The Signs of the New Temple: The Tabernacle Signs in John’s Gospel

Introduction

Many people who study John’s Gospel are aware that signs are important to the author but what constitutes a sign for John, and how signs function in the book is far from settled. The popular explanation that there are seven signs that are miracles is not really clear in the text. There are more than seven miracles in John, and some things that are not miracles are called signs.

Recent monographs on Johannine signs tend to focus on a single sign.¹ Other studies that examine multiple signs mainly focus on the first half of John’s Gospel (the book of Signs) using a historical-critical approach to look for historical issues beyond the text² or using a theological/thematic framework,³ not emphasizing that Jesus’ signs are chosen to achieve the purpose of the whole Gospel (John 20:30–31).

Three features of this book take up important clues for solving this puzzle: (1) the hypothesis that Jesus’ signs correspond to the tabernacle signs, which makes sense given the tabernacle/temple theme of John’s Gospel; (2) a complete study that examines Johannine signs in the whole Gospel systematically to reveal how signs develop the book’s purpose; (3) an adaptation of a sociolinguistic theory to examine the corresponding texts between the Old Testament and New Testament in light of how language functions in a social event.

John’s Gospel specifically calls some things σημεῖα, signs. In addition to the two numbered signs (first: John 2:11; second: John 4:54) Jesus’ body as the new temple (his death and resurrection, John 2:18–22) and the provision of manna (John 6:30–35) are also called signs, forming the foundation for interpreting the use and selection of σημεῖα in John. The fact that Jesus, the Logos, is introduced as the enfleshed tabernacle in the Prologue, indicates a relationship between Jesus’ signs and the four memorial signs in the tabernacle (a pot of manna, Aaron’s staff, the bronze altar cover, and the bronze serpent) in structuring the Gospel in its final form (John 20:30–31). I argue that Jesus’ signs fulfill the functions of the four tabernacle signs (along with some other metaphors and associations including non-tabernacle signs in the Old Testament) in three cycles, initiated in John 1–5 and reiterated in John 6–12 and 13–21. This theme is used to reveal the grace and life-giving power of Jesus and to authenticate his identity. Ultimately, through Jesus’ all inclusive σημεῖον in his Passion—the self-sacrificial crucifixion, resurrection, and appearances—believers in him have the right to become the children of God and their faith is built not by seeing signs but by following Jesus’ words (i.e. loving one another and caring for other believers’ needs). In this way they love him daily so that they have life in him.

1

. E.g., Fletcher, Signs in the Wilderness; Mathew, Johannine Footwashing as the Sign of Perfect Love; Vistar, Cross-and-Resurrection.

2

. E.g., Bultmann (

1948

); Fortna (

1970

); Nicol (

1972

); von Wahlde (

1989

). For details, see chapter

1

.

3

. E.g., Köstenberger, John’s Appropriation of Isaiah’s Signs Theology.

Chapter 1

Studies of Johannine Σημεῖα in Retrospect

John’s notion of sign, σημε ῖ ον , plays a central role in the interpretation of his Gospel. ¹ Its significance is indicated not only by its seventeen occurrences referring to Jesus’ miraculous work but also by where they are situated and how they are expressed. ² Besides the two numbered signs that frame what is usually called the Cana to Cana cycle (John 2–4), the first numbered sign in Cana is juxtaposed with the sign Jesus claims in Jerusalem concerning rebuilding the temple through his death (2:17–22; cf. 19:30). Carson claims that this structured Cana to Cana cycle is a thematic wholeness. ³ Further, the signs of healing the lame man and the blind man in chs. 5 and 9 possibly relate to each other by their parallel structure and the common Sabbath conflict theme. ⁴ John differs from Luke, who states the purpose of his Gospel right at the beginning. John chooses to hang its [the book’s] key by the back door as Tenney puts it. ⁵ This key in John 20:30–31 contrasts the other signs Jesus did in front of the disciples which are not written down in the Gospel with those specifically selected to persuade the audience to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, so that whoever believes may have life in his name. All these observations, in fact, harmonize the traditional view that signs are used to structure Jesus’ public ministry (John 1:20—12:50) through a selection of seven signs from numerous choices. ⁶ However, this view brings up a couple of questions: (1) Does John mean to include only seven signs to structure the public ministry when signs are claimed in the conclusion to be the theme of the Gospel (John 20:30–31)? ⁷ (2) What things among those Jesus does qualify as signs for John?

