should remain open to a more flexible
approach”156.
L.J. JONES and D.B. MILLER (1994)157 strongly oppose the source critical approach of the
shmei'a. They point out that the signs play an enduring positive role in the development of
faith in the Fourth Gospel: “Considering the rhetorical design of the work, including its
juridical framework and its allusions to the exodus, there is no reason to conclude that the
Fourth Evangelist wishes to disparage or challenge a faith based on signs. Rather the signs as
well as the works of Jesus are witnesses in the strategy of persuading the characters, and
ultimately the reader, of Jesus’ identity”158. This perspective has consequences for both the
source criticism and the theology of the fourth evangelist. (1) The ideological argument for
the semeia hypothesis is no longer attainable: “As the sophistication of the evangelist’s work
is better appreciated, the attempt to discern the boundaries of sources becomes more
complicated”159. (2) The so-called tensions between the positive appreciation of the signs
from the signs source and a negative view of the evangelist, can be explained by different
means: “for the Fourth Gospel, it is necessary that people be introduced to the signs or other

155
Ibid., pp. 112-113.
156
Ibid., pp. 113.
157
Loren L. JOHNS – Douglas B. MILLER, The Signs as Witnesses in the Fourth Gospel: Reexamining the Evidence,
in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 56 (1994) 519-535.
158
Ibid., p. 533.
159
Ibid., p. 534.
 35

witnesses in order to believe, yet it is possible for them to see the signs without believing”160.
(3) For the fourth evangelist, not believing is not the result of the inadequacy of the signs, but
is due to other factors than the unwillingness to do the will of God (7,7), the hard of heart
(12,37-43), preference for human honor (5,44), and finally there is disbelief amongst some,
because they have not been given to Jesus by the Father (6,44.65; 10,25-30)161.
In his commentary of 1983 J. Gnilka still defends the semeia source162, but in Theology of
the New Testament (2004) he is critical of the hypothesis. In reference to H. Thyen he argues
that the source must be dismissed163.
For his study, Jesus and His ‘works’ (1996), P.W. Ensor researched the authenticity of “the
sayings attributed to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel in which he refers to his ‘works’, ‘work’ or
‘working’164. After reviewing the source hypotheses of R. Bultmann, J. Becker, R.T. Fortna,
W. Nicol, H.M. Teeple, S. Temple, and R. Schnackenburg, and offering a critique of their
arguments, he concludes: “Caution is therefore required as we consider the validity of these
source theories. The most that can be said at the present stage of scholarship is that the author
may have used a special written source in writing his account of some or all of the miracle
stories in his Gospel, but, if so, its exact extent cannot be certainly delineated. As far as the
question of the ‘authenticity’ of the words of Jesus in the Gospel is concerned, it can of course
be argued from an acceptance of some form of source theory that the discourses which are
attached to the source material are barely Johannine constructions, or drawn from a source
which had nothing to do with the original Jesus. On the other hand, it is equally possible that
they contain saying which are in some sense ‘authentic’, but which originally belonged in
another context within the Jesus tradition, or that the author was using different sources of
information (whether written or oral) about the same event and combining them in his own
way”165. In Johannine exegesis there are different literary theories that contradict each other,
but according to Ensor “there is nothing in the theories which have been examined which
necessarily damages the case that the Fourth Gospel may contain some sayings of Jesus which
stand in a close relation to what he actually said and others which faithfully summarize the
general trust of his teaching”166. Ensor determines that some words might be truly authentic
(cf. 4,34; 5,17.19-20a; 9,4) while others are less so. The redaction of Jesus’ words follows the
same pattern as Old Testament citations. The word of Jesus, according to the author, have
undergone the following steps: “stemming originally from Jesus himself, who saw himself as
working ‘in tandem’ with God, doing God’s work(s) by God’s power, through the author of
the Fourth Gospel, who took this motif and coloured it in his own way, to the Fathers of the
early Church who saw it as one way of expressing their belief in his deity in the fullest sense.
At each stage in these developments, …, the original motif was freshly understood in the light
of convictions about Jesus which had origins outside the motif itself. To what extent these
160
Ibid., p. 514.
161
Ibid., pp. 534-535.
162
Cf. VAN BELLE, Signs Source, 1994, pp. 195-196.
163
Joachim GNILKA, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen
Testament, Supplementband 5), Freiburg – Basel – Wien, Herder, 1994, p. 227-228.
164
Peter ENSOR, Jesus and His “Works”: The Johannine Sayings in Historical Perspective (Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2/85), Tübingen, Mohr, 1996. Diss. Aberdeen, 1993 (promoter: Ruth B.
Edwards).
165
Ibid., pp. 16-21, esp. p. 21.
166
Ibid., p. 25.
 36

convictions also have an anchorage in the ministry of the historical Jesus it has not been part
of the purpose of this book to explore”167. In an appendix he offers a critique of U.C. von
Wahlde’s source theory: “The signs ‘signs’/’works’ terminology cannot be used with any
confidence to separate a first from the second edition of the gospel”168.
The important dissertation of C. Welck on the miracle stories (and John 21) appeared in
1994169. He is critical of the semeia hypothesis and proposes a narrative synchronic reading,
in which he closely links the literary reading of the text with a theological interpretation.
According to him, the synchronic must have preference over the diachronic. With his study,
Welch wishes to: (1) research the Johannine Wunderverständnis based on an interpretation of
the miracle stories; (2) critically analyse their underlying literary form; (3) indicate that a shift
from a historical (diachronic) reading to a synchronic reading means progress for the
interpretation of the Fourth Gospel170. Welck emphasises that John was particularly interested
in the way that people reacted to the miracles. Indeed he distinguishes between
“Wunderglauben” (a faith that is exclusively based on a miracle) and “Wunderglauben” (a
faith that begins with a faith in miracles, but ends in a more mature and adult faith)171. In his
analysis of the different miracle stories, he indicates two specific characteristics: on the one
hand there is a preliminary dramatic dimension, which emphasises the miraculous event and
the material aspect of the miracle, and on the other, there is a deeper level in which the
salvation-dramatic dimension is explained172. Regarding the conclusion of the Gospel, he
argues that the Wundergeschichten, thus the stories themselves, are characterised as shmei'a.
For Welck the shmei'a gegrammevna (20,30-31) has the same role as the shmei'a poiei'n of
Jesus (chapters 1–12)173. Moreover, one should not interpret 20,30-31 as a “Abschlussnotiz”
(concluding statement) but far rather as a “Schlussnotiz” (closing statement), with which the
end of Jesus’ story is portrayed as the eschatological dawn of salvation and not as the end of
the book174. This “Schlussnotiz” is then at once also the pre-emption of Chapter 21: “Denn die
Schlussnotiz 20,30f, die den Zweck und damit den Anspruch dieses Buch formuliert, wird
eben durch die folgende Äthiologie dieses Buches 21,1-25 bewahrheitet, als begründete
Aussage über Zweck und Anspruch dieses Buches kenntlich”175.
In his study on the healing of the man born blind (1995)176, M. Rein believes that
synchronic and diachronic methods do not exclude each other, but rather that they are
complimentary. Only in this way is it possible for the exegete to explain the characteristic
tension between the text’s literary unity and the prevalence of aporias177. He discusses John

167
Ibid., p. 271.
168
Ibid., pp. 272-277, esp. p. 277.
169
Christian WELCK, Erzählte Zeichen: Die Wundergeschichten des Johannesevangeliums literarisch untersucht.
Mit einem Ausblick auf Joh 21 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2/ 69), Tübingen, Mohr
Siebeck, 1994. Diss. Bethel, 1991-1992 (promoter: Andreas Lindemann). On the sign
170
Ibid., pp. 41-42.
171
Ibid., pp. 84, 109-118, 123-124, 127, 143, 159, 161, 237.
172
Ibid., pp. 131-235.
173
Ibid., p. 289-293.
174
Ibid., p. 342.
175
Ibid., p. 342. On Welck’s interpretation of 20,30-31, see VAN BELLE, The Meaning, 1998, pp. 301-302.
176
Matthias REIN, Die Heilung des Blindgeborenen (Joh 9): Tradition und Redaktion (Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2/73), Tübingen, Mohr, 1995. Diss. Halle-Wittenberg, 1993-1994
(promoters: Traugaut Holtz).
177
Ibid., pp. 6-7, 354.
 37

9,1-41 in four chapters, based on: (1) a literary analysis (including text criticism, a synchronic
and a diachronic analysis); (2) form-historical research (Formgeschichte); (3) a tradition-
historical approach (Traditions-geschichte); and (4) he concludes with a presentation of the
results and consequences of his research.
According to Rein, John 9 developed in three phases178. He assumes that verses 1-3a.6-
7a.8-12.35-38 contain elements that derive from the original story. This story indeed reveals
similarities with the Synoptics, but is not dependent on them. In a second phase, vv. 13-17 (on
the reactions of the Pharisees, the mentioning of the Sabbath conflict and the discussion on
Jesus’ identity) was added. Lastly Rein ascribes verses 3b-5.18-34.39-41 to the evangelist.
The evangelist’s additions indicate that this last phase should be situated between 70 and 100
A.D. The usage of the term ajposunagwgov", the discussion between the Jews/Pharisees on the
question about where the Messiah will come from, and references to the then contemporary
discussions in Judaism, all indicate Pharisaic Judaism from after 70 A.D. The evangelist resists
the onslaughts of the Jewish Synagogue, which indicates that the division between the
Christian community and the Synagogue was a forgone fact. Rein states that his study has not
solved the question on whether the evangelist had used written or oral sources179. This
question is linked to another problem: how can one distinguish the oral tradition processes
from written tradition processes, and how were these tradition processes processed in the text.
Regarding John 9, Rein is firmly convinced that the evangelist had developed orally
transmitted Vorlagen into a story180.
In in an article from 1996, Y.-M. Blanchard dealt with the theology of the signs in the
Fourth Gospel. In it – with reference to D. Marguerat – he rejects the signs source181.
In the same year, H.-C. Kammler dismissed the source hypothesis in his study on the
conclusion of John 20,30-31, and he argued that the term shmei'on refers back exclusively to
the stories of Jesus’ appearances.
The first volume of J. Frey’s masterly study on Die johanneïsche Eschatologie182, is totally
dedicated to the history of questions about eschatology since S. Reimarus, and it has become
an important resource for Johannine research, because virtually every introductory question
on the Gospel of John is treated to some degree. It is clear, even from the chapter divisions in
the first volume, how central R. Bultmann’s exegesis was for the study. Frey divides his first
volume into five parts: I. Formulation of the Research Problem; II. An Overview of Previous
Research on the Work of Rudolf Bultmann; III. The Discussion on Johannine Eschatology
under the Influence of Interpretations until circa 1970; IV. The New Discussion on the Fourth
Gospel and its Eschatology; V. Summary and Outlook: The State of Research and
Approaches for Further Discussions. This last part contains extensive methodological

