This paper is about the reception of the miracle tradition from a literary and compositional point of view. I have argued for the use of different literary techniques in the taking up miracle traditions by the Fourth Evangelist¹. In using these traditions, the narrator creates different literary situations that serve different aims in the narrative whole. Sometimes, these new scenes are based on the formal structure of his tradition, but in the act of preserving this structure the author integrates the material into another narrative world. This literary creativity is in the service of a consistent hermeneutical strategy. By hearing or reading the narrative the reader is brought into contact with the narrated Jesus and with the life that he will bring according to his Father’s will. In the light of this meeting the reader is asked to believe in Jesus in order to get eternal life.

        In this essay, I take up earlier observations made on the topic of the narration of the miracle stories in this gospel and combine them with my own observations to create a picture of the creativity of the Fourth Evangelist in using his tradition.

_______________________
179

I. Macrostructural Observations

        1. Miracle and conflict

        The portrait of the revealer in conflict with the world and its leadership is an important aspect of the literary and theological strategy of the narrative of the Fourth Gospel². This corresponds to the programmatic words of the Logos hymn: "This (sc. the light that shines in the darkness [cf. John 1,5] and that the Baptist reports of [cf. John 1,8]) was the true light, that illuminates each person by coming into the cosmos. He was in the cosmos, and the cosmos was created through him (sc. the Logos [cf. v. 3], which is the true light), but the cosmos did not recognise him. He came into his own domain, but his own people did not accept him" (John 1,9-11).

        The performance of the miracles plays an important narrative role in this growing conflict in the narrated world of the gospel³. This conflict is a fundamental aspect of the literary formation of the miracle tradition in the Fourth Gospel. The Sabbath conflict stories (John 5,2-18 and 9,1-41) as well as the self-revelation of Jesus as God’s gift of life to the world (John 6) lead to refusal and conflict. In John 6, this conflict is finally heightened into conflict between the followers of Jesus (John 6,66-71). It is possible that John 6,60-71 mirrors earlier or present controversies about christology within the Johannine community or between the Johannine community and opponents from the outside⁴. On the narrative level there is more strikingly a pastoral perspective appealing to the reader of the Gospel to believe like Peter (John 6,68)⁵. Peter gives the correct and

_______________________
180

exemplary answer to the question of Jesus in 6,5 with which the implied reader should agree.

        This conflict connects the first part of the gospel with the passion and the resurrection narrative. ‘The Jews’, some of them or their religious leaders who are identified with the unbelieving world and who are stigmatized as the opponents of God’s will, seek to kill Jesus (in connection with the miracles cf. 5,18; 11,47-53). Therefore, this conflict belongs for the Fourth Evangelist so deeply to the nature of the revelation of the Son of God that finally the last miracle, the raising of Lazarus, leads to the formal decision to kill the revealer (11,47-53). The legal decision to kill Jesus underlines the connection between the miracles and the passion and resurrection of Jesus⁶. On one hand, this decision is based on all the miracles of Jesus: sunh/gagon ou]n oi( a)rxierei=j kai_ oi( Farisai=oi sune/drion kai_ e!legon, Ti/ poiou=men o#ti ou|toj o( a!nqrwpoj polla_ poiei= shmei=a (11,47). So this decision binds up all seven miracle stories as the revelation from which emerges a thorough conflict between the revealer and the world. On the other hand, the narrative flow connects this decision directly with the raising of Lazarus: the report of ‘some of the Jews’ (11,46) to the Pharisees gives reason for the gathering of the Sanhedrin (11,47). In the light of John 12,9–11, the significance of the last miracle for the decision to kill Jesus is evident. Although all the miracles (except John 2,1-11⁷; 4,46-54) performed by Jesus lead to conflict between the revealer and the world, the last miracle, the raising of Lazarus by Jesus, is the most important reason for killing Jesus and therefore is the immediate cause of the passion and resurrection of Jesus. On the other hand, the raising of Lazarus is an anticipation of the resurrection of Jesus (cf. the parallels between both accounts: the pictures of both tombs, that of Lazarus and that of Jesus, are significantly similar)⁸. With

_______________________
181

the mention of Thomas in 11,16 and in the resurrection chapter, John 20⁹, we find another signal for this line of connection that leads from chapter 11 to 20,24-29¹⁰. Therefore, the last miracle does not only initiate the trial and death of Jesus, but also indicates that the encounter with Jewish and Roman power will fail in the presence of the mighty revealer who is the true life (cf. John 1,4; 5,26; 11,25).