There is much discussion on the definition of sign in John’s Gospel. For instance, Köstenberger, instead of accepting Jesus’ walking on the sea as one of the seven signs (John 6:16–21), replaces it with the sign of temple cleansing (2:13–22).⁸ Dodd, in addition to the signs explicitly mentioned in the first half of the Gospel, emphasizes that the climax of the Gospel is the crucifixion of Jesus. This is the all inclusive σημεῖον, which occurs in the passion narrative, the second half of the Gospel.⁹ In addition, Jesus’ appearances and the big catch of fish in chs. 20–21 are not explicitly called signs, yet they are miraculous. Are these signs? What exactly does the author mean by signs in John 20:30?

Besides there being no consensus on the notion of σημεῖα, investigation of the central role of σημεῖα in unifying the message of the whole Gospel in its final form is lacking.¹⁰ Scholars have investigated the composition or structure of John’s Gospel using different approaches. Some scholars tend to find the composition of the final form of John’s Gospel incongruent and attempt to rearrange it through the lens of source criticism;¹¹ others consider the structure of the final form through the lens of parallelism to look for chiastic structure;¹² and others scrutinize the plot of the Gospel.¹³ Nevertheless, each commentary has an outline that reflects its writer’s perspective on the development of the Gospel. Still, whether σημεῖα would have played a central role in structuring the whole Gospel in its final form remains to be asked. This lack of interest may be due to the uneven distribution of the word σημεῖον, which does not seem to support a unified structure despite the emphasis in the concluding statement (John 20:30) on the signs chosen for inclusion as being useful to achieve the purpose of the Gospel.¹⁴ However, this uneven distribution of the term σημεῖον should not rule out the possibility that signs are used to structure the whole Gospel or prevent a scrutiny of this notion. Hence, in this research, I attempt to examine the Johannine signs afresh by discussing what σημεῖον refers to and by what means signs may be used to structure the whole Gospel in its final form to bring out the purpose.

To demonstrate the complexity of the topic and to pave the way for the next chapter in which σημεῖον is defined and a new approach will be discussed, in the following sections, I will trace the different trends of Johannine research of σημεῖα since the late nineteenth century in four categories: (1) the traditional view of seven signs; (2) the influence of Bultmann’s hypothesis of a signs-source (miracles-source) in Johannine studies; (3) the study of signs in narrative criticism and its hybrid methods; and (4) the thematic study of signs. Due to the large amount of literature that covers the examinations of Johannine σημεῖα, this survey must be selective. Focus is given to macro-level studies of the signs. Therefore, studies commenting on a single sign are excluded from this study.¹⁵

1.1 The Traditional View of Seven Signs

The distinctiveness of the Johannine use of signs has drawn scholars’ attention.¹⁶ However, the ancient commentators seem to be silent regarding the exact number of Johannine signs.¹⁷ It may be due to the fact that until the eighteenth century, the trend of the interpretation of John’s Gospel favored more a theological approach that negotiated between the literal and symbolic meaning rather than a literary thematic approach that investigated the formal structure of the Gospel.¹⁸ In the late nineteenth century, Sanday (1872) stated that Keim proposed a system of triplets in John’s Gospel that included Jesus’ three times in Galilee/Judaea, twice of three feasts, three Passovers, three miracles in Galilee/Jerusalem, twice of three days, Jesus’ three words upon the cross, and three appearances after the resurrection. In defending the historical character of John’s Gospel and opposing Keim’s system of triplets, Sanday argued that instead of six miracles of which three are in Galilee and three in Jerusalem, there are seven of which four are in Galilee.¹⁹ In the early twentieth century, Scott (1906, 1908), in light of the allegorical nature, allusions, and symbolism found in John’s Gospel, discussed John’s use of numbers.²⁰ He observed that the numbers three and seven are used in arranging events. The uses of three are similar to Keim’s triplet system and the uses of seven are seven miracles, seven references to the hour, the seven uses of the formula I am, among others.²¹ He thus concluded that the structure of the Gospel as a whole is determined by these two numbers, three and seven.²²