178
Ibid., pp. 284-293, 358.
179
Ibid., p. 360.
180
Ibid., p. 360.
181
Yves-Marie BLANCHARD, Signe. IV. La theologie des signes dans l’évangile de Jean, in Supplément au
Dictionnaire de la Bible, Fascicule 71: Sichem-Songe, Paris, Letouzey & Ané, 1996, 1103-1104, esp. col. 1310.
See also ID., Des signes pour croire? Une lecture de l'évangile de Jean (Lire la Bible, 106), Paris, Cerf, 1995, p. 16.
On Blanchard, see VAN BELLE, The Meaning, 1998, pp. 306-307.
182
Jörg FREY, Die johanneische Eschatologie. Band I: Ihre Probleme im Spiegel der Forschung seit Reimarus. /
Band II: Das johanneische Zeitverständnis. / Band III: Die eschatologische Verkündigung in den johanneischen
Texten (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 96, 110, 117). Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck,
1997, 1998, 2000.
 38

considerations. Frey advocates for the literary unity of the Fourth Gospel, but unlike H.
Thyen, he ascribes Chapter 21 to the author, who would be speaking in the first person in
21,24f. The semeia hypothesis is rejected by Frey183. Regarding the relationship between John
and the Synoptics, he argues that John had made use of the Gospel of Mark, had possibly
known Luke, but the use of the Gospel of Matthew cannot be proven.
In his study on the theological meaning of the miracle stories in the Fourth Gospel, C.
Karakolis (1997)184 discusses two theological questions in Johannine research that have not
been sufficiently answered: (1) Who is Jesus or who is he not?; (2) What is the significance of
his work and his gift for the people? For his answers he wishes to conduct a thorough study of
the seven miracle stories. To do this, he uses especially the synchronic approach: “Although
diachronic (form-critical, tradition-critical, redaction-critical and religion-critical) issues and
problems of the gospel are herein also discussed when necessary, the main interest of the
study is focused upon the exegetical and theological interpretation of the text in its present
form and order from a synchronic point of view”. The author summarises the results of his
research in eight points: “(1) There are strong exegetical indications in the Johannine miracle-
narratives that John takes position against the interpretation of Jesus as the Elias redivivus and
consequently against an understanding of his work on the basis of this eschatological figure.
… (2) Jesus is also clearly differentiated from the awaited Mosaic prophet (Deut 18,18) by
refusing to accept for himself the title of the prophet who is coming to the world (ch. 6). (3) In
the Johannine miracle-narratives the divinity of Jesus is clearly declared and demonstrated.
The fact that the Johannine Jesus is declared in the miracle-narratives as well as in the whole
gospel to be God on the basis of the theology of the Old Testament abolishes every effort to
understand him as a Hellenistic “theios aner”. Such an interpretation becomes even more
problematic considering the fact that the mere existence of the theios aner in the Hellenistic-
Roman world hasn’t been proved until now with certainty. Moreover there is no consensus in
modern Johannine research as to the existence and theology of the so-called semeia-source,
from which the reckoning of the Johannine Jesus as a Hellenistic theios aner is supposed to
originate. (4) In some of the Johannine miracle-narratives and their context Jesus is
characterized explicitly as a man (chs. 5, 9, 11) and he is also presented to have strong
emotions as a real man (ch. 11). … This antidocetic orientation of the Christology of the
Johannine miracles is theologically boosted by John’s general positive view of matter and
history. Concretely, Jesus’ miracles are characterized for their enormous materiality and they
particularly aim to the therapy and salvation not only of the spiritual, but also of the material
element in man. The fact that the fourth evangelist cares to ensure the historicity of the

183
Jörg FREY, Das Vierte Evangelium auf dem Hintergrund der Älteren Evangelientradition: Zum Problem:
Johannes und die Synoptiker, in Thomas SÖDING (ed.), Johannesevangelium – Mitte oder Rand des Kanons?
Neue Standortbestimmungen (Quaestiones disputatae, 203), Freiburg – Basel – Wien, Herder, 2003, 60-118, p.
77; = ID., Die johanneische Eschatologie. Band I: Ihre Probleme im Spiegel der Forschung seit Reimarus
(Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 96), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1997, 239-294, p.
256: “Aber auch die Rekonstruktion einer Semeiaquelle hat zuletzt vielstimmigen und heftigen Widerspruch
erfahren, so daß man auch für die johanneischen Wundererzählungen kaum mehr mit einer durchlaufenden
Quelle rechnen darf, sodern viel eher (mündlicher oder schrifliche) Einzeltraditionen aus der joahanneische,
Gemeinde annehmen muß”.
184
Christos KARAKOLIS, @H qeologikh; shmasiva tw'n qaumavtwn sto; kata; !Iwavnnhn eujaggevlio, Thessaloniki,
Pournaras, 1997. Diss. Thessaloniki, 1996 (promoter: Ioannis Karavidopoulos). For the above summary, see the
author’s website.
 39

miracles by putting them in concrete temporal and geographical frames and by letting them be
certified by objective witnesses, underlines their antidocetic character. This witness of the
Johannine miracle-narratives for the real humanity of Jesus agrees with the witness of the
whole gospel, according to which Jesus becomes flesh by coming into the world, has
relatives, dies, is buried and in the end is resurrected both in body and spirit. (5) On a
theological level all the miracles of the fourth gospel declare that Jesus gives life. This life is
presented in the Johannine miracle-narratives as a gift of incomparable quantity and
unequalled quality, and refers to the bodily as well as to the spiritual element of man. … (6) It
can be clearly concluded from the miracle-narratives that not only the word, but also the
miracles can lead to the faith in Jesus. This faith has a dynamic character, as it can grow more
or it can even grow less. … (7) There are many allusions in the Johannine miracle-stories to
the coming passion and resurrection of Jesus. … (8) Four of the seven miracles of the Fourth
Gospel are symbolically connected with the mysteries of baptism and Eucharist”.
In his thorough and “epoch-making” study entitled Jesus als Lebensspender (1999), M.
Labahn researches the history of the Johannine tradition based on its miracle narratives185.
After completing a comprehensive historical overview of Johannine research in the twentieth
century, he himself chooses for a form-critical approach186. Note that he differentiates
between the synchronic “formkritische Arbeit” (= form-critical work) and the diachronic
“formgeschichtliche Analyse” (= form-historical analysis)187. In his discussion on synchronic
and diachronic analyses, he prefers a diachronic interpretation. He analyses the seven signs of
John188 in a well referenced manner and for each sign offers a synchronic analysis (text,
context, narrative structure), he disconnects redaction and tradition, and provides summarised
remarks on the origins and development of the narrative. Labahn rejects the semeia
hypothesis and accepts that the Synoptic Gospels had exerted an influence, but then on the
level of secondary orality: the Johannine tradition of the miracle stories were influenced in the
course of tradition by the Synoptic Gospels189. Michael Labahn has developed this hypothesis
further in several contributions190.
W.H. Salier studies The Rhetorical Impact of the Sēmeia in the Fourth Gospel in his book
from 2004191. He asks particularly what rhetorical role the shmei'a played and what their

185
Michael LABAHN, Jesus als Lebensspender: Untersuchungen zu einer Geschichte der johanneischen
Tradition anhand ihrer Wundergeschichten (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 98),
Berlin – New York, de Gruyter, 1999. Diss. Göttingen, 1998 (promoters: Georg Strecker and Eduard Lohse).
186
Ibid., pp. 7-119.
187
Ibid., p. 5.
188
Ibid., pp. 120-465.
189
Ibid., pp. 466-468.
190
See, e.g., Eine Spurensuche anhand von Joh 5.1-18: Bemerkungen zu Wachstum und Wandel der Heilung
eines Lahmen, in New Testament Studies 44 (1998) 158-179; Between Tradition and Literary Art: The Miracle
Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, in Biblica 80 (1999) 178-203; Offenbarung in Zeichen und Wort:
Untersuchungen zur Vorgeschichte von Joh 6,1-25a und seiner Rezeption in der Brotrede (Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2/117), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2000; Controversial Revelation in
Deed and Word: The Feeding of the Five Thousand and Jesus' Crossing of the Sea as a «Prelude» to the
Johannine Bread of Life Discourse, in Irish Biblical Studies 22 (2000) 146-181; Fischen nach Bedeutung --
Sinnstiftung in Wechsel literarischer Kontexte: Der wunderbare Fischfang in Johannes 21 zwischen Inter- und
Intratextualität, in Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt. Serie A 32 (2007) 115-140.
191
Willis Hedely SALIER, The Rhetorical Impact of the Sēmeia in the Gospel of John (Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament,2/186), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Diss. Cambridge, 2003
(promoter: Graham Stanton).
 40

influence was on the first audience: “In short, the focus will be on the story and the reader.
This will produce an account that better integrates the meaning of the sign language and the
narratives this term designates into the wider themes and concerns of the Gospel itself as well
as elucidating the rhetorical impact in its original cultural context”192. To show this, his study
needs to follow two directions193. The first direction moves from the text to the reader. The
second direction moves in the opposite direction, from the reader to the text. In this way the
author hopes to formulate a more precise description of the function of the sign language and
the signs narratives. First he analyses how the term shmei'on is used in the Septuagint, in
Greco-Roman literature (Philo and Jospephus, Aristotle, Rhetorica ad Herrenium, Cicero, and
Quintilian), and in the Synoptic Gospels and Paul194. Thereupon, in four chapters he studies
the meaning of the word and the stories in the Fourth Gospel, where he follows the Gospel’s
order: “The Beginning of the Signs” (John 1–4), “Controversial signs” (John 5–10), “Signs of
Life” (John 11–12), and “The ‘Sign of Signs’” (John 13–21)195. He consistently applies the
same method: after identifying the usage of shmei'on in the section, he discusses each
occurrence and the miracle stories that appear in the section, and persistently applies the two
directions of interpretation: “text to reader” and “reader to text” resp. “writing the sign” and
“reading the sign”. Regarding the signs source (for which he refers Bultmann and Fortna) he
notes, mentioning my study196:
Van Belle offers a comprehensive analysis of the major players in the debate and concludes with a detailed
criticism. … The most damaging evidence comes in an examination of the stylistic criteria employed to
discern the signs source. Van Belle collates and compares the results of numerous studies of Johannine style
and demonstrates clearly that Johannine style characteristics are ‘nearly evenly distributed throughout the
gospel and that they offer no evidence for source reconstructions’. While there are still defenders of the signs
source, the tide appears to be turning towards an appreciation of the difficulty of its parameters, even if it is
conceded to exist. And, even if the source did exist, the question still remains as to why the source found
shmei'on to be a useful term and why John saw this as useful term to adopt and use in his Gospel.
In his contribution, Second Thoughts on the Fourth Gospel (2007)197 and in the second
edition (2007) of Understanding198, J. Ashton, responding to the more recent literature,
renews his dedication to the diachronic method and discusses its specific problems199. He
emphasises in his conclusion that “Historic critics are not instinctive deconstructionists,
‘predisposed’, as they have been accused of being, ‘towards aporias in the text’”200. They
precede their research with synchronic studies, but determine that the text contains aporias:
“they neither seek out aporias nor invent them; but having found them in the text they prefer
to try and explain them instead of papering them over or pretending they are not there”201.
Ashton concedes that an author who has being writing over a number of years, “must be

