Signs Gospel

Russian Orthodox icon of the Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian, 18th century (Iconostasis of Transfiguration Church, Kizhi Monastery, Karelia, Russia)

The Signs Gospel or the semeia source is a hypothetical gospel account of the life of Jesus Christ which some scholars have suggested could have been a primary source document for the Gospel of John. This theory has its basis in source criticism. After the commentary of Rudolf Bultmann was published in 1941,[1] the hypothesis of a semeia (sign or miracle) source was supported by those who favor Johannine independence from the synoptic Gospels,[2] but scholars today agree that the existence of a single signs source for the miracles in John is highly unlikely.[3]

Internal evidence

Paul Anderson argues that John “is the source" of the Johannine tradition but "not the final writer of the tradition."[4] Such scholars posit numerous authors whose authorship has been absorbed into the gospel's development over a period of time and in several stages.[5][6][7] However, scholars increasingly describe John as a unitary text and have abandoned models with hypothetical sources and stages.[8] Most scholars during the twentieth century viewed John as a communal work written in multiple editions, but this position is currently in retreat,[9] and there has been a decrease in arguing for the existence of hypothetical sources behind the Gospel of John in scholarship.[10]

Bultmann

The hypothesis of the Gospel of John being composed in layers over a period of time originated in the work of Rudolf Bultmann in 1941. Bultmann suggested that the author(s) of John depended in part on an author who wrote an earlier account.[11] This hypothetical "Signs Gospel" listing Christ's miracles was independent of, and not used by, the synoptic gospels. It was believed to have been circulating before the year 70 AD. Bultmann's conclusion was so controversial that heresy proceedings were instituted against him and his writings.[citation needed]

Later scholarship

Nevertheless, this hypothesis has not disappeared. Scholars such as Raymond E. Brown believe the original author of the Signs Gospel to be the Beloved Disciple. They argue that the disciple who formed this community was both a historical person and a companion of Jesus Christ. Brown also suggests that the Beloved Disciple had been a follower of John the Baptist before joining Jesus.[12] However, there has been an increase in support for John’s knowledge of the Synoptics, and the signs source hypothesis is in decline.[13][14] Most scholars today agree that the existence of a single signs source for the miracles in John is highly unlikely.[3]

Robert T. Fortna

Robert Fortna, a member of the Jesus Seminar, argued that there are at least two distinct writing styles contained in the Gospel of John.[15] The later style contains highly developed and sophisticated midrash and theological essays attached superficially—even "mechanically" at some points—to the former source. The other—earlier—style is the original 2-part Signs Gospel, consisting of a Signs Source (SQ) and a Passion Source (PQ). It is simple, direct and historical in style and can be roughly reconstructed as follows:[16]

John the Baptist (1:6-7,19-49)
Water into wine (2:1-11)
Healing the royal official's son (2:12a,4:46b-54)
Catch of 153 fish (21:1-14)
Feeding 5000 (6:1-14)
Walking on water (6:15-25)
Raising of Lazarus (11:1-45)
Healing the man blind from birth (9:1-8)
Healing at the Pool of Bethesda (5:2-9)
Plot to kill Jesus (11:47-53)
Temple incident (2:14-19)
Jewish rejection (12:37-40)
Mary anoints Jesus (12:1-8)
Entering Jerusalem (12:12-15)
Arrest (18:1-11)
Before the High Priest (18:12-27)
Before Pilate (18:28-19:16a)
Crucifixion (19:16b-37)
Joseph of Arimathea (19:38-42)
Empty tomb (20:1-10)
Do not hold on to me (20:11-18)
Great Commission (20:19-22)
Conclusion (20:30-31ab)

The order of the signs in the Gospel of John is different from their order in the reconstructed Signs Gospel. In the Signs Gospel, they are presented in a geographically logical order, going from Galilee to Jerusalem. In the Gospel of John, they have been rearranged to reflect Jesus' repeated movements to and from Jerusalem. This would explain some of the geographical difficulties in the Gospel of John, such as the sudden shift from Judaea to Galilee in John 6:1.[17]