Similarly, Lohmeyer (1928) proposed that the structure of John’s Gospel is a perfect sevenfold division that consists of a threefold nucleus in which the seven signs are embedded in John 2–12 as two thirds of the nucleus.²³ Thus, by 1928, this idea of the uses of the numbers three and seven in structuring John’s Gospel appearing in both the English and German circles reflected that the seven signs scheme had reached a certain degree of consensus. However, Lohmeyer’s theory did not convince scholars such as Bauer and Bultmann.²⁴

In 1941, Bultmann’s Das Evangelium des Johannes was widely available.²⁵ Although Bultmann presupposed that the enumeration of the two miracles (John 2:11; 4:54) may be attributed to a σημεῖα-Quelle (signs–source) that contained a collection of numbered miracles,²⁶ he did not spell out the total number of signs in it. Despite the fact that seven sign narratives among others were ascribed to this source, Bultmann, however, viewed the signs of Jesus walking on the sea and feeding the multitude as one unit.²⁷ Further, Bultmann did not favor the number seven. In his disagreement with Lohmeyer’s sevenfold division and Hirsch’s seven rings, he wrote, Von der Bedeutung der Siebenzahl für Joh kann ich nichts bemerken, and he also found the number of seven miracles unsatisfactory.²⁸ However, in 1971, Schmithals wrote a supplementary introduction for the English edition of Bultmann’s commentary which was translated from the German edition of 1964 and the Supplement of 1966.²⁹ Schmithals stated that John recounts seven miracles of Jesus.³⁰ Further, he explained that the enumeration was ascribed to a source of (seven) miracle-stories.³¹ This comment may have misled scholars to think that the view of seven miracles was Bultmann’s, from which the seven signs scheme may have gained support.³²

In 1951, Boismard wrote L’Évangile à quatre dimensions in which he argued that John used the symbolism of seven to represent the perfection of new creation, including seven discourses, seven miracles, seven I am sayings, seven messianic titles, seven weeks, seven days, and so on.³³ In other words, by 1951, interaction with the seven signs scheme had been discussed in English, German, and French circles. In fact, the use of numbers three and seven in structuring John’s Gospel were still noticeable in 1972, as Rau claimed that John’s Gospel is intertwined with three sevenfold rhythms within seventeen divisions.³⁴ Among the three sevenfold rhythms, the seven sign deeds (die sieben Zeichentaten) constitute the first rhythm representing faith, the seven I am sayings (die sieben Ich-Bin-Sätze) constitute the central rhythm representing Logos revelation, and last are the seven love-centers (die sieben Agape-Zentren) representing love.³⁵ Schnackenburg’s Das Johannesevangelium Vol. 1 was published in 1965 and the English edition in 1980. In his discussion of σημεῖα in John’s Gospel, he supported the seven signs scheme and claimed that it has been long customary to count seven of these.³⁶

1.1.1 Five Different Lists of the Seven Signs

Although it has been long customary to count seven signs, which signs are among the seven has not been clear. Particularly, only two signs are enumerated (the first and second, John 2:11; 4:54) and called σημεῖα explicitly, others are referred or implied. At least five different lists of the seven signs have been proposed.