192
Ibid., p. 5.
193
Ibid., pp. 6-7.
194
Ibid., pp. 18-45.
195
Ibid., pp. 46-76, 77-119, 120-141, 142-170.
196
Ibid., p. 2.
197
John ASHTON, Second Thoughts on the Fourth Gospel, in Tom THATCHER (ed.), What We Have Heard from the
Beginning: The Past, Present, and Future of the Johannine Studies, Waco, TX, Baylor University Press, 2007, 1-
18.
198
ID., Understanding the Fourth Gospel. Revised edition, Oxford, University Press, 1991; revised edition, 2007
(first edition: 1991).
199
Ibid., pp. 1-53 (“Introduction”), see p. 1: “This [new] introduction therefore simply restates the aims of the
book and alterations in my view”.
200
Ibid., p. 52.
201
Ibid., p. 52.
 41

forgiven a few slips”, but “this risk is not, …, a sufficient reason for closing one’s eyes to the
evidence of real problem spots”202. Ashton finds that the hypothesis of the Gospel having two
editions – and not one – has been made more probable, on the one hand by E. Haenchen’s
“effective demolition of displacements theories”, and on the other by J. Frey’s “pulverizing of
the theory of the Ecclesiastical Redactor”203. He concludes204:
With the disappearance of these two bogies the path is cleared for a relatively simple perception of the
Gospel as predominantly the work of one man, whom we can safely call John, responsible for the whole text
apart perhaps from (a) a source (the signs source) that he freely adapted to suit his own purposes, (b) a hymn
to Wisdom that served him as prologue, (c) the final chapter, and (d) a few relatively insignificant glosses.
But this may be still too much for a die-hard synchronist to swallow”.
In a contribution from 2010, C. Carbullanca Nuñez has conducted a study of the
Christology of the Fourth Gospel205, and he poses the question whether it is at all possible to
talk of diverse literary layers in the Fourth Gospel (e.g. tradition or Vorlage, source or
Grundschrift), and thus necessarily speak of different Christologies (e.g. Jesus as qei'o" ajnhvr,
as Son of God, and as mosaic prophet). His answer is clear: the theory of different layers in
the Fourth Gospel, and thus also the semeia and Grundschrift hypotheses must be rejected. He
defends the literary unity of the Gospel and believes that the Christology of John, that is
seeing Jesus as an eschatological prophet, has its origin in texts like 11QMelq, Q521 and
4Q377206.
We conclude this overview with the recent contribution of H. Förster (2014), who asks
whether the hermeneutical key of the Fourth Gospel might not be found in the Johannine
signs and in John 2,11207. He argues that ajrchv tw'n shmeivwn at the end of the story of the
wedding at Cana should not be translated as “first sign” but as “the beginning of the signs”:
“Elements in the narratives of the various signs seem to build a dynamic structure, thereby
assigning each sign a fixed position in a climactic story which ends with the raising of
Lazarus”208. This has consequences for source criticism. It has always been indicated that the
magnitude of the miracles is typical for the Johannine signs of the Fourth Gospel. This is also
the case with the Johannine signs that have synoptic parallels, clearly indicating through these
intertextual comparisons that we are dealing in the Fourth Gospel with signs that structurally
build up to a climax. This is necessarily an indication of a revision regarding a deliberate
structuring. How can this be explained209? (1) If it were the case that one presupposed a
“Zeichenquelle”, one would need to establish whether the author had taken over the source
containing this strong structure. Then we would be dealing with a highly structured source.
(2) An alternative possibility would be that one could assume different traditions of separate
signs of Jesus, which were independent of each other and known to the author, and on which
he thus imposed his structure. But then we would have to presuppose multiple independent
“Zeichenquellen”. (3) But if one were to accept that the author had deliberately used shmei'on

202
Ibid., p. 52.
203
Ibid., p. 52.
204
Ibid., p. 52.
205
César CARBULLANCA NUÑEZ, Origínes de la Cristología del Cuarto Evangelio: El problema de la unidad
literaria y teológica, in Veritas: Revista de Filosofía y Teología 23 (2010) 153-179.
206
Ibid., pp. 176-178.
207
Hans FÖRSTER, Die johanneischen Zeichen und Joh 2:11 als möglicher hermeneutischer Schlüssel, in Novum
Testamentum 56 (2014) 1-23.
208
See his “Abstract” on p. 1.
209
Ibid., pp. 20-22.
 42

as well as the term ajrchv, and that ajrchv is a potential hermeneutical key for the structure of
the signs in the Fourth Gospel, then the deliberate decision to link the two terms in one verse
in the expression ajrchv tw'n shmeivwn appears to be a relatively plausible hypothesis. But in
such a case the hypothesis of a “Zeichenquelle” is brought into question, because then the
source would not have fully appreciated the meaning of the term that the author had
deliberately chosen. At the same time, the narrated “signs”, where the term shmei'on had been
deliberately chosen by author of the Gospel, can no longer be attributed to a signs source,
because the applied meaning of this concept could no longer be assumed available for this
source resp. sources. Further Förster believes that the so-called magnitude of all the signs
should not be seen as more than one characteristic of Johannine Christology, which
emphasises his divinity in a special manner. Föster’s study also points out that chapter 5 and 6
should be interchanged. But in this case the narrative structure of the signs is destroyed210.

II. A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SEMEIA HYPOTHESIS AFTER TWENTY YEARS

This historical overview of the hypothesis covering the last twenty years is far from
complete. It is principally the first draft of “a work in construction” intended for my personal
use, and which at some point I hope to develop further, improve my formulations, and
increase the documentation, notably concerning other comparable literary-critical hypotheses
and other alternative source and redaction theories, which require attention in current
Johannine research211. In this preliminary evaluation I will first indicate a few obvious
differences between the recent and the previous defences of the hypothesis – and I limit
myself to the scope of the source and its argumentation –, consequently I will deliberate on
the problem of the aporias, and will conclude with a discussion of the substantive
argumentation of sources. I will of course add references to my own work and will only be
able to respond to limited aspects of the hypothesis. I wish to mention in advance that interest
in hypothesis has dwindled lately, but this is not due to the hypothesis itself, but far rather
attributable to the disinterest of current Johannine exegetes in the literary-critical approach.
Even though the hypothesis has a stubborn opposition, it still remains the most exquisite pearl
in Johannine source-criticism.

1. New Tendencies in the Research of the Semeia Hypothesis

(a) Regarding the scope of the source it needs to be pointed out that there is no agreement
between the proponents of the hypothesis. Both a shmei'a-Quelle or signs source, consisting
more or less exclusively of miracle stories, and the model of a Gospel of Signs or Signs
Gospel, in which the passion story is taken up alongside the miracle stories, are still defended.

210
Ibid., pp. 22-23. See also the other articles of Förster: Johannes 11:11-14 – Ein typisches johanneisches
Missverständnis?, in Novum Testamentum 53 (2011) 338-357; Die Perikope von der Hochzeit zu Kana (Joh 2:1-
11) im Kontext der Spätanike, in Novum Testamentum 53 (2011) 103-126.
211
See, e.g., the following recent books on “signs” and “signs story: David A. REDELINGS, The Epistemonogical
Basis for Bielief according to John’s Gospel: Miracles and Message in Their Essentials as Nonfictional Grounds
for Knowledge of God, Eugen, OR, Pickwick Publications, 2011 (diss. St. Andrews: promoter: Richard
Bauckham); Franz ZEILINGER, Franz, Die sieben Zeichenhandlungen Jesu im Johannesevangelium, Stuttgart,
Kohlhammer, 2011; Giancarlo BIGUZZI, Il vangelo dei segni (Studi biblici, 175), Brescia, Paideia, 2014.
 43

The short source, consisting of just the two Cana stories, has been virtually abandoned. The
new perspective suggested by S.C. Winter, that the source could contain discourses besides
the miracle stories and the passion narrative, leads one to wonder whether the proponents of
the source do not doubt their own theories, when they assume such a point of departure for the
hypothesis. Was “the all-but-intolerable tension between narrative and discourse” the
fundamental principle of the most prominent hypothesis of Johannine source-criticism, the so-
called sèmeia-hypothesis? R.T. Fortna emphasised this in his study of 1988212. In the Fourth
Gospel – so he maintained – there is a tension between narrative and discourse. On the one
hand, there are stories about the earthly Jesus: these are told in a lively and short fashion and in
the third person, and exhibit many similarities with the Synoptic Gospels. Moreover, the story
material would contain a primitive Christology: Jesus is presented as a “miracle worker” and
manifests himself as the Messiah, in whom we must believe. On the other hand, the discourses
of Jesus display a style that deviates from the Synoptics: they are told in the first or second
person, seem timeless, and are very drawn-out, repetitive and solemn. The discourses also have
a “higher” Christology: Jesus is presented as the one sent by the Father, who accomplishes the
works that his Father gives him. The works of Jesus consist of his deeds and his words. The
question whether the source would not contain discourses did not escape R.T. Fortna. He argues
that the discourses were essential additions as a response to the crisis with the synagogue (cf.
supra) and he describes the trajectory of the discourses as follows213:
And it is even possible that the contentious debate in the crisis produced between the evangelist’s community
and the synagogue accounts for the creative invention of some of the discourse material altogether. In John
5:17-47, for example, the evangelist says that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus because of his self-proclaimed unity
with the Father, and he defends his claims on the testimony of a number of “witnesses”, including Moses; this
appears to reflect the debate with the synagogue as the initiating element. Whether the crisis gave rise to the
discourses altogether or in some cases only occasioned their codification, it argues for a later date for John than
has sometimes been proposed but not so late a date as others have suggested. The best estimate for the date of
the earliest version of a fairly complete version of John’s Gospel would be some time after 85 C.E. (or whatever
date can be given to the revision of the Twelfth Benediction that required Christian Jews to leave their
synagogue and cease thinking themselves as Jewish).
(b) The defenders of the source, who are discussed here, generally assume the earlier
arguments in favour of the semeia hypothesis. We can discern between five points in the
classic arguments of the hypothesis. These five arguments are different in nature, the first two
are literary-critical, that is, source-critical arguments, then follows a stylistic argument, a
form-critical and an ideological or Christological argument. In current research they are
sometimes designated differently, for example by Theobald and von Wahlde, but essentially
the arguments remain the same. Though, the arguments are refined and developed, which we
will indicate.
[1] The most important signal for the existence of the signs source is the numbering of the first
two signs in 2,11 and 4,54. The conclusion of the healing of the royal official’s son in 4,54
(Tou'to ªde;º pavlin deuvteron shmei'on ejpoivhsen oJ !Ihsou'" ejlqw;n ejk th'" !Ioudaiva" eij" th;n
Galilaivan) refers to the conclusion of the wine miracle in 2,11 (Tauvthn ejpoivhsen ajrch;n tw'n
shmeivwn oJ !Ihsou'" ejn Kana; th'" Galilaiva" kai; ejfanevrwsen th;n dovxan aujtou', kai;