References

^ Das Evangelium des Johannes (1941), translated as The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Westminster, John Knox Press, 1971, ISBN 0-664-20893-2
^ D. Moody Smith (1976), "The Setting and Shape of a Johannine Narrative Source", in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 95, No. 2 (June 1976), pp. 231-241: "Once it is granted that John's miracle tradition is not based upon the Synoptics, a miracle source (or a source that included miracles) becomes a reasonable hypothesis", accessed 6 February 2016
^ a b Runesson, Anders (2021). Jesus, New Testament, Christian Origins. Eerdmans. p. 644. ISBN 9780802868923.
^ Paul N. Anderson, John, Jesus, and History: Critical Appraisals of Critical Views, Volume 1, Symposium series, no. 44, Society of Biblical Literature Pub, 2007 p.78
^ Raymond Edward Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, Paulist Press, 1979 pp.31 - 34
^ The Muratorian fragment dates from around 180 It states that while John was the primary author, several people were involved, that mutual revision was part of the original intent of the authors, and that the editors included the apostle Andrew. (Geza Vermes, The authentic gospel of Jesus, London, Penguin Books. 2004. A note on sources, p. x-xvii.)
^ Paul N. Anderson, John, Jesus, and History: Critical Appraisals of Critical Views, Volume 1, Symposium series, no. 44, Society of Biblical Literature Pub, 2007 p.77
^ Beutler, Johannes (2017). A Commentary on the Gospel of John. Eerdmans. p. 14. ISBN 978-0802873361.
^ Mendez, Hugo (2025). The Gospel of John: A New History. Oxford University Press. pp. 3–6. ISBN 978-0197686126. It may seem intuitive to attribute the Gospel of John to a single pen. Scholars attribute most other ancient works, even most ancient gospels, to individual authors. And yet, through much of the twentieth century most critical scholars conceptualized John as a different kind of work: a communal product, "composed in two or more successive editions by a School of Johannine writers who felt free to write, and to rewrite the Gospel." Today, however, this view is in retreat, and for good reason.
^ Keith, Chris (2020). The Gospel as Manuscript: An Early History of the Jesus Tradition as Material Artifact. Oxford University Press. p. 142. ISBN 978-0199384372. At least three matters reflecting the changing winds of scholarship make the present argument more forceful than it has perhaps been in the past: (1) a decreased interest in positing hypothetical sources; (2) a resurgence of arguments for John's knowledge of the Synoptics; and (3) increased attention to the significance of the Gospels as written artifacts.
^ Frank E. Peters "How to Proceed" The Quest: The Historians' Quest for the Historical Jesus and Muhammad, Modern Scholar 2008.
^ Raymond Edward Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, Paulist Press, 1979 pp.31 - 34
^ Frey, Jorg (2018). The Glory of the Crucified One: Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel. Baylor University Press. p. 355. ISBN 978-1481309097.
^ D. Moody Smith (1976), "The Setting and Shape of a Johannine Narrative Source", in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 95, No. 2 (June 1976), pp. 231-241: "Although the evidence is not entirely unambiguous and scholarly opinion is not unanimous, the trend of much recent work is against John's dependence upon the Synoptics", accessed 6 February 2016
^ Fortna, Robert Tomson (1988). The Fourth Gospel and its Predecessor. Fortress Press.
^ "The Signs Gospel". Early Christian Writings. Retrieved November 19, 2018.
^ Fortna, Robert Tomson (2007). "The Gospel of John and the Signs Gospel". In Thatcher, Tom (ed.). What we have heard from the beginning: the past, present, and future of Johannine studies. Baylor University Press. pp. 150–152.

External links

Text of the Signs Gospel

[1] Das Evangelium des Johannes (1941), translated as The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Westminster, John Knox Press, 1971, ISBN 0-664-20893-2

[2] D. Moody Smith (1976), "The Setting and Shape of a Johannine Narrative Source", in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 95, No. 2 (June 1976), pp. 231-241: "Once it is granted that John's miracle tradition is not based upon the Synoptics, a miracle source (or a source that included miracles) becomes a reasonable hypothesis", accessed 6 February 2016

[:0-3] Runesson, Anders (2021). Jesus, New Testament, Christian Origins. Eerdmans. p. 644. ISBN 9780802868923.

[4] Paul N. Anderson, John, Jesus, and History: Critical Appraisals of Critical Views, Volume 1, Symposium series, no. 44, Society of Biblical Literature Pub, 2007 p.78

[5] Raymond Edward Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, Paulist Press, 1979 pp.31 - 34

[6] The Muratorian fragment dates from around 180 It states that while John was the primary author, several people were involved, that mutual revision was part of the original intent of the authors, and that the editors included the apostle Andrew. (Geza Vermes, The authentic gospel of Jesus, London, Penguin Books. 2004. A note on sources, p. x-xvii.)

[7] Paul N. Anderson, John, Jesus, and History: Critical Appraisals of Critical Views, Volume 1, Symposium series, no. 44, Society of Biblical Literature Pub, 2007 p.77

[8] Beutler, Johannes (2017). A Commentary on the Gospel of John. Eerdmans. p. 14. ISBN 978-0802873361.

[9] Mendez, Hugo (2025). The Gospel of John: A New History. Oxford University Press. pp. 3–6. ISBN 978-0197686126. It may seem intuitive to attribute the Gospel of John to a single pen. Scholars attribute most other ancient works, even most ancient gospels, to individual authors. And yet, through much of the twentieth century most critical scholars conceptualized John as a different kind of work: a communal product, "composed in two or more successive editions by a School of Johannine writers who felt free to write, and to rewrite the Gospel." Today, however, this view is in retreat, and for good reason.

[10] Keith, Chris (2020). The Gospel as Manuscript: An Early History of the Jesus Tradition as Material Artifact. Oxford University Press. p. 142. ISBN 978-0199384372. At least three matters reflecting the changing winds of scholarship make the present argument more forceful than it has perhaps been in the past: (1) a decreased interest in positing hypothetical sources; (2) a resurgence of arguments for John's knowledge of the Synoptics; and (3) increased attention to the significance of the Gospels as written artifacts.

[11] Frank E. Peters "How to Proceed" The Quest: The Historians' Quest for the Historical Jesus and Muhammad, Modern Scholar 2008.

[12] Raymond Edward Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, Paulist Press, 1979 pp.31 - 34

[13] Frey, Jorg (2018). The Glory of the Crucified One: Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel. Baylor University Press. p. 355. ISBN 978-1481309097.

[14] D. Moody Smith (1976), "The Setting and Shape of a Johannine Narrative Source", in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 95, No. 2 (June 1976), pp. 231-241: "Although the evidence is not entirely unambiguous and scholarly opinion is not unanimous, the trend of much recent work is against John's dependence upon the Synoptics", accessed 6 February 2016

[15] Fortna, Robert Tomson (1988). The Fourth Gospel and its Predecessor. Fortress Press.

[16] "The Signs Gospel". Early Christian Writings. Retrieved November 19, 2018.

[17] Fortna, Robert Tomson (2007). "The Gospel of John and the Signs Gospel". In Thatcher, Tom (ed.). What we have heard from the beginning: the past, present, and future of Johannine studies. Baylor University Press. pp. 150–152.