First is the traditional list of the seven signs that includes changing water into wine, healing the royal official’s son, healing the lame man, feeding the five thousand, walking on water, healing the man born blind, and raising Lazarus from the dead.³⁷ Those who support this list form the majority. Here are a few examples. Morris (1971, 1995) uses the traditional seven signs and seven public discourses to structure John 2:1—12:50. Although he realizes that the concept of sign in the LXX does not necessarily mean something miraculous, he claims that John uses it exclusively of miracles.³⁸ Tenney (1975) believes that Jesus’ public ministry in John 1:20—12:50 is structured using Jesus’ signs. He claims, The author states explicitly that the purpose of his writing is expressed through these signs and that he has selected seven from a much larger number known to him as the core of the discussion of Jesus’ words and works.³⁹ Davies (1977) also observes that conventionally seven signs have been identified that may be drawn from the same source.⁴⁰ In the discussion of symbolic actions, Koester (2003) designates the seven miracles or signs that Jesus did during his public ministry as the most important ones. Additionally, Koester claims that there are also non-miraculous symbolic actions intertwined with the miraculous to reveal Jesus’ identity.⁴¹ However, there is no explanation why the miraculous catch of fish is a symbolic action but not a sign. Lincoln (2005) ascribes Jesus’ deeds and words to the section of Jesus’ public ministry in which the conventional seven signs are used to demonstrate Jesus’ deeds.⁴²

Second is the list of six signs (the previous list excluding the miracle of Jesus walking on the sea) plus the perfect sign of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This view is supported by Sanders and Mastin (1968),⁴³ and Clark (1983) despite his emphasis upon the underlying source in the Book of Wisdom.⁴⁴

Third is the list of six signs (excluding the miracle of Jesus walking on the sea) plus the sign of the big catch of fish. This view is supported by scholars such as Fortna (1970) who, according to source analysis, ascribes seven signs to the source including the miraculous catch of fish but identifies the miracle of Jesus walking on the sea as subordinate to the feeding of the multitude.⁴⁵ Smalley (1978, 1998) recognizes the role of signs as one of the significant elements contributing to the structure of the Gospel as a whole. He argues that six signs are distributed in the main body and the seventh occurs in the epilogue referring to the catch of 153 fish. All seven signs point to the death and resurrection of Jesus.⁴⁶

Fourth is the list of the six signs (excluding the miracle of Jesus walking on the sea) plus the sign of Jesus’ crucifixion, as Girard (1980), using a concentric pattern, argues that the seventh sign is le vin aigre, l’eau et le sang (the sour wine, water and blood) in the passion narrative (John 19:17–37) as it is parallel to the first sign at Cana.⁴⁷ Thirty-eight years later, Crowe (2018), building upon Girard’s result which he perceived as largely persuasive but rarely considered in commentaries or specialized studies on signs in John,⁴⁸ argues that the seventh sign is the lifting up or glorification of the Son.⁴⁹ Thus, differing from Girard who focuses on the sour wine, water, and blood, Crowe focuses on the death and resurrection of Jesus.⁵⁰

Fifth is the list of the six signs (excluding the miracle of Jesus walking on the sea) plus the sign of cleansing the temple. Köstenberger (1995) insists that Jesus’ cleansing of the temple is one of the seven on the basis of the three criteria he draws from the studies of sign in the Old Testament and John’s Gospel.⁵¹

Therefore, we see that the seven signs view comes in diverse forms, and some scholars take it as their presupposition.⁵²

1.1.2 Four Views of a Non-Seven Signs Scheme

Conversely, other scholars have not adopted the seven signs scheme. In the nineteenth century, commentators such as Tholuck (1859), Godet (1879), and Meyer (1884), affirmed the significance of John 20:30–31 in their discussions of the plan, design, or object/purpose of the Gospel but they focused on faith in Jesus as Christ and the Son of God rather than the number of signs. Tholuck suggested that John’s Gospel reflects the didactic character that seems to oppose heterogeneous doctrines and was a supplement to the Synoptic Gospels.⁵³ Godet, comparing different aims proposed by the church fathers, concluded that the core purpose of the Fourth Gospel was to supply an impregnable basis to the faith of the church.⁵⁴ Meyer believed that the design of John’s Gospel serves to testify Jesus as Christ by means of the incarnate Logos in the prologue, and further realized through the chosen historical events.⁵⁵ In this non-seven signs category, there are four views about the number of signs: six signs, eight signs, all Jesus’ deeds, or an uncertain number.

