Signs in John's Gospel

I am studying the signs in John's Gospel.

Roberson explains this as the second sign in Cana, but Jesus performed many in Jerusalem: The second sign that (δευτερον σημειον [deuteron sēmeion]). No article, simply predicate accusative, “This again a second sign did Jesus having come out of Judea into Galilee.” The first one was also in Cana (2:1ff.), but many were wrought in Jerusalem also (2:23).

Robertson, A. T. (1933). Word Pictures in the New Testament (Jn 4:54). Nashville, TN: Broadman Press.

B.H. Bryant writes the same thing: Since John 2:23 and 4:45 mentioned more than two miracles done by Jesus, this healing of the official’s son could not be accurately called Jesus’ second miraculous sign; so say several commentators. This is to overlook the contents of these several statements about miracles by Jesus. John meant here “the second miraculous sign that Jesus performed in Cana.”

Bryant, B. H., & Krause, M. S. (1998). John (Jn 4:54). Joplin, MO: College Press Pub. Co.

How can we understand the use of sign in John's Gospel? The Gospel of John appears to use "σημεῖον" (= sign) in the sense of "miraculous sign". Several versions say this explicitly but I do not get it because Jesus did several signs in Jerusalem. Why did John not use the more common word for miracle or marvel, but rather "sign/omen/portent"? Moreover, why does he only document seven signs and miracles prior to Jesus' execution? Based on some of the other information from commentaries, I think that John employed this technique to give his Gospel a stronger literary structure and form. Was this commonplace in the Jewish times?

Jesus' seven "signs" includes:

Turns water to wine (John 2:1-11)
Heals a Royal official’s son (John 4:43-54)
Heals a disabled man at Bethesda pool (John 5:1-47)
Feeds ~20,000 people (John 6:1-15)
Walks on Water (John 6:16-24)
Heals a blind man (John 9 & 10)
Resurrects Lazarus (John 11:1-57)

Donald Guthrie, “The Importance of Signs in the Fourth Gospel,” Vox Evangelica 5 (1967): 72-83.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MJ. Smith

These are the sort of questions you should ask for resources on rather than answers. IIRC Brown's book on John (first volume Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel according to John (I–XII): Introduction, Translation, and Notes. Vol. 29. Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008.) will answer most of these questions.

As for Cana, think of its importance as an epiphany for possible reasons that it is #1; for the omissions, think of the importance of the number seven.

Lew Worthington

I agree with MJ. And not only from a forum standpoint, but "signs" in the fourth gospel is a very technical subject. A resource I don't have, so I don't know if he covers it, is the Eerdmans Critical Commentary set on Johannine literature. Von Wahlde is (or at least used to be; I haven't followed him in a while, TBH) a micro-detailed redaction critic for John and it would be surprising if he didn't dive into the topic at length. Bultmann, of course, is a good place to understand at least where such an approach would come from, but I'm not sure if his commentary is available or not in Logos.

Besides that, "SIGNS/SEMEIA SOURCE" comes up in the Factbook.

DMB

A good discussion of proposed layers within John, from a narrative perspective. It also marks up the text relative to the proposed sources in sequence (similar to the volumes on a propsed 'Q').

The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor: From Narrative Source to Present Gospel

Manuel R.

The semeia in John are rather a special structuring form and should emphasize certain steps in proofing Jesus as messiah and son of god.

Another book from Lexham press, which I didn't read yet but I think is also good:

Signs of the Messiah: An Introduction to John’s Gospel by Köstenberger

https://www.logos.com/product/197331/signs-of-the-messiah-an-introduction-to-johns-gospel