212
Robert T. FORTNA, The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor: From Narrative Source to Present Gospel,
Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1988, pp. 1-3.
213
ID., The Gospel of John and the Signs Gospel, in Tom THATCHER (ed.), What We Have Heard from the
Beginning: The Past, Present, and Future of the Johannine Studies, Waco TX, Baylor University Press, 2007,
149-158, p. 154.
 44

ejpivsteusan eij" aujto;n oiJ maqhtai; aujtou'), but appear not to take the numerous signs into
account that Jesus would have performed at Jerusalem in the meantime according to 2,23 (cf.
3,2) and 4,45. These inconsistencies are an indication to defenders of the signs source that the
evangelist took over the numbering from a source without aligning it with his own redaction.
Some authors have claimed that they have identified the third sign of the source in the story of
the miraculous catch of fish in 21,1-14, based on the counting in 21,14 (tou'to h[dh trivton
ejfanerwvqh !Ihsou'" toi'" maqhtai'" ejgerqei;" ejk nekrw'n). The numbering of the signs remains
one of the most important aporias that defenders quote, but can be explained synchronically
by the opposition.
[2] Where Chapter 21 is consistently explained by the source critics to be an addition, John
20,30-31 is mostly seen as the conclusion of the original gospel:
30 Polla; me;n ou\n kai; a[lla shmei'a ejpoivhsen oJ !Ihsou'" ejnwvpion tw'n maqhtw'n ªaujtou'º,
a} oujk e[stin gegrammevna ejn tw'/ biblivw/ touvtw/:
31 tau'ta de; gevgraptai
i{na pisteuvªsºhte o{ti !Ihsou'" ejstin oJ cristo;" oJ uiJo;" tou' qeou',
kai; i{na pisteuvonte" zwh;n e[chte ejn tw'/ ojnovmati aujtou'.
It remains conspicuous that evangelist indicates the content of his book (v. 31 tau'ta de;
gevgraptai; cf. v. 30: a} oujk e[stin gegrammevna ejn tw'/ biblivw/ touvtw/) with the term shmei'a,
signs, which Jesus performed before the eyes of his disciples, as if the Gospel contained nothing
else but signs. But the evangelist narrates the last sign in Chapter 11 and refers to the miracles
again only twice in Chapters 13–20, and then with the word e[rga, works (14,11; 15,24). The
term shmei'on, which is used for the last time in 12,37 (tosau'ta de; aujtou' shmei'a
pepoihkovto" e[mprosqen aujtw'n oujk ejpivsteuon eij" aujtovn) appears to have no bearing on the
words and discourses of Jesus, which are so important in John. Due to these inconsistencies the
defenders of the semeia hypothesis determined that the term shmei'on and the closing statement
of the source do not fit in the gospel but far rather in a collection of miracle stories. Therefore
they think that the evangelist took 20,30-31, the conclusion of the source, and implemented it as
a conclusion of his own work. Many authors, however, have attempted to indicate in dialogue
with recent publications that the final verses fit really well in the Fourth Gospel and need not
indicate the conclusion of a source214.
[3] Since the beginning style considerations have played an important role in the semeia
hypothesis. Representatives of the older literary criticism point out that different vocabulary and
a different style are used in the passages of the evangelist and the interpolator. When Bultmann
ascribes a pericope to the signs source in his commentary, he invariably indicates the style.
According to him the language of the source is clearly distinguishable from the language of
both the evangelist and other sources. It is characterised by Semitisms that according to
Bultmann show that the source was written in Greek and then by a Greek speaking Semite.
After E. Schweizer (1939) and E. Ruckstuhl (1951) had petitioned against the source-criticism
of the Fourth Gospel that the style of Gospel is so homogenous that no sources could be

214
Gilbert VAN BELLE, The Meaning of shmei'a in Jn 20,30-31, in ETL 74 (1998) 300-325; L’unité littéraire et
les deux finales du quatrième évangile, in Andrea DETTWILLER – Uta POPLUTZ (eds.), Studien zum Matthäus und
Johannes / Études sur Matthieu et Jean. Festschrift für Jean Zumstein zu seinem 65. Geburtstag / Mélanges
offerts à Jean Zumstein pour son 65e anniversaire (Abhandlingen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen
Testaments, 97), Zürich, Theologischer Verlag, 2009, 297-315 ; ID., The Signs of the Messiah in the Fourth
Gospel: The Problem of a “Wonder-working Messiah”, in Bart J. KOET, Steven MOYISE & Joseph VERHEYDEN
(eds.), The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Essays in Honour of Maarten J.J. Menken
(Supplements to Novum Testamentum, 148), Leiden – Boston, Brill, 2013, pp. 159-178.
 45

distinguished from it, the majority of the defenders of the semeia-source conceded on this point.
On the one hand some accepted that the stylistic unity of the Fourth Gospel made it difficult to
reconstruct sources, but claimed that style-critical arguments had to be converged with other
arguments. However, authors like R.T. Fortna (1970, 1988), W. Nicol (1972) and H.M. Teeple
(1974), attempted in their own way to indicate that style criticism as such could be employed to
reveal the use of the signs source. On the other hand, authors like H. Thyen (1974) and H.-P.
Heekerens (1984), dismissed E. Ruckstuhl’s list of style characteristics as a control point of the
results of literary criticism. They maintained that it is impossible to differentiate between
idiolect, the language usage of an individual author, and sociolect, the language usage of a
group. The work of T. Felton and T. Thatcher along with U.C. von Wahlde can be mentioned in
this regard. Felton and Thatcher apply a sophisticated stylometric model because they believed
the statistic model of Ruckstuhl’s stylistic study was not sufficiently refined. U.C. von Wahlde
indicated specific terminology as the first criterion for the identification of the separate layers in
the creation of the Gospel. He describes the criterion meticulously as follows215:
The first criterion is the recognition that, within the Gospel, there are differences in terminology for the same
object or concept. These terms are consistent within an edition, but also distinctive of that edition. Thus, as we
shall see, the term for religious authorities in the first edition is consistent and distinctive of that edition, but in
the second edition another term is used that is consistent within that edition and distinctive of it. The same is
true of the terms for miracle, and as we shall see, for a number of other terms. Although at times the same word
will appear in different editions with different meanings, within the same edition the meaning remains the same.
Consequently, in order to make use of the terminology as a criterion, one must critically determine the meaning
of the term in a given context. Nevertheless, in a majority of cases, this can be done with considerable certainty.
As a result the differences in terminology are probably as close to objective criteria as it is possible to get.
As illustration we may consider von Wahlde’s description of the four terminological
characteristics of the first edition (described in comparison with the word usage of the other
literary layers)216.
1E-1. In the first edition, the religious authorities are referred to as “Pharisees” (Pharisaioi), “chief priests”
(archiereis), and “rulers” (archontes). This contrasts with the usage of the second edition, where the expression
“the Jews” (Ioudaioi) is used in the more generalized (and uniquely Johannine) sense to refer to religious
authorities (2E-1).
1E-2. In the first edition, Jesus’ miracles are referred to as “signs” (sēmeia). In the second edition, they are
referred to as “works” (erga) (2E-2). In the third edition, the term is “signs and wonders” (sēmeia kai terata)
(3E-56F).
1E-3. In the first edition, the term Ioudaioi refers to “Judeans,”, that is, to the inhabitants of Judea. This usage is
limited to, and is distinctive of, the first edition. In the second edition, Ioudaioi, is used in a distinctive way as a
blanket term to refer to religious authorities (2E-1).
1E-4. In the first edition, there is a consistent pattern of translation of religious and geographical terms. This is
not found in the later editions.
In order to pay such precise attention to diverse word usage and the diverse meanings the same
word can have for the purposes of identifying different literary layers, one needs to be highly
vigilant if one wishes to defend the literary unity of the Gospel217.
215
Urban C. WAHLDE, The Gospel and Letters of John. Vol. 1: Introduction, Analysis, and Reference, Grand
Rapids, MI – Cambridge, UK, Eerdmans, 2010, pp. 25-26.
216
Ibid., pp. 63-75.
217
On the style and the literary unity of the Gospel, see Gilbert VAN BELLE, Prolepsis in the Gospel of John,
Novum Testamentum 43 (2001) 334-347; ID., Kuvrio" or jIhsou'" in John 4,1?, in A. DENAUX (ed.), New
Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis. Festschrift Joël Delobel (BETL, 161), Leuven, University Press –
Peeters, 2001, 159-174 ; ID., Repetition, Variation and Amplification: Thomas Popp’s Recent Contribution on
Johannine Style, in ETL 79 (2003) 166-178; ID., Lukan Style in the Fourth Gospel, in Joseph VERHEYDEN –
Gilbert VAN BELLE – Jan G. VAN DER WATT, Luke and His Readers. Festschrift A. Denaux (BETL, 182).
Leuven, Peeters, 2005, 351-372; ID., Style Criticism and the Fourth Gospel, in Patrick CHATELION COUNET –
Ulrich BERGES (eds.), One Text, A Thousand Methods. In Memory of S. van Tilborg (Biblical Interpretation
 46