        Although it should not be disputed that historical reminiscences of his communities form the background of the stories used by the Fourth Evangelist in John 5 and 9¹¹, the miracle stories are interpreted in the light of a more fundamental and theological principle by the evangelist. The miracle stories in chapters 5–11 recognise that the work and the message of the revealer are scandalous; they cause offence to the world and even to the circle of the disciples (John 6,61). The reader is asked for a decision in the light of the Johannine characters taking part in these conflict stories (cf. e.g. John 6,67-69; 9,35-41; 11,25-27; see also 5,12-14: the cured man missed the christological point of the sign and did not confess Jesus as his saviour). The reader should believe in the revealer sent by God and in him as the giver of life as it is shown by his mighty deeds.

2. The relationship of the miracle tradition to different genres of text

        Once we accept that the Fourth Evangelist uses traditions for narrating his miracles, the question arises as to the relationship

_______________________
182

between his sources, their christology and the theological conception of the gospel author. Although a broad stream of New Testament scholars reads the miracle stories as an integral part of the Fourth Gospel there is still some discussion as to whether they are a positive part of the theological construction of the Fourth Evangelist or a foreign element in the gospel.

        Rudolf Bultmann plays down the theological significance of the Johannine miracles, regarding the resurrection narratives together with the miracles as a concession to human weakness¹². Jürgen Becker in his famous article "Wunder und Christologie" maintains that the Fourth Evangelist has worked the miracle stories of his source into his narrative in such a way as to undercut their original intention. Not only does Becker suggest that the Fourth Evangelist meant to belittle the importance of the miracles he reports, but he fails to see the positive importance the Fourth Evangelist attaches to the signs¹³. He argues that the christology of the evangelist is opposed to the christological aims of his miracle source:

_______________________
183

"In unübersehbarer Korrektur an der Semeiaquelle hat der Evangelist weiter das Thema urchristlicher Verkündigung schlechthin zu Gehör gebracht, nämlich die Verkündigung von Kreuz und Auferstehung. ... War die Epiphanienchristologie des qei=oj a)nh/r schon nahezu austauschbar mit anderen Gestalten dieser Provenienz und war dadurch aus der Geschichte beinahe schon Mythos geworden, so lenkt der Evangelist energisch ins Zentrum christlicher Verkündigung und damit zugleich zur Geschichte zurück"¹⁴.

        Becker assumes that the Fourth Evangelist accomplishes this christological and theological critique by a literary technique. The stress is not laid on the miracle stories but on the revelatory discourses that often follow the narration of the miracle:

"Dazu gesellt sich eine weitere Beobachtung: Es ist bekannt, daß die Wunder für den Evangelisten häufig nur noch den szenischen Rahmen für die Reden abgeben, die ihrerseits sich dann auch oft von der Situation der Wundererzählungen lösen. Vor allem Joh. v und vi machen deutlich, wie dadurch der Schwerpunkt der Aussage vom Wunder auf die Offenbarungsrede verlagert wird. Das Selbstzeugnis des Gesandten Gottes als Krisis der Welt kritisiert die ‘naive’ Epiphanie"¹⁵.

        Therefore, we have to ask where the Johannine miracle stories stand in literary connection with different text genres. Do they receive an interpretation and perhaps a restriction on their theological importance through their contexts?

        A. The relationship between the Miracle Stories and the Discourses

        The miracle stories in John 5, 6, 9 and 11 as well as in 21¹⁶,

_______________________
184

are followed by dialogue texts and sporadically also by revelatory monologues¹⁷. Therefore, it was assumed that the miracle stories provided the basis for the speeches of the revealer.

        R. Alan Culpepper directs our attention to the different relationship between narrative and discourse. He speaks of a "progressive conjunction between sign and discourse material"¹⁸.

"The first and the second signs (2:1-11 and 4:46-54) are about the length of synoptic miracle stories and not greatly dissimilar from them. The next three miracle stories (5:2-9; 6:2-21; 9:1-7) each have extended discourses attached to them (5:10-16, 17-47; 6:22-65; and 9:8-41). ... With the last sign, the raising of Lazarus, the progressive conjunction of sign and discourse reaches its zenith: the two cannot be separated successfully"¹⁹.

