John 3:3-8 runs:
3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born anwqen (again/from above)." 4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" 5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but spirit/the-Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'Ye [you-plural] must be born anwqen.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
This project will investigate the source of the triple citation of the necessity of rebirth.
John 3:3-8 is about being born of the Spirit, ultimately to declare Jesus's origin from God. Accordingly the saying "no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born from above" is repeated three times.
But John 3:4 reveals that Nicodemus - and by extension the reader - can understand that saying in another way. In 3:3 and 3:7a John chose anwqen for "from above", which might also mean "again". In 3:5 John left out anwqen entirely.
John 3:5 for its part has "water", which is not elsewhere implied by John 3 nor by its context in John.
The last form of this saying, in John 3:7, is directed at you-plural. This is an irrelevant form to a one-on-one chat with Nicodemus, and implies it is not a paraphrase of 3:3 and/or 3:5 but was originally given as a command to a group. But the presence of this group is not recorded in John as it exists today.
This is the only place in John where the Kingdom of God is mentioned. The Kingdom is generally considered a Markan belief, that Matthew tended to replace with the "Kingdom of Heaven". There are numerous ways to understand this Kingdom. One is as a metaphor for God's glory: Matt 16:28, Mark 9:1. The other is as a place where people might be able to enter: Mark 9:47, 10:15 (== Luke 18:17), and especially 10:23-25 (== Luke 18:17-25).
The former appears to be assumed by John 3:3 (Romanides: "basileia is understood as doxa
") and the latter by 3:5.
As a metaphor, John talks of God's glory and how Jesus hopes all may see it (John 17:24).
As a place, John talks about the house of Jesus's Father (John 14:2) and "whence [Jesus] came
" (John 8:14). John did not use the term "Kingdom" if he could help it.
It is unlikely that the mention of the Kingdom here was something John inserted on his own volition.
I conclude John 3:3==3:5==3:7 reflects a proof text, from a tradition that read "ye" and contained the Kingdom of God as a goal, preceding John.
As an aside, I think John 3:4 is so graphic as to verge on insolence. It could even lend itself to Oedipal connotations. Its context starts out in 3:2 with Nicodemus lauding Jesus for his miracle-working and even affirming them as "signs" of divinity. Like John 3:3, John 3:4 does not fit its John 3 surroundings. One solution is that 3:4 has its origins outside said surroundings.
Saint Justin the Martyr wrote in the midst of the second-century CE, soon after Ignatius and before Irenaeus and the first surviving Gospel manuscripts. Justin shows signs of knowing all three Synoptic Gospels, and made liberal use of all three, typically at the same time by means of harmony. Most scholars also see elements of Johannine thought in Justin's work, such as the doctrine of the incarnate Word as seen in 1 Apol. 46.
Liberal scholars do not, however, see any citation of the Johannine Gospel.
Koester gives two criteria in which he alleges Justin falls short:
"There are no quotations of narrative materials from the Fourth Gospel,
and typically Johannine formulations of sayings never appear
" (p. 258 n.1).
G. Volkmar noted in Über Justin den Märtyrer und sein Verbältniss zu unsern Evangelien pp. 20-1 (Zürich, 1853)
that Justin did not cite John in defence of his faith in the incarnate Word,
particularly not in Dialogue with Trypho 87,88.
John S. Romanides, in an essay defending Justin's use of John, wondered why "Justin did not include in his description of the high quality of Christian morality at least a hint to the classic passages in Paul and John concerning Christian love
".
Justin also lacks John's anti-Judaism.
Justin's First Apology poses problems for liberals, because it used the saying in John 3:3-8. In Justin as in John, the saying appears as a proof text, in this case explaining baptism.
For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again (an mh anagennhqhte), ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all.
Justin (or Justin's harmony-gospel) never calls the Kingdom of God by that name, instead preferring "Kingdom of Heaven". G. Volkmar proposed that in the case of 1 Apol. 61, Justin was informed by Matthew 18:3 - "unless you change and become like little children, you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven
" as against Mark 10:15 == Luke 18:17:
"anyone who will not receive the Kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it
". Romanides agreed, implying that this was "suggestive" of a Church conspiracy not to reveal the documents behind Christian baptism.
In fact, except for anagennhqhte, 1 Apol 61.4 is identical to Matthew 18:3.
That anagennhqhte, of course, is key.
Koester said in 1992 that it "is not dependent on a written Gospel
", instead coming from "the tradition of the baptismal liturgy
" (p. 361).
There the argument would end, resigning Justin's source to a reading of Matthew mixed with 1 Peter 1:23, based on some stray church traditions.
But there are echoes here of the narrative of John 3:3-5 and 7, not just the base phrase "ye must be born again".
John 3:5 and 1 Apol. 61.3 both associate water with being born again. They also share the involvement of the Spirit, and look to the Kingdom of God. Neither rebirth, the Spirit, nor the Kingdom are required for the baptism ritual, even a Christian ritual, in the way of water and cleansing. One solution is that Justin and John are following parallel traditions that made that association.
Nicodemus's initial response in John 3:4 ("cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb" with reference to being "born") finds a close analogue, albeit uncited, in 1 Apol. 61.5: "it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs". In both pericopes, the contrary position is considered to be a straw-man attack on being born again, and is duly revealed as a misunderstanding.