[4] Seeing that the source in the first place contains miracle stories, the form of the narrative is
another criterion. First the defenders of the semeia hypothesis isolate the miracle stories from
the other narrative material and discourses in the Fourth Gospel, and then they claim that all the
miracle stories have the same form. They proclaim that the miracles in John are more
miraculous than those in the Synoptic Gospels. These are characterised as “novelistic miracle
narratives” or “epiphany narratives”. This underscoring of the miraculous is not in line with the
differently quite critical attitude of the evangelist towards miracles. Lastly, they point at the
presentation of faith in the signs source. In contrast to the Synoptic Gospels, where faith usually
precedes and is seen as a prerequisite for a miracle to take place, faith in the miracle stories of
the source is far rather seen as the natural consequence of the miracle (2,11; 4,53; 6,14;
11,15.45). The question of the literary form of the miracle story regarding the two Cana signs is
discussed at length by H. Riedl and especially by M. Labahn, although he defends an alternative
hypothesis.
(5) The last argument and for some the most important argument of the hypothesis is the
ideological. It concerns particularly the theology and the Christology of the signs. To start the
defenders of the source assume that there is a contradiction in the Fourth Gospel between the
passages that presume a direct relation between signs and faith (e.g. 2,11; 4,53; 6,14; 20,30-31)
and the passages in which faith based on the signs is criticised, downplayed or even rejected
(e.g. 2,23; 4,48; 6,26). According to them, the evangelist viewed faith in the miracles as inferior,
as a second means to come to faith (14,11; 10,38; 4,48). They accept that this possibility is
explained sufficiently when the first view is pinned to the signs source and the second to the
evangelist. Furthermore they defend that the source contains a fairly elementary Christology.
They see it as a primitive Messianic presentation of Jesus, while the redaction of the evangelist
developed a higher Christology. Since Bultmann the Christology of the source is a described as
a Hellenistic theios anèr Christology. To indicate Jesus as the Messiah, he is presented in the
source as a miracle performer, as all-knowing, as someone who always takes the initiative. His
actions cannot be determined by others, not even those close to him. For John, on the other
hand, the miracles of Jesus are no proof, but rather signs, symbols or signposts to the
uniqueness of salvation: Jesus fulfils the work of God and in this way gives life to the believers.
We will return to this ideological argument below.

2. The Question of the Aporias

The term aporia has played an important role in literary criticism of the Fourth Gospel

Series, 71), Leiden, Brill, 2005, 291-316; ID., L’usage proleptique du pronom aujtov" en Jn 9:13, 18, in Novum
Testamentum 47 (2005) 1-18; ID., The Death of Jesus and the Literary Unity of the Fourth Gospel, in ID., The
Death of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (BETL, 200), Leuven, Peeters – University Press, 2007, 192-198; ID. (with
Sidney PALMER), John’s Literary Unity and the Problem of Historicity, in Paul N. ANDERSON – Felix JUST – Tom
THATCHER (eds.), John, Jesus, and History. Volume 1: Critical Appraisals of Critical Views (SBL Symposium
Series, 44), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2007, 217-228; ID., Theory of Repetitions and Variations
in the Fourth Gospel: A Neglected Field of Research?, in ID. – Michael LABAHN – Petrus MARITZ (eds.),
Repetitions and Variations in the Fourth Gospel: Style, Text, Interpretation (BETL, 223). Leuven, Peeters, 2009,
13-32, 33-85; ID., Peter as Martyr in the Fourth Gospel, in Johan LEEMANS (ed.), Martyrdom and Persecution in
Late Antique Christianity. Festschrift Boudewijn Dehandschutter (BETL, 241), Leuven, Peeters, 2010, 281-309;
ID., The Use of the Pronomen abundans in the Fourth Gospel. — ETL 88 (2012) 419-442.
 47

since E. Schwartz (1907-1908)218. In Greek the term originally meant “a difficult pass” (cf.
ajporevw, “to be at loss”) and was used to describe “an impassable maritime strait (a[poro") or
in a debate, a difficulty in logic”219. In research on sources, researchers spoke of literary
seams or aporias to indicate “literary inconsistencies, contradictions, interruptions, sudden
turns, non sequiturs, and doublets (often collectively designed ‘seams’)”220. They were used
as criteria of “features that suggest that the present Gospel has undergone editing”221. These
literary seams or aporias were similarly employed in Pentateuch research and their criteria
could be organized differently. Fortna, for example, speaks of ideological, stylistic and
contextual criteria222, and U.C. von Wahlde differentiates between three types of features that
are used to identify the separate editions. His criteria are linguistic features (terminology),
ideological features (narrative orientation), and theological features (theology”)223. According
to U.C. von Wahlde, the aporias are not the sole indicators of the aporias, but similarly
repetitions of a text Epanalepsis and “other resumptive devices” (e.g. tau'ta eijpwvn), are equal
markers224.
One may pose the question whether the aporias we encounter in a text like the Fourth
Gospel can seriously serve as a point of departure for differentiating between different layers.
Their identification could well be subjective and most of the aporias are not so evident after a
first reading. An average reader would probably not notice that there are 33 aporias in John
11,1–12,19, as identified by J. Wagner, and these are not even all the cases that he uses in his
analysis to differentiate between three literary layers (the work of the redactor, that of the
evangelist, and the basic writing)225. Moreover it might be asked whether it is at all possible
for an author of a literary work, of whatever nature, to write without aporias occurring.
Regardless, the significance of the aporias for interpreting how the Gospel developed and the
interpretation of the Gospel are strongly defended by Ashton.
Authors who are not or are no longer interested in the prehistory of a text, like F.F.
Segovia, believe that “the proposed aporias” are explainable by other means. In response to
this point of view and the judgement of R. Bauckham, who denies the problem of aporias, J.
Ashton challenges: “To these glib assertions that there are better or simpler ways of solving
the aporias than those advocated by the diachronists all one can say is, ‘Show me’”226. But

218
Eduard SCHWARTZ, Aporien im vierten Evangelium (Nachrichten von der Königlichen Alademie der
Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse), Berlin, Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1907, 342-
372 (I); 1908, 115-148 (II), 149-188 (III), 497-560 (IV).
219
Gary M. BURGE, Interpreting the Gospel of John (Guides to the New Testament, 5), Grand Rapids, MI, Baker
Book House, 1992, p. 62-63, n. 10. On Aporias, see ibid., pp. 57-83; ID., The Literary Seams in the Fourth
Gospel, in Covenant Quarterly 48 (1990) 15-25; ID., John (The NIV Application Commentary), Grand Rapids,
MI, 2000, pp. 23-39; see also Andreas J. KÖSTENBERGER, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters (Biblical
Theology of the New Testament), Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 2009, pp. 145-150; ASHTON, Underständing,
2
2007, pp. 19-22, 42-53.
220
David E. AUNE, New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric, Louisville, KY – London, 2003,
pp. 53-53, esp. 53.
221
VON WAHLDE, op. cit., p. 10-12.
222
FORTNA, The Gospel of Signs, 1970, pp. 2-15 and 15-22; ID., Predecessor, 1988, pp. 1-8, esp. 6.
223
VON WAHLDE, op. cit., p. 10-12.
224
Ibid., pp. 18-19, 24-25, 49, 149.
225
Josef WAGNER, Auferstehung und Leben. Joh 11,1–12,19 als Spiegel johanneischer Redaktions- und
Theologiegeschichte (Biblische Untersuchungen, 19), Regensburg, Pustet, 1988, pp. 29-42: “Aporien im Text als
Indizien literarischer Schichtung”).
226
ASHTON, Underständing, 22007, p. 20.
 48

here I wonder if J. Zumstein, who proposed the relecture model, might not have a point about
the counting of the signs in 4,54 (cf. 2,11), where a second sign is declared while several signs
were mentioned in the foregoing text (2,23-24; 3,2 en 4,43-45). He dismisses the so-called
aporias with the remark that it is not at all relevant to petition for a contradiction between the
summary that pools the numerous signs which Jesus performed in Jerusalem and the counting
in 4,54, which pertain exclusively to the signs the narrator had chosen to narrate227.
J. Ashton reads of a second objection against the use of aporias in the first volume of Die
johanneïsche Eschatologie (1997), more specifically in its section, Die Aporie der
johanneïsche Literarkritik (“The Impasse of Johannine Source Criticism”)228. In this section J.
Frey wishes to point out that source-criticism is not as useful in the study of the Fourth
Gospel as it is in the case of the Synoptic Gospels. He remarks: “The interpreters deliberately
renounce any stylistic verification of their theories and follow the old Tendenzkritik in relying
solely on theological criteria, this can only lead into the vicious circle of individual
theological theories” (free translated by J. Ashton)229. According to Ashton, Frey defends that
every argument that is not based on stylistics (Philology) is connected to a theological
motivation and is thus worthless. Thus conjectured, Ashton raises two objections against this
allegation230:
(1) “But in the first place his calm assumption that anyone employing theological criteria is necessarily
infected by the demonstrable bias with the Tendenzkritik of Baur and the Tübingen school is a way of
dismissing these without argument”.
(2) “Of more consequence is the assumption that theological (sachlich) and stylistic criteria are all that we
have. For a scholar of Frey’s evident learning, the failure to acknowledge the existence of Fortna’s third
category, contextual aporias, is more than just an astounding oversight: it is a very serious omission indeed…
If these are ignored, the other criteria are too weak to stand alone unaided”.
One cannot overlook the countless descriptions of aporias in the exegesis of the Fourth
Gospel. They have led to numerous explanations in Johannine exegesis and indeed they
remain a problem that must be overcome to prove the literary unity of the Gospel. One of the
contextual criteria is “the frequent parenthetical comments (Anmerkungen) and explanations
(Erläuterungen) which interrupt its narrative (e.g. 1:41; 2:9)”231. But can these parentheses or
asides indeed be interpreted as a criterion of source criticism? In my humble study on
parenthesis I tried to demonstrate that the style of these parentheses is not different from the
rest of the Gospel and that the evangelist provides additional information to his own text.
What Fortna views as markers that can be used to distinguish between the Signs Gospel and
the evangelist, would thus appear to be a device that much rather signals the literary unity of
the Gospel232.
227
ZUMSTEIN, Jean, vol. I, 2013, p. 172 n. 31 (see also above).
228
FREY, Eschatologie, vol. I, 1997, pp. 429-433.
229
Ibid., p. 431: “Wo die Auslegung einer philologischen Verifikation ihrer Konstruktion bewußt den Abschied
gibt und sich im Gefolge der alten Tendenzkritiek allein auf sachliche Kriterien stützen will, führt der Weg nur
in den circulus vitiosus der eigenen theologischen Konstruktionen”; cf. ASHTON, Underständing, 22007, p. 21.
230
ASHTON, Underständing, 22007, p. 21-22.
231
FORTNA, Gospel of Signs, 1970, p. 20. Note that in Predecessor, 1988, p. 6, parenthesis is mentioned under
“stylistic criteria”
232
Gilbert VAN BELLE, Les parenthèses dans l'évangile de Jean. Aperçu historique et classification. Texte grec de
Jean (SNTA, 11), Leuven, 1985; ID., Les parenthèses johanniques. Un premier bilan, in Frans VAN SEGBROECK –
Christopher M. TUCKETT – Gilbert VAN BELLE – Joseph VERHEYDEN (eds.), The Four Gospels 1992. Festschrift
Frans Neirynck (BETL, 100), Leuven, 1992, vol. III, 1901-1933; L’accomplissement de la parole de Jésus: La
parenthèse de Jn 18,9, in Christopher M. TUCKETT (ed.), The Scriptures in the Gospels (BETL, 131), Leuven,
University Press – Peeters, 1997, 617-627; ID., The Faith of the Galileans: The Parenthesis in John 4,44, in
 49