        One could well agree with the literary observations. Nevertheless, the observations of Culpepper show that the formal sequence of miracle stories and discourse texts does not follow a rigid scheme. Both Sabbath conflict stories (chaps. 5 and 9) stand close to each other; however, the maintenance of a strict formal sequence requires that the shepherd discourse (10,1-18) be a monologue concluding the healing of the man born blind (John 9)²⁰; this monologue then forms a formal parallel to both monological

_______________________
185

discourses in 5,19-47²¹. John 6 already shows another structure, for the chapter begins with a double miracle and is closed by conflict scenes in 6,60-66²². The speech itself is interrupted by questions and objections from its hearers²³. Michael Theobald characterizes John 6,60-71 as a dialogue passage that is closed by an important confession. For formal parallels he points to John 9 (9,38) and John 4 (4,42)²⁴. This observation is striking in some ways. Nevertheless, there are formal differences between these texts. John 4,1-42 is not built on a narrative text; there is only a very small narrative framework on which the dialogues between Jesus and the other protagonists are based. John 11,1-44 again diverges from a strict scheme by putting longer dialogues into the narrative framework of the miracle story. The changing of water into wine in Cana (John 2,1-11) and the healing of the son of the royal official (4,46-54) completely fall out of the scheme in which the signs are followed by dialogue texts.

        The formal differences observed by Culpepper might be connected with different compositional aims of the author of the gospel. The Fourth Evangelist uses different forms to integrate traditions into his gospel and to reread them²⁵. In John 2–4 we can find some shadows of the conflict, which is already mentioned in John 1,1-14. However, it is more important that this section of the Gospel presents characters who meet Jesus and believe in him (see below I.3). The logos is in his world and there are people who

_______________________
186

believe in Jesus; the reader is invited also to believe. In most cases, the Evangelist adds discourse passages to the narrative units he found in his tradition. In composing discourse texts he probably also used traditional material²⁶. This technique enables him to build colourful scenes that are sometimes more impressive than the formal synoptic parallels. The different structure of these scenes, the changing narrative strategies, and the diverging sequence of narrative, dialogical, and monological texts form individual units expressing different intentions. Therefore we have to read every miracle narrative in its own right. Only John 5 and 9 may be read together because of the structural paralells. Both stories are about a man cured by Jesus. But both persons act differently. Only the man born blind believes in Jesus. There are two different possibilities for the reader to read the signs; one can believe or one may refuse the high christological belief of the author of the Fourth Gospel. John 2–4 shows that the main aim in the Gospel is to awaken belief or perhaps to strengthen belief (cf. also 20,30-31).

        These different strategies might have their reason in the different forms of tradition used by the writer of the gospel. For example, in John 5 and John 9 the dialogical structure of the whole narrative is prepared by the form of the tradition. In both chapters the narrator uses Sabbath conflict stories which were expanded by discourses²⁷.

        What about the literary or theological hierarchy between miracle story and discourse genre? Formally, the compositional role of the Johannine miracle stories cannot be considered to be marginal. John 2,1-11 forms an accentuated prelude not only for the ‘ring composition’ 2,1–4,54 but also for all further signs: John 2,1-11 as the a)rxh/ tw=n shmei/wn is the first of all the signs and it functions as

an introduction that provides an interpretation to all of them²⁸. In the light of the interpretation given in 2,11 the signs serve to promote faith in Jesus, the Son of God, that leads to true life (cf. 20,30-31). The echo of 1,14 (o( lo/goj ... e)skh/nwsen e)n h(mi=n, kai_ e)qeasa/meqa th_n do/can au)tou=) determines the force of 2,11. Reading 2,11 in the light of 1,14 means that the doxa inherent in the earthly Jesus becomes visible in all his miracles. And the last sign reaches back to it (John 11,4.40). So the macro-structure of the gospel shows that the narrative importance of the miracle stories is not meant to be corrected in favour of other text genres. The doxa of the Son of God that is visible in the signs helps to promote belief, which corresponds to the stated overall plan of the gospel. Both the discourses and monologues as well as the actions of the revealer divide people into believers or non-believers. Both lead up to the conflict and both genres are to be read together and they interpret one another.