First, in addition to Keim’s triplet system, including three miracles in Galilee/Jerusalem (Sanday 1872), Bernard (1929) suggested that there are only six signs in John, half in Galilee and half in Jerusalem and Bethany.⁵⁶ Second, Westcott (1882, 1971) identified eight signs in John, with seven recorded as during Jesus’ ministry and one after Jesus’ resurrection (the miraculous draught of fishes).⁵⁷ In addition to the conventional seven signs, Guthrie (1967) insists that the haul of fish should be included as it links with the others through the connection with Jesus resurrection.⁵⁸

Third, for the view that all Jesus’ deeds are signs, Hoskyns (1947) observes that the actions of Jesus are constantly called signs (2:23; 4:54; 6:2, 14, 26; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:47; 12:18, 37; 20:30) to reveal the nature of his work through which to manifest Jesus’ glory.⁵⁹ Although Dodd (1953) divides the Gospel into seven episodes, his division is on the basis of one or more narratives of significant acts of Jesus, accompanied by one or more discourses designed to bring out the significance of narratives.⁶⁰ Dodd does not restrict signs to miracles. Even cleansing the temple and the washing the disciples’ feet can be considered σημεῖα.⁶¹ Lightfoot (1956) observes that the plural form signs is used to refer to Jesus’ actions generally (2:23; 9:16; 12:37), meaning signs may refer to Jesus’ actions making [h]is whole life is a sign, in action, of the love of God.⁶² Barrett (1955, 1978) believes that the Johannine miracles include Jesus’ work (ἔργα) and signs (σημεῖα). Besides the first two miracles may be related to a Cana Source, he opposes the idea that John’s use of σημεῖα is drawn from a special source because the plural form of σημεῖον is used, which points to Jesus’ action in general.⁶³ Beasley-Murray (1987, 1999) insists that according to the purpose stated in John 20:30–31, the whole work is viewed as a book of signs.⁶⁴ He specifies the lifting up of the Son of Man as the climactic sign.⁶⁵ In his discussion of John 20:30–31, Ridderbos (1987, 1992 [ET 1997]) points out that [i]t is remarkable that the Evangelist summarizes all that precedes as ‘signs’ that ‘Jesus did’ (cf. 12:37).⁶⁶ He further spells out that the word ‘signs’ refers not only to certain miraculous acts but to any event in which Jesus’ divine glory is manifest (cf. 2:11).⁶⁷

Carson (1991) believes that although the first half of John’s Gospel has been called the Book of Signs, according to John 20:30–31, the Evangelist views the whole Gospel as a book of signs.⁶⁸ Further he admits that since John does not signal all the signs, the scheme of the number of signs remains uncertain.⁶⁹ In the discussion of the structure of the Gospel, Michaels (2010) spells out that his outline does not do justice to the importance of the seven signs Jesus performs, the first sandwiched between the testimonies of John (2:1–11) and to the other six displayed in connection with Jesus’ self-revelatory discourses to the world.⁷⁰ Thus, instead of calling the first part of John’s Gospel the book of signs, Michaels calls it the book of judgment.⁷¹ Michaels argues that Johannine signs are not restricted to Jesus’ miracles but the word stands for everything Jesus did. Thus, Jesus’ signs function similarly to his works.⁷²

Fourth, for the view that the number of Jesus’ signs is uncertain, Brown (1966) points out that although some miraculous signs are recounted in detail in the book of Signs, they are not the only ones. He admits that some signs are implicit and he does not attempt to identify them.⁷³ He views that contrary to the book of Revelation where the number seven is repeatedly used, the numerical pattern of seven in the Gospel is imposed as the word seven is absent.⁷⁴ De Jonge (1977) admits that the evidence for a pre-Johannine signs source or Signs Gospel that included a certain number of stories and specific theology is uncertain.⁷⁵ Haenchen (1980 [ET 1984]), in his discussion of the composition of John’s Gospel, summarizes a variety of usages of σημεῖον which do not point exclusively to miracles but also to work and other narratives. Therefore, he finds the hypothesis of a signs source from which to draw all these narrative materials unlikely and he states that real events are taking place in the ‘signs;’ but they gain their meaning for Christians only when they point to Jesus as the way to the Father.⁷⁶ Nicholson (1983) argues that the Evangelist does not structure the Gospel around the signs and their number is uncertain. Further, he finds that the connection between the sign and discourse material is not traceable; it does not show the intent of using signs as the main framework.⁷⁷