Even the CCEL translators of 1 Apol. 61.4-5 did not know where to place the ending quote-mark.
Justin is here relying not just on a saying about being born again, but on a controversy
about the meaning of being born again; complete with water, the Kingdom of God, and even the jibe about returning to the mother's womb. This controversy is also found in John 3:3-8, in dialogue format.
Romanides finds it "significant
": "This idea is not necessarily implied in Mtth. 18, 3
".
Romanides qualifies, "it could certainly have been a part of a traditional catechetical interpretation of this passage
".
But that just pushes the problem backward: first, how a church catechism intended for neophytes could
have included such a scandalous question as the shared question of Nicodemus and Justin;
and second, how it could have become widespread enough to end up as a shared question.
It is precisely because of the insolent nature of this question that Justin brings it up in his defence of Christianity.
If we did not have John 3,
we would assume either that the question was meant for a controversy story,
in which aggressive onlookers demand to know what Jesus is talking about;
or that some antichrist (in the Johannine sense) had posed this question in a satirical pamphlet.
Either way it belongs in a context of controversial narrative, potentially available to a
public audience.
I conclude that Koester failed to prove that Justin did not meet the criteria for knowing John.
Koester's case can still be salvaged, if we posit an intermediary written dialogue behind Justin and John both. Anticipating this, Romanides attempted to show:
Rather than postulate a thus far non-existent gospel source, it seems much more consistent with the general condition of our source materials to attribute the patristic variations in question to slips of memory and confusion of Johannine, Matthean and oral catechetical terminology and expressions, due especially to the very strong influence of Matthew because of its central position in catechism and the constant use made of it in teaching by the Church Teachers and Fathers in question. Therefore until such time when a gospel fragment similar to 1 Apol. 61, 4-5 is discovered one may safely conclude (1) that underlying 1 Apol. 61, 4-5 is John 3, 3-5, (2) that 1 Apol. 61, 4-5 owes its form partly to the conditions under which it was quoted as was indicated in this paper, and (3) that Justin's failure to quote the gospel of John outright in dealing with pagans and Jews is due to its esoteric and mystical nature and therefore to its place within the pattern of the primitive Church's methods of instruction.
The analogue of "patristic variations
", which Romanides uses perhaps independently of Ezra Abbot (whom he cites elsewhere), is salutary. Accordingly it is important to understand how Justin
is citing John, if he is doing so.
But if Justin is citing John, he is doing so in singular fashion. Justin contains every part of John 3:3-8 that is irrelevant to John 3, and misses the parts that are important to John 3.
Justin manages to mention the water of John 3:5, which John 3 might have left out with no damage to the chapter. It is however crucial to a discussion of rebirth through baptism, as seen in 1 Apol. 61.3. The Kingdom of God is likewise out of place in John, but as the "Kingdom of Heaven" it is a near-perfect fit for Justin.
Romanides notes, "that Justin understood baptism in terms of receiving the Spirit from 'above' is not at all clear in 1 Apol. 61
". A form of "spirit" is present in Justin as in John 3:5 - but as "Holy Spirit", the only time in this document Justin uses the term. That spirit additionally comes from God and that the body plays host to it happen to be crucial to John 3's argument. That the body is a vessel of spirit
is no secret teaching, nor is it something Justin does not know, for Justin tells as much in 1 Apol. 8 and Dial. 40. The latter work makes clear also that spirit is a gift from God: Dial. 65.
There is no reason Justin would not have alluded to a spirit as passerby while he was, allegedly, citing John 3:3-8. That Justin
predicated it as "holy", is likewise alien to the contexts both of John and of the rest of the Apology; but here we may be dealing with
a second-century benediction formula.
Elsewhere Justin is found of using "ye" sayings, as he is directing this Apology at a hostile audience: "Do you, then, since ye are called pious and philosophers, guardians of justice and lovers of learning, give good heed, and hearken to my address
" (1 Apol. 2). Thus this document is studded with "ye" sayings that are directed to everyone. But Justin does not replace
a general pronoun with "ye" (1 Apol. 63, citing Matthew 9:27).
From John 3:3-8, which supposedly posed to Justin a choice between one buried, out-of-context "ye" and two proclamatory "one"'s, Justin went for the "ye".
Finally, Justin preserved the form of John 3:4 without the context of John 3. In the Gospel, John 3 mutes 3:4's controversial nature. Justin by contrast overtly treated 3:4 as controversial, clearly not viewing it in the light of John 3:2. This hints that he may have read it as controversial, in a source that did not juxtapose it with John 3:2.
Justin was not using John. Either he or his gospel harmony independently used the source of John.
It turns out that Koester was right. Justin witnessed a source of John that contained the dialogue about the meaning of being born again. That Justin did not explicitly say so, is probably because of the secrecy of baptism, as Romanides thought.
This source was most likely a controversy tale in which Jesus has told a group of people that they need to be reborn. One or more of these people asks the question now in John 3:4 and 1 Apol. 61.5. Such controversies were common to all narrative Gospels... we just haven't found (or identified) this one yet.
Any thoughts? e-mail me :^) zimriel@sbcglobal.net
This project began in 4 July 2002. 5 July, expanded "rudeness" aspect. 20,22 July; and 1 May 2003: clarified.