        B. Semantic Lines and their importance for the Narration of the Signs

      The Fourth Gospel is in some ways a masterpiece in its use of internal references that lead the reader to the meaning of its narrated world. The Fourth Evangelist also makes great play with semantic fields and semantic lines. By the term ‘semantic lines’ I mean intratextual references that function as hermeneutical links. Semantic lines work by taking up slightly revised wordings or by taking up pictures and situations already mentioned by the use of analogous words or word families.

        The use of this technique in binding together different parts of the gospel is an indication that the Fourth Gospel is not only composed so that some parts of it were read in the Christian worship, but also so that it could be read as a written document, as a book²⁹.

_______________________
188

Of course, it is not possible in what follows to analyse the whole semantic network of connections between the miracle stories and their immediate context. However, it can be shown that the miracle stories are narrated as a part of their new context and that both things happen: they interpret their context and they are interpreted by their context. There is no theological or hermeneutical hierarchy that disavows the signs. The miracle tradition has been connected by semantic lines with the context, so that co-ordinated pictures emerge. This is the helpful part of Jan A. du Rand’s search for the cotexts of the miracles. He assumes that the miracles may be understood in close connection with dialogical or monological discourse texts as ‘intratextual cotexts’³⁰ that provide important information for the reader of the signs.

        The meaning of the connection of the context by semantic lines can be shown for example in John 2. The catchword shmei=on is the crucial keyword that is repeated immediately in the cleansing of the temple (2,13-22) and the critical notice of the faith of the people in Jerusalem in 2,23-25. Both texts have their own function but that function cannot be determined without paying attention to the entire narrative of the Fourth Gospel. Jesus’ temple word refers the cleansing of the temple to the passion and the resurrection³¹. The notice in 2,23-25, on the other hand, precedes the Nicodemus

dialogue (3,1-21). The relation between the sign, the revelation of the doxa, and the resulting faith in John 2,1-11 gets an important supplement from the other two pericopes. Pointing to the final aim of Jesus’ mission, to death and resurrection, the cleansing of the temple draws the reader’s attention to the overall theme of the sending of the Son. The Son sent into the world by his Father finally returns back to him with a soteriological aim (cf., e.g., 12,24; 14,2-3). The critique in 2,23-25 clearly indicates that not everyone seeing the signs will become a true believer. The miracle as a shmei=on stands for the visibility of the doxa (2,11) that may lead to belief in so far as the person who sees the doxa is led to knowledge about the origin of Jesus, his having been sent from the Father, and the aim to be achieved by his descent into the world. This view is developed by the prologue in John 1 that the implied reader is referred to³². With this interpretation a further semantic line was developed which leads back to the prologue; this line shows that the narrator ties up different texts, insinuating connections by carefully planted clues in order to waken a commensurate understanding. However, the sign can also lead to a misunderstanding and a defective or an unreal belief. The semantic line that the word shmei=on in John 2 opens up shows how belief and signs belong together: only the reader who recognizes that in the signs the doxa becomes apparent is led to belief. The one who understands the miracle only as a miraculous deed does not grasp the theological and christological depth of the semeion.

        C. The semantic inventory and the possible growth of the text (John 6)³³

        There is a change in the meaning of the catchwords in John 6, and we find in recent literature a thorough discussion of whether

_______________________
190

John 6 is to be read as a coherent literary unit³⁴ or whether there is a sacramental shift in the meaning of these words in this section that cannot be understood as the work of one author³⁵ Agreed there is a change in meaning between the feeding of the five thousand and the speech. In the feeding of the five thousand ‘bread’ (6,5.7.9.11.13; see also 6,23.26) and ‘eating’ are employed in their concrete meaning (6,5; see also 6,23.26); later there is a change to a metaphorical meaning: ‘To eat’ (6,31.50-51) stands for getting eternal life by believing that Jesus is God’s bread of life (6,31-35.41.47-48.50-51). By being the bread of life given by God, Jesus is the mediator of life to everybody who believes in him.

        Nevertheless, there is also a third meaning of ‘to eat’ (trw/gw: 6,54.56-58; fagei=n: 6,52-53.58). In John 6,51c-58, the narrator refers to a concrete eating of the eucharistic bread (6,51c.58)³⁶. It seems to be easier to understand this change as a relecture³⁷ of the miracle

_______________________
191

story and its earlier interpretation³⁸. The participation in Jesus by believing is actualized in the sacramental practice of the early church and probably that is also equally the case in the Johannine church. Adding a sacramental interpretation to the bread of life discourse actualizes the older layer of the text with reference to the practice of the Johannine community. The relecture uses the semantic resources of the text. Therefore, the first readers in the Johannine school who transmit the gospel text to their community take up the literary techniques of the gospel in actualizing it for the next generation of readers of the gospel.