Schneiders’s view seems to be inconsistent. In her earlier article The Face Veil: A Johannine Sign (John 20:1–10) (1983), Schneiders argues that the head cloth in John 20:1–10 is one of the Johannine signs.⁷⁸ Further, in her discussion of the structure of John’s Gospel (1999), Schneiders admits that the division of the book of signs (John 1–12) has been increasingly questioned theologically, as she observes that while all Jesus’ miracles are signs, it is not at all clear that all his signs are miracles.⁷⁹ She claims that the greatest sign seems to be in the second part of the Gospel, that is, Jesus’ glorification on the cross.⁸⁰ However, in the discussion of the theology and spirituality (1999), she supports the plausibility of a sign-source from which seven signs are selected. As a symbolic number, seven may bring out the fullness of divine witness to Jesus’ identity.⁸¹ Probably, her view on the number of Johannine signs is flexible.

Bruce (1984) points out that it is difficult to prove seven signs are recorded as not all the miracles described by John are explicitly called ‘signs.’⁸² Olbricht (1989) admits that the seven signs scheme is common, yet on the basis of John 20:30–31, he contends that there are many signs in John’s Gospel instead of a definite number. He notes, While scholars freely substitute among the specific signs, they seldom challenge the number as seven.⁸³ He believes that the seven framework is a scholarly construct.⁸⁴ Keener (2003), in general, claims that Jesus’ signs are some of his ‘works’ in the Fourth Gospel . . .⁸⁵ Besides the signs that Jesus performed in his ministry, Keener perceives that the ultimate sign is the death-resurrection complex of Jesus.⁸⁶ In her article in 1991, Thompson remarks in a footnote that John’s signs include the miracles such as Jesus’ healings, feeding the five thousand, changing water into wine, and others. However, events such as the temple cleansing, Jesus’ discourses, the resurrection, and the appearances (the catch of fish) are less clearly signs, and she adduces four reasons to support her claim.⁸⁷ However, an adjustment is made in her commentary in 2015. Thompson suggests that Jesus’ miracles, actions such as temple cleansing, and the resurrection appearances are all signs because the word ‘sign’ in the Old Testament (MT: אות; LXX: σημεῖον) has a variety of meanings and Johannine signs do not show a clear-cut usage.⁸⁸

In conclusion, this representative survey of the interpretations of the number of signs in John’s Gospel has highlighted the complexity of the issue. The traditional view of seven signs in John depends on several assumptions, two of them being more fundamental. The first is that the enumeration of the two signs, Jesus’ changing water into wine and healing the royal official’s son (John 2:11; 4:54), is an indication of a significant number of signs. The second is that John would choose the number seven to express the symbolic meaning of perfection or fulfilment to reveal Jesus’ glory and identity. Subject to individual criteria of signs, other assumptions include the restriction of signs to Jesus’ public ministry (John 2–12) on the basis of the distribution of the occurrences of σημεῖον, or a certain theological or literary standpoint as a rubric to group seven interrelated signs.