3. The Ideological Criterion: John 4,48

In my study from 1994, I agreed fully with the following critical evaluation of the
ideological criterion proclaimed by the proponents of the semeia source233:
Several critics have rejected the “ideological criterion”. Indeed, it is strange that the evangelist would use the
whole source, including Jn 20,30-31 that accords neither with his intention nor with the content of the gospel,
only to subject it to radical criticism. One may agree that there is a double level of “seeing signs” and “believing”,
but “it seems incorrect to comprehend this in a source-critical distinction”. Other explanations can be suggested.
One can agree with U. Schnelle and M.M. Thompson that there is no “Wunderkritik” in the Fourth Gospel. The
characteristics attributed to the so-called qei'o" ajnhvr Christology of the signs source belong in fact to the
evangelist’s own interest.
In response to my claim that the Fourth Gospel does not contain miracle critique and that the
signs always have a positive significance for the evangelist, Riedl argues that the meaning of the
signs and of faith in the signs is always relativized and corrected by the evangelist, such that one
cannot avoid speaking of miracle critique234. In an article, published in 2013, I confessed that it
might be fair to say that in my critique of the semeia hypothesis thus far I have not given enough
credence to the standpoint of Bultmann and others, who have insisted that the Fourth Gospel
does indeed contain “Wunderkritik”. With regard to 4,48, I reacted against Bultmann and in line
with Schnelle as follows235:
Jn 4,48 is not “a critical insertion” by which the evangelist “wants to correct the naive faith in miracles, such as is
exhibited by the Synoptic tradition” [Bultmann] and it surely does not contain a “Wunderkritik” [Schnelle], for
this verse leads to a greater miracle (healing at a distance) than the one requested.
In my article from 2013236, I have pointed out that R. Bultmann’s emphasis on the unity between
signs and words, the insistence on the symbolic interpretation of the signs in Jesus’ words and
discourses, and the qualification of the shmei'a as verba visibilia, left me with the impression that
the Fourth Evangelist was indeed critical when it came to miracles. This is evident (a) in W.

ETL 74 (1998) 27-44; ID., “Salvation is from the Jews”: The Parenthesis in Jn 4,22, in Reimund BIERINGER –
Didier POLLEFEYT – Frederique VANDECASTEELE-VANNEUVILLE (eds.), Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel:
Papers from the Leuven Colloquium 2000 (Jewish and Christian Heritage Series, 1), Assen, Van Gorcum, 2001,
368-400.
233
VAN BELLE, Signs Source, 1994, p. 376.
234
RIEDL, Zeichen, 1997, p. 116-117.
235
VAN BELLE, Signs Source, 1994, p. 396. See also ID., Jn 4,48 et la foi du centurion, in ETL 61 (1985) 167-
169; ID., The Prophetic Power of the Word of Jesus: A Study of John 4:43-54, in Baudoin DECHARNEUX –
Fabien NOBILIO (eds.), Prophecy, Wisdom, and Spirit in the Johannine Literature / Prophétisme, Sagesse et
Esprit dans la littérature johannique, Bruxelles-Fernelmont, E.M.E., 2014 (forthcoming).
236
ID., The Criticism of the Miracles in the Fourth Gospel: A Reflection on the Ideological Criterion of the
Semeia Hypothesis, in Tobias NICKLAS – Janet E. SPITTLER (eds.), Credible, Incredible: The Miraculous in the
Ancient Mediterranean (WUNT, 321), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2013, 302-321; see also Seeing and Believing
in John 20, in Jan KRANS, Bert JAN LIETAERT PEERBOLTE, P-B. SMITH & A. ZWIEP (eds.), Paul, John, and
Apocalyptic Eschatology. Studies in Honour of Martinus C. de Boer (Supplements to Novum Testamentus, 149),
Leiden, Brill, 2013, 169-185. See also G. VAN BELLE, Id., “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet
believe”: Rudolf Bultmann’s Interpretation of the “Signs” in the Fourth Gospel. Valedictory Lecture Delivered
by Prof. Gilbert Van Belle on Thursday, December 12th 2013 2013 at 4 p.m. in the promotion Room of the
University Hall, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, 2003.-- On
the meaning of Signs, see also ID., Glorification through Incarnation and Humiliation in the Fourth Gospel, in
T. MERRIGAN & F. GLORIEUX (eds.), “Godhead here in Hiding”: Incarnation and the History of Human
Suffering (BETL, 234), Leuven, Peeters, 2012, 253-266; ID.,The Resurrection Stories as Signs in the Fourth
Gospel: R. Bultmann’s Interpretation of the Resurrection Revisited, in Geert VAN OYEN – Tom SHEPHERD
(eds.), Resurrection of the Dead: Biblical Traditions in Dialogue (BETL, 249), Leuven, Peeters, 2012, pp. 249-
264.
 50

Nicol’s claim that the miracles are “a second best”237, (b) in my exegesis of Jn 4:48 in which the
reader is taught to believe in the word and not so much in “signs and wonders”238, and (c) in K.
Erlemann’s contribution, in which he ascribed the same function to the Johannine signs as to the
synoptic parables239. The idea that the evangelist was critical of miracles, however, does not
prevent him from emphasising the materiality and reality of the miracles. For the evangelist, the
combination of miracles and words was the only way he could make Jesus’ work of revelation
visible to believers and thereby escape Docetism: “As powerful deeds of the lovgo" e[nsarko"
[enfleshed Logos], the miracles in the Gospel of John have an antidocetic function. With their
mass and their reality, they show that Jesus Christ has really entered space and time”. Any
tension between the positive interpretation of the miracles and the occasionally denigrating and
critical attitude towards them, which the evangelist exhibits in a variety of ways, should not be
explained in source-critical terms. Rather, the dual character of performing signs (shmei'a
poeiei'n) is a constituent part of the evangelist’s narrative theology: “Insofar as miracles can lead
equally to faith or to disbelief, they are an essential part of the whole ministry of Jesus, which, as
a whole, leads to faith or to unbelief … The signs have the same twofold effect as the incarnation
(1,11–12)”240.

III. CONCLUSION

It may well be asked if research on the sources and traditions still has relevance in
contemporary exegesis of the Fourth Gospel. I have often thought of especially three texts
regarding the literary unity of John, which all exegetes of the Fourth Gospel presumably
know. The first is by D.F. Strauss (1877), who states that the Fourth Gospel is a “seamless
robe” out of which the different layers can hardly be separated241. The second text comes
from Streeter (1926), who asserts the futility of source criticism in the Fourth Gospel in less
polite but still realistic terms: “For if the sources have undergone anything like the amount of
amplification, excision, rearrangement and adaptation which the theory postulates, then the
critic’s pretence that he can unravel the process is grotesque. As well hope to start with a
string of sausages and reconstruct the pig”242. The third text is by P. Parker (1956): “It looks
as though, if the author of the Fourth Gospel used documentary sources, he wrote them all
himself”243. But one proves absolutely nothing with these literary witticisms.

237
Ibid., pp. 316; cf. Willem NICOL, The Sēmeia in the Fourth Gospel. Tradition and Redaction (Supplements to
Novum Testamentum, 32), Leiden, Brill, 1972, pp. 103-105.
238
VAN BELLE, Criticism, 2013, pp. 317-319.
239
Ibid., pp. 319-320. Cf. Kurt ERLEMANN, Die synoptischen Gleichnisse und die johanneischen shmei'a – ein
redaktionskritischer und textpragmatischer Vergleich,” in Volker A. LEHNERT – Ulrich RÜSEN-WEINHOLD
(eds.), Logos – Logik – Lyrik: Engagierte exegetische Studien zum biblischen Reden Gottes. Festschrift Klaus
Haacker (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte, 27), Leipzig, 2007, 340-349.
240
VAN BELLE, Signs Source, 1998, p. 395.
241
David Friedrich STRAUSS, Vorrede zu den Gesprächen von Ulrich von Hutten, in Gesammelte Schriften, vol.
VII, 31877 (original ed.: 1860). See Wilbert Francis HOWARD, The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and
Interpretation, London, Epworth, 1931, p.258; 41955 (revised by C.K. BARRETT), p. 297. See See VAN BELLE,
Signs Source, 1994, p. 118 n. 261.
242
Burnett Hillman STREETER, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins Treating the Manuscript Tradition, Sources,
Authorships, & Dates, London, 1924, p. 377. See L. Morris, John, 21995, p. 51.
243
Pierson PARKER, Two Editions of John, in Journal of Biblical Literature 75 (1956) 303-314, p. 304. See VAN
BELLE, Signs Source, 1994, p. 61.
 51