        The author of the gospel who composes the sequence of the miracle stories and the revelatory discourse may have given a deeper meaning also to the feeding and to the walking on water. These miracles are narrated as acts of Jesus in which the life-giving power of the revealer becomes visible to the people and to the disciples of Jesus³⁹. In the first act Jesus gives bread to the people. Giving food to the people provides a basic requirement of life. Having enough food to eat is neither in ancient nor in modern times a universal fact for human beings. Therefore, a lot of folktales from different ages are dealing with the theme of supernatural reception of food or with people being satisfied even by a small amount of food. The Johannine story has some kind of utopian hope in common with these folktales. But the Johannine reader may learn that this existential hope is fulfilled by the eschatological event of the coming of the sent Son. The sign illustrates Jesus as the one who is the bread of life because he makes human life possible by giving bread to the people. In the second act, John 6,16-21, Jesus is portrayed as saving life in danger. The nearness of Jesus who reaches his disciples in the stormy and dangerous night (John 6,17-18) eliminates the danger (John 6,19-21). The fact that the author does not tell us

_______________________
192

anything more about the danger of the disciples after the arrival of Jesus at the ship is an indication that there is no place for life-destroying danger when Jesus comes into community with his believers. By establishing life by providing food and by being near to people as a saviour of life in the face of life-destroying danger, Jesus is depicted as God’s powerful bread of life. Therein, Jesus is the answer of God to the fundamental hopes of humanity.

        3. Tradition and compositional formation of the Gospel

        The title of this paper is meant to focus attention on the reception of tradition by the Fourth Evangelist. More than fifty years ago the question of the origin of the Johannine miracle tradition was answered on the asumption that the Fourth Evangelist used a miracle source, called the semeia- or signs-source. The most important contribution to this theory was made by Rudolf Bultmann⁴⁰. The theory of one written source containing the whole miracle tradition and other texts is rightly criticized and rejected in much of the more recent investigations of the Fourth Gospel⁴¹. However, I agree with those who posit a two-miracle source, which includes the changing of water into wine in 2,1-11 and the healing from a distance in 4,46-54⁴². The source-critical hint can be found in 2,12a (journey to

_______________________
193

Capernaum). This itinerary fits well with 4,46b (the royal official in Capernaum) but disturbs the present context where the real target of the journey of Jesus is Jerusalem with the cleansing of the temple⁴³. Jesus, his mother, his brothers, and his disciples reached Capernaum without staying there for a long time (cf. 2,12).

        Probably, there was a source, but a source which the evangelist has woven into his larger cloth. Without depending fully on his tradition, the narrator dissolves the connection between the wine miracle and the healing in order to form an introductory ‘ring composition’⁴⁴. A ring composition is a narrative form that leads the reader, after an introduction through a narrative digression or excursus consisting of an intermediary section, back to the point of departure. This is indicated by repeating words or motifs from the initial passage⁴⁵. The narrative form of the ‘ring composition’ in John 2,1 to 4,54 is clearly indicated by the reference back from 4,46a.54 to the introductory passage in 2,1-11:

4,46a   }Hlqen ou]n pa/lin ei)j th_n Kana_ th=j Galilai/aj, o!pou e)poi/hsen to_ u!dwr oi]non.
4,54 Tou=to [de_] pa/lin deu/teron shmei=on e)poi/hsen o( 'Ihsou=j e/lqw_n e)k th=j 'Ioudai/aj ei)j th_n Galilai/an.
2,1 Kai/ ... ga/moj e)ge/neto e)n Kana_ th=j Galilai/aj, ...
2,9 ... to_ u#dwr oi]non gegenhme/non ...
2,11 Tau/thn e)poi/hsen a)rxh_n tw=n shmei/wn o( 'Ihsou=j e)n Kana_ th=j Galilai/aj kai_ e)fane/rwsen th_n do/can au)tou= kai_ e)pi/steusan (cf. 4,53) ei)j au)to_n oi( maqhtai_ au)tou=.