Whereas most scholars would agree on the six signs (three in Galilee and three in Jerusalem), the seventh sign is debatable, and suggestions include Jesus’ actions of temple cleansing, walking on the sea, receiving the sour wine on the cross, Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, and the provision of the big catch of fish. At the same time, there are scholars who find six signs, eight signs, all Jesus’ deeds as signs, or an uncertain number of signs in John’s Gospel. This diversity of opinions indicates the assumptions regarding the numbering and the use of the number seven in John merit reevaluation. Particularly, the numbering of two early signs may not signal that there is a definite quantity of signs, as it is noticeable that the number seven actually is absent in John’s Gospel but is explicitly mentioned fifty-five times in the book of Revelation. Perhaps, instead of imposing a certain number of signs or confining the occurrences of Jesus’ signs within Jesus’ public ministry, it is preferable to first clarify the use and function of signs in John’s Gospel. For example, Fortna observes that the two numbered signs, differing from the other signs in the Gospel, do not result in Johannine dialogue but are free-standing in the Gospel, and they are related to each other. It is possible that each of the free-standing signs may function as a typical example that is meant for further development.⁸⁹ I will touch on this in the next chapter.

1.2 From Bultmann’s Hypothesis of σημεῖα-Quelle

Johannine signs have long been scrutinized using source criticism. Source criticism, formerly called literary criticism (Literarkritik), analyzes features such as aporias, doublets or multiple parallel accounts, and stylistic variation to postulate the underlying sources.⁹⁰ Today, source criticism is distinguishable from literary criticism as the former attempts to examine the sources underlying the text through the literary features and the latter examines the meaning through the literary features of the text that focuses on the text as it is, not on the text as it came to be.⁹¹ In interpreting John’s Gospel, scholars have observed that one of the challenges is the apparently disorganized development in certain sections and transitions, while at the same time, stylistic and thematic unity is maintained in other sections.⁹² Hence, several sources or strata have been hypothesized on the basis of the literary features such as various aporias of time, theme, and narrative as well as the double ending and stylistic variations.⁹³ Several scholars have produced notable works related to source criticism on John’s Gospel such as Schweizer (1939, 1965), Bultmann (1941, 1953), Ruckstuhl (1951, 1987), Wilkens (1958), D. Smith (1965), Becker (1970), and Fortna (1970). In the following discussion, the focus will be confined to Bultmann’s work on signs and the works of those scholars who follow a similar path by examining the formation or composition of John’s Gospel through signs or miracles.⁹⁴

The hypothesis of a signs source originated prior to Bultmann’s theory of sources. By adapting Faure’s hypothesis of the signs source in which the peculiar Johannine signs were emphasized,⁹⁵ Bultmann established his method combining three interrelated theories:⁹⁶ (1) sources,⁹⁷ (2) displacement,⁹⁸ and (3) redaction.⁹⁹ Four areas of criteria are involved in identifying the signs sources such as the style, the enumerations, the theological content, and the literary aporias.¹⁰⁰

Whereas the rationale behind the criteria of stylistic features is the most obscure,¹⁰¹ the criterion of enumeration emphasizes that since there are non-enumerated signs (John 2:23; 4:45) between two enumerated signs (John 2:1–12; 4:46–54), this may imply that the latter were chosen from the same source, including the numbering.¹⁰² Bultmann proposes that this source probably included a conclusion which is placed in John 20:30–31 to end the sign narratives but leaves out the miraculous catch of fish (John 21:1–14), despite some scholars arguing that it may be the third numbered sign performed in Galilee.¹⁰³ For the theological content of the signs source, the criterion is regarding θεῖος ἀνήρ Christology,¹⁰⁴ or in Bultmann’s term θεῖος ἄνθρωπος (θεῖος-ἄνθρ-motif).¹⁰⁵ Two features of θεῖος ἄνθρωπος are attributed to the signs source to reveal Jesus’ identity as the Son of God. The first feature is the autonomy of the miracle worker in initiating and performing miracles, as in the cases of John 2:3–4; 5:6; 6:5; 7:1–13; 9:6. And the second is the supernatural knowledge (omniscience) that is demonstrated in John 1:35–51 and 4:5–42.¹⁰⁶ On this feature of omniscience, the pericope of Jesus calling the disciples and Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman are perceived as part of the signs source.¹⁰⁷