My two studies on the semeia hypothesis are referred to repeatedly to reject the hypothesis.
But the fact that I question the validity of the hypothesis and indicate the stylistic unity of the
Gospel in several publications does not mean that I do not take account of literary critical
theories. Nor does it imply that I agree with all the possible synchronic theories. When
students ask me, which commentaries I always consult first, then I must confess that I always
mention the commentary of Bultmann first. If I were to be asked which contemporary theory
appeals to me the most, then I think particularly of the relecture model, which J. Zumstein
worked out. When I am asked what role the Synoptic Gospels played, then I think of the
studies of F. Neirynck and M. Sabbe244, who defended that John, to use contemporary jargon,
is a relecture of the Synoptic Gospels as we know them in their canonical form. Here I wish to
offer three clarifications:
First, the Gospel of John must be compared first to the Synoptics, not only because they
have the “gospel genre” in common, but also because they have structure and content in
common, far more than with any other known, that is to say not postulated, document.
Stylistic, theological and historical research has indicated with some certainty that the Gospel
of John was written after the break with Judaism. This means that the literary dependence of
the Synoptic Gospels cannot be threatened by an “early dating” of the Fourth Gospel. One
may reply that in the semeia hypothesis, “the question of a literary dependence upon the present
Synoptic Gospels is not seriously taken into consideration” and that in some instances the
reconstruction of the pre-Johannine source is so similar to the text of the Synoptics that “it is
difficult to recognize its raison d’être”245.
Second, from the study of the Synoptic Gospels it can be established that their authors went
about their work freely and creatively. This means that one must not restrict, from the start,
the creativity of the Fourth Evangelist”. Defenders of the signs source and a non-synoptic
tradition have overlooked, it seems to me, two important aspects of Johannine writing: the unity
between narrative and discourse and John’s use of synonymous expressions. By defending this
unity, I would not deny that the author used traditional material, but to some extent this material
can be found in the Synoptic Gospel tradition, and, as has been suggested in recent studies, in the
Synoptic Gospels themselves246.
Third, the homogenous Christological and theological language of the evangelist, his
symbolism, and the structure of the text, leads us to see, within the framework of Christology
and Soteriology, of the word becoming flesh, not the historical Jesus, but the belief of the
Johannine community: Jesus is the Messiah, the “Son of God”, who was sent to the world for
our salvation. I can neither deny nor prove the possibility of historical traditions in the Fourth

244
Cf. Gilbert VAN BELLE (ed.), In Memoriam Maurits Sabbe (Annua Nuntia Lovaniensia, 50), Leuven, Peeters,
2004; ID., In Memoriam Frans Neirynck (1927-2012), in ETL 89 (2013) 116-157. On John and the Synoptics,
see VAN BELLE, Tradition, Exegetical Formation, and the Leuven Hypothesis, in Tom THATCHER (ed.), What We
Have Heard from the Beginning: The Past, the Present, and Future of Johannine Studies, Waco, TX, Baylor
University Press, 2007, 325-337; ID., L’évangile de Jean adressé aux lecteurs des synoptiques? L’hypothèse de
R. Bauckham réexaminée, in B. DECHARNEUX – Fabien NOBILIO (eds.), Figures de l’étrangeté dans l’Évangile
de Jean. Études socio-historiques et littéraires (Divin et sacré), Fernelmont, E.M.E., 2007, 67-104; ID. (with
David R.M. GODECHARLE), C.H. Dodd on John 13:16 (and 15:20): St. John’s Knowledge of Matthew Revisited,
in Tom THATCHER – Catrin H. WILLIAMS (eds.), Engaging with C.H. Dodd on the Gospel of John: Sixty Years of
Tradition and Interpretation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2013, 86-106.
245
VAN BELLE, Signs Source, 1994, p. 377, with reference to Maurits Sabbe and Frans Neirynck.
246
On John and the Synoptics, see above.
 52

Gospel. For these reasons, I can accept the point of view of C.M. Tuckett on the historical
reliability of the Fourth Gospel (2001)247:
These differences [i.e. the differences between John and the Synoptics] make it very difficult to see both
John and the Synoptics as equally accurate reflections of the historical Jesus. … Most would agree that
a focus on the kingdom of God, and extensive use of parables, are the most characteristic aspects of
Jesus’ teaching. Further, a move from a more original theocentric focus of Jesus’ teaching (with God
and God’s kingly rule as central) to a later christocentric focus (on the importance of the person of Jesus
himself) seems easier to envisage than the reverse process. Hence the teaching of the historical Jesus is
likely to be more accurately reflected in the synoptic tradition than in John’s Gospel. This does not
mean that John’s Gospel is historically worthless in terms of any quest for the historical Jesus. Some
details of John’s account appear more historically plausible than the synoptic accounts and may well be
historical.
I wish to conclude this preliminary paper with the evocation from the 2005 Bible Study Days
in Leuven, during which the importance of the literary-critical method was discussed. On this
subject M. de Jonge testified248:
At the Leuven Colloquium of 2005, the subject “The Death of Jesus in the Fourth” was approached from
various angles. By and large, the speakers at the conference assumed the unity of the Gospel of John and the
basic coherence of its theology. The president, Gilbert Van Belle – whose opening address was titled “The
Death of Jesus and the Literary Unity of the Fourth Gospel” – remarks in his report that during the panel
discussion toward the end of the colloquium “it was correctly pointed out that some speakers were inclined to
neglect the literary and historical critical background to the Fourth Gospel. This is an evident trend among
many authors: they read the Gospel synchronically, on the basis of the text as we have it, and are inclined to
ignore its complex genesis and evolution”. Van Belle emphasizes that he himself remains convinced of the
need to continue the tradition of historical-critical research, in which his own early thinking was formed, in
confrontation with new methods.

BIBLIOGRAPHIES
AND HISTORIES OF RESEARCH 1995-2014

Paul N. ANDERSON, Beyond the Shade of the Oak Tree: The Recent Growth of Johannine
Studies, in The Expository Times 119 (2007-08) 365-373.
Paul N. ANDERSON, Das “John, Jesus, and History” Projekt: Neue Beobachtungen zu Jesus
und eine Bi-optische Hypothese, in Zeitschrift für Neues Testament 23 (2009) 12-26.
Dan BATOVICI, The Second-Century Reception of John: A Survey of Methodologies, in
Currents in Biblical Research 10 (2011-12) 396-409.
Ulrich BUSSE, I, in ID., Das Johannesevangelium: Bildlichkeit, Diskurs und Ritual. Mit einer
Bibliographie über den Zeitraum 1986-1998 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum
Lovaniensium, 162), Leuven, University Press – Peeters, 2002, 425-527.
R. Alan CULPEPPER, John 6: Current Research in Retrospect, in R. Alan CULPEPPER (ed.),
Critical Readings of John 6 (Biblical Interpretation Series, 22), Leiden, Brill, 1997, 247-
257.
John DENNIS, Jesus’ Death in John’s Gospel: A Survey of Research from Bultmann to the
Present with Special Reference to the Johannine Hyper-Texts, in Currents in Biblical
Research 4 (2005-06) 331-363.
247
Christopher M. TUCKETT, Source and Redaction, in Markus BOCKMUEHL (ed.), The Cambridge Companion
to Jesus, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001, 121-137, esp. pp. 126-127.
248
Marinus DE JONGE, The Gospel and the Epistles of John Read against the Background of the History of the
Johannine Communities, in Tom THATCHER (ed.), What We Have Heard from the Beginning: The Past, Present,
and Future of the Johannine Studies, Waco TX, Baylor University Press, 2007, 127-144, esp. pp. 141-142. On
the importance of the historical-critical research, see esp. Martinus DE BOER, Narrative Criticism, Historical
Criticism, and the Gospel of John, in Journal for the Study of the New Testament 47 (1992) 35-48.
 53

Luc DEVILLERS, Études sur les écrits johanniques, in Revue Thomiste 96 (1996) 453-478.
Jörg FREY, Das vierte Evangelium in neuer Perspektive, in Theologische Beiträge 31 (2000)
38-44.
JÖRG FREY, Das Vierte Evangelium auf dem Hintergrund der Älteren Evangelientradition:
Zum Problem: Johannes und die Synoptiker, in Thomas SÖDING (ed.),
Johannesevangelium – Mitte oder Rand des Kanons? Neue Standortbestimmungen
(Quaestiones disputatae, 203), Freiburg – Basel – Wien, Herder, 2003, 60-118; = ID., Die
Herrlichkeit, 2013, 239-294.
Jörg FREY, Auf der Suche nach dem Kontext des vierten Evangeliums: Eine
forschungsgeschichtliche Einführung, in Jörg FREY – Udo SCHNELLE, U. – Juliane
SCHLEGEL (eds.), Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Das vierte Evangelium in religions-
und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Testament, 175), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2004, 3-45; = ID., Die Herrlichkeit, 2013, 45-
87.
Jörg FREY, Grundfragen der Johannesinterpretation im Spektrum neuerer
Gesamtdarstellungen, in Theologische Literaturzeitung 133 (2008) 743-760.
Jörg FREY, Wege und Perspektiven der Interpretation de Johannesevangelium: Überlegungen
auf dem Weg zu einem Kommentar, in ID., Die Herrlichkeit des Gekreuzigten. Studien zu
den Johanneischen Schriften I, ed. Juliane SCHLEGEL, (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen
zum Neuen Testament, 175), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2013, 3-41.
Michel GOURGUES, Cinquante ans de recherche johannique: De Bultmann à la narratologie, in
Michel GOURGUES – Léo LABERGE (eds.), “De bien des manières”: La recherché biblique
aux abords du XXIe sciècle: Actes du Cinquantenaire de l’ACEBAC (1943-1993) (Lectio
Divina, 163), Montréal, Fides – Paris, Cerf, 1995, 229-306.
Konrad HALDIMANN – Hans WEDER, Aus der Literatur zum Johannesevangelium 1985-1994.
Erster Teil: Historische Situierung und diachrone Analysen (I-II), in Theologische
Rundschau 67 (2002) 328-348, 425-456.
Konrad HALDIMANN – Hans WEDER, Aus der Literatur zum Johannesevangelium 1985-1994:
Zweiter Teil: Synchrone Analysen, in Theologische Rundschau 69 (2004) 75-115.
Konrad HALDIMANN – Hans WEDER, Aus der Literatur zum Johannesevangelium 1985-1994.
Dritter Teil: Theologische Akzentuierungen, in Theologische Rundschau 71 (2006) 91-113,
192-218, 310-324.
Geert HALLBÄCK, The Gospel of John as Literature: Literary Readings of the Fourth Gospel,
in Johannes NISSEN – Sigfred PEDERSEN (eds), New Readings in John: Literary and
Theological Perspectives: Essays from the Scandinavian Conference on the Fourth
Gospel: Århus 1997 (JSNT Supplement Series, 182), Sheffield, Academic Press, 1999, 31-
46.
Seán P. KEALY, John’s Gospel and the History of Biblical Interpretation. Book 1 / Book 2
(Mellen Biblical Press Series, 60), Lewiston NY – Queenston – Lampeter, Mellen, 2002 (2
volumes)
Seán P. KEALY, John’s Gospel Today: Paralysis by Analysis?, in Proceedings of the Irish
Biblical Association 23 (2000) 23-44.
Andreas J. KÖSTENBERGER, Frühe Zweifel an der johanneischen Verfasserschaft des vierten
Evangeliums in der modernen Interpretationsgeschichte, in European Journa of Theology 5
(1996) 37-46.
Robert KYSAR, Robert, The Contribution of D. Moody Smith to Johannine Scholarship, in R.
Alan CULPEPPER, R.Alan – C. Clifton BLACK (eds.), Exploring the Gospel of John. In Honor
of D. Moody Smith, Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1996, 3-17.
Michael LABAHN, – Manfred LANG, Johannes und die Synoptiker: Positionen und Impulse
seit 1990, in Jörg FREY – Udo SCHNELLE, U. – Juliane SCHLEGEL (eds.), Kontexte des
 54

Johannesevangeliums. Das vierte Evangelium in religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher

Perspektive (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 175), Tübingen,
Mohr Siebeck, 2004, 443-515.
Xavier LÉON-DUFOUR, Bulletin d’exégèse du Nouveau Testament: Évangile de Jean, in
Recherches de science religieuse 82 (1994) 227-250.
Giorgio MARCATO, Aggiornamenti sulla «questione giovannea»: Da M. Hengel – J. Frey
all’ultimo R. E. Brown, in Angelicum 83 (2006) 5-19.
Giorgio MARCATO, Richerche sulla «Scuola Giovannea», in Angelicum 75 (1998) 305-331.
Maurizio MARCHESELLI, Antigiudaismo nel Quarto Vangelo? Presentazione e bilancio degli
orientamenti recenti nella ricerca esegetica, in Rivista biblica 57 (2009) 399-478.
Watson E. MILLS, The Gospel of John (Bibliographies for Biblical Research: New Testament
Series, 4), Lewiston NY – Queenston (Ont.) – Lampeter, Mellen Biblical Press, 1995.
Francis J. MOLONEY, Where Does One Look? Reflections on Some Recent Johannine
Scholarship, in Salesianum 62 (2000) 223-251.
Francis J. MOLONEY, Recent Johannine Studies. Part One: Commentaries. Part Two:
Monographs, in The Expository Times 123 (2011-12) 313-322, 417-428.
Michèle MORGEN, Les bulletins johanniques de Xavier Léon-Dufour, in Recherches de science
religieuse 83 (1995) 187-191.
Michèle MORGEN, Bulletin d’exégèse du Nouveau Testament: La littérature johannique, in
Recherches de science religieuse 84 (1996) 277-303.
Michèle MORGEN, Bulletin d’exégèse du Nouveau Testament: La littérature johannique, in
Recherches de science religieuse 86 (1998) 291-320.
Michèle MORGEN, Bulletin johannique, in Recherches de science religieuse 89 (2001) 561-
591.
Michèle MORGEN, Les écrits johanniques, in Recherches de science religieuse 93 (2005) 290-
234.
Michèle MORGEN, Bulletin johannique, in Recherches de science religieuse 95 (2007) 281-
310.
Michèle MORGEN, Bulletin johannique, in Recherches de science religieuse 97 (2009) 605-
632.
Michèle MORGEN, Michèle, Bulletin johannique, in Recherches de science religieuse 100
(2012) 127-159.
Frans NEIRYNCK, John and the Synoptics in Recent Commentaries, in ETL 74 (1998) 386-
397.
Frans NEIRYNCK, The Question of John and the Synoptics: D. Moody Smith 1992-1999, in
ETL 76 (2000) 122-132.
Helge Kjær NIELSEN, Johannine Research, in Johannes NISSEN – Sigfred PEDERSEN (eds.),
New Readings in John: Literary and Theological Perspectives: Essays from the
Scandinavian Conference on the Fourth Gospel: Århus 1997 (JSNT Supplement Series,
182), Sheffield, Academic Press, 1999, 11-30.
Jesper Tang NIELSEN, Det johannaeiske problem: Johannesevangeliets indledningsspørgsmål,
in Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift 73 (2010) 81-104
Stanley E. PORTER – Andrew K. GABRIEL, Johannine Writings and Apocalyptic (Johannine
Studies, 1), Leiden, Brill, 213.
Andrianjatovo RAKOTOHARINTSIFA, Chronique johannique, in Études théologiques et
religieuses 75 (2000) 81-102.
Andrianjatovo RAKOTOHARINTSIFA, Chronique johannique II, in Études théologiques et
religieuses 78 (2003) 79-95.
Rainer RIESNER, Rückfrage nach Jesus. Teil 2: Neue Literatur zum Thomas- und zum
Johannes-Evangelium, in Theologische Beiträge 31 (2000) 152-162.
 55

Udo SCHNELLE, Ein neuer Blick: Tendenzen gegenwärtiger Johannesforschung, in Berliner

Theologische Zeitschrift 16 (1999) 21-40.
Udo SCHNELLE, Auf der Suche nach dem Leser, in Verkündigung und Forschung 41 (1996)
61-66.
Udo SCHNELLE, Recent Views of John’s Gospel, in Word & World 21 (2001) 352-359.
Udo SCHNELLE, Aus der Literatur zum Johannesevangelium 1994-2010. Erster Teil. Die
Kommentare als Seismographen der Forschung, in Theologische Rundschau 75 (2010)
265-303.
Udo SCHNELLE, Aus der Literatur zum Johannesevangelium 1994-2010. Zweiter Teil. Die
Kommentare als Seismographen der Forschung, in Theologische Rundschau 78 (2013)
462-2013.
Klaus SCHOLTISSEK, Johannine Studies: A Survey of Recent Research with Special Regard to
German Contributions, in Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 6 (1998) 227-259.
Klaus SCHOLTISSEK, Klaus, Neue Wege in der Johannesauslegung: Ein Forschungsbericht I,
in Theologie und Glaube 89 (1999) 263-295.
Klaus SCHOLTISSEK, Klaus, Johannes auslegen I. Forschungsgeschichtliche und methodische
Reflexionen, in Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt. Serie A 24 (1999) 35-84.
Klaus SCHOLTISSEK, Johannes auslegen II. Methodische, hermeneutische und
einleitungswissenschaftliche Reflexionen, in Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner
Umwelt. Serie A 25 (2000) 98-140.
Klaus SCHOLTISSEK, Eine Renaissance des Evangeliums nach Johannes. Aktuelle
Perspektiven der exegetischen Forschung, in Theologische Revue 97 (2001) 267-287.
Klaus SCHOLTISSEK, Neue Wege in der Johannesauslegung: Ein Forschungsbericht II, in
Theologie und Glaube 91 (2001) 109-133.
Klaus SCHOLTISSEK, Johannine Studies: A Survey of Recent Research with Special Regard to
German Contributions II, in Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 9 (2001) 277-305.
Klaus SCHOLTISSEK, Johannes auslegen III: Ein Forschungsbericht, in Studien zum Neuen
Testament und seiner Umwelt. Serie A 27 (2002) 117-153.
KLAUS SCHOLTISSEK, Johannes auslegen IV: Ein Forschungsbericht, in Studien zum Neuen
Testament und seiner Umwelt. Serie A 29 (2004) 67-118.
Klaus SCHOLTISSEK, The Johannine Gospel in Recent Research, in Scot MCKNIGHT – Grant
R. OSBORNE (eds.), The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research,
Grand Rapids MI, Baker Academic, 2004, 444-472.
Giuseppe SEGALLA, Due grandi commenti recenti al quarto vangelo, in Studia Patavina:
Rivista di scienze religiose 52 (2005) 905-922.
Giuseppe SEGALLA, Due libri recenti sulla dovxa - doxavzein nel vangelio di Giovanni, in
Studia Patavina: Rivista di scienze religiose 55 (2008) 853-861.
Yves SIMOENS, L’évangile selon Jean: Positions et propositions, in Nouvelle revue
théologique 122 (2000) 177-190.
Yves SIMOENS, Il Vangelo secondo Giovanni: Direttrici della ricerca, in Rassegna di teologia
44 (2003) 485-500.
Gerald S. SLOYAN, What Are Thebout Saying about John (Revised Edition), New York –
Mahwah, NJ, Paulist Press, 2006.
Stephen S. SMALLEY, The Johannine Literature: A Sample of Recent Studies in English,
inTheology 103 (2000) 13-28.
Tom THATCHER, Anatomies of the Fourth Gospel: Past Present, and Future Probes, in Tom
THATCHER – Stephen D. MOORE, Stephen D. (eds.), Anatomies of Narrative Criticism: The
Past, Present and Futures of the Fourth Gospel as Literature (SBL Resources for Biblical
Study, 55), Atlanta GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2008, 1-35.
 56

Tom THATCHER, The New Current through John: The Old “New Look” and the New Critical
Orthodoxy, in Francisco LOZADA, Jr. – Tom Thatcher (eds.), New Currents through John:
A Global Perspective, 2006, pp. 1-26.
Frans Georg UNTERGASSMAIR, Das Johannesevangelium: Ein Bericht über neuere Literatur
aus der Johannesforschung, in Theologische Revue 90 (1994) 91-108.
Gilbert Van Belle, Style Criticism and the Fourth Gospel, in Patrick CHATELION COUNET –
Ulrich BERGES (eds.), One Text, A Thousand Methods. In Memory of S. van Tilborg
(Biblical Interpretation Series, 71), Leiden, Brill, 2005, pp. 291-316.
Gilbert VAN BELLE, Repetitions and Variations in Johannine Research: A General Historical
Survey, in Gilbert VAN BELLE – Michael LABAHN – Petrus MARITZ (eds.), Repetitions and
Variations in the Fourth Gospel: Style, Text, Interpretation (BETL, 223), Leuven, Peeters,
2009, 33-85.
Gilbert VAN BELLE, Gospel of John. Oxford Bibliographies [Online] / Biblical Studies. New
York, Oxford University Press, 2012. www.oxfordbibliographies.com
Gilbert VAN BELLE, Johannine Scholarship Dutch-Speaking Belgium and the Netherlands, in
ETL 89 (2013) 540-560.
D.G. VAN DER MERWE, A Historical Survey and Critical Evaluation Concerning Discipleship in
the Fourth Gospel, in Skrif en Kerk 17 (1996) 427-442.
Urban C. von WAHLDE, “The Jews” in the Gospel of John: Fifteen Years of Research (1983-
1998), in ETL 76 (2000) 30-55.