Regarding literary aporias in the narrative, the criteria consist of contradictions, additions caused by misinterpretation, broken or deflected focuses of the narrative, obscurity of structure, and incoherence.¹⁰⁸ Following these criteria, a major part of the composition of John’s Gospel is postulated as coming from the signs source. Since the setting of the criteria depends on one’s subjective interpretation of the literary aporias that prioritizes chronological sequence over theological design,¹⁰⁹ and contains a certain degree of circularity,¹¹⁰ the composition of John’s Gospel is interpreted as fragments presumably put together in a sloppy manner, instead of it being a semantic whole, by applying the theories of sources, displacement, and redaction.¹¹¹

Bultmann’s signs source theory has impacted his proponents as well as opponents.¹¹² Whereas scholars have varying receptivity of his results,¹¹³ Fortna seeks to investigate the signs source further and proposes a signs Gospel.¹¹⁴ Von Wahlde adopts Fortna’s concept of the signs Gospel to postulate the earliest version of signs through which some social-historical parameters are predicted. Others, for instance, Nicol and Labahn, reject the idea of a signs source to explore a tradition of miracles. In light of the common interest of studying the formation or composition of John’s Gospel on the basis of signs or miracles, the following discussion will touch on the studies of Fortna (1970, 1988), Nicol (1972), von Wahlde (1989, 2010), and Labahn (1999).¹¹⁵ An overall comment will be offered at the end.

1.2.1 Fortna’s The Gospel of Signs and The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor

In order to unfold the arrangement and the underlying intent of John’s Gospel, Fortna investigated the redaction of its sources and published his result in two books.¹¹⁶ Whereas in his first book, The Gospel of Signs (1970), Fortna attempts to reconstruct the narrative source text;¹¹⁷ in his second book, The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor (1988), Fortna applies redaction criticism to compare the reconstructed text, which he calls the predecessor, with the present Gospel to postulate its development and intent.¹¹⁸ Fortna believes that the consistency of Bultmann’s signs source testifies to it being a partially uncovered real source used by John.¹¹⁹ Thus, in the Gospel of Signs, he starts at the fundamental stratum, the signs source, to delineate the strata between the Johannine and non-Johannine portions of the Gospel.¹²⁰

Fortna sets forth three kinds of criteria, adapted from Pentateuchal literary analysis, to analyze the sources of Johannine narrative (1) ideological criteria (e.g., ideas and themes, terminology, theological points of view, Tendenzen);¹²¹ (2) stylistic criteria (e.g., Schweizer and Ruckstul); and (3) contextual criteria (e.g., parenthetical comments and explanations, catch-words or phrases, and textual criticism).¹²² The functions of the ideological and stylistic criteria are to guide the formulation of questions and the interpretation of the analytical results and complement other criteria and also act as controls rather than to be some prescribed features, to prevent circularity.¹²³ The contextual criteria focus on the aporias as indicators of seams in the compositional and redaction process.¹²⁴ Three kinds of contextual indicators are noted: interruptions by additional comments and explanations in a narrative,¹²⁵ recurring phrases or watchwords to indicate editorial purpose,¹²⁶ and textual variants, through which the harder reading is taken as the original and is liable for further analysis.¹²⁷

In addition, Fortna introduces an external reference, the Synoptic tradition, to indicate the presence of redaction in case the internal seams are hard to notice.¹²⁸ After analyzing, reconstructing, and reordering the seven sign narratives in John 1–12 and 21 according to the transitional verses,¹²⁹ Fortna concludes that the character of the source is a Gospel in which the seven miracles are centrally structured.¹³⁰ Building on this result, in his second book, Fortna compares the reconstructed text (pre-Johannine source) with the present form of John to study the redaction processes, and reformulates the presupposition to say that there were originally two sources underlying the signs and passion narratives, but they were combined soon enough to be the pre-Johannine tradition.¹³¹ Although Fortna attempts to advance Bultmann’s signs source theory, because of their similar presuppositions of the existence of a signs source, aporias, and stylistic inconsistency in the redaction process, the result is a similar outcome of fragmentizing John’s Gospel.

1.2.2 Nicol’s The Sēmeia in the Fourth Gospel

In 1972, two years after Fortna’s The Gospel of Signs, Nicol published his monograph The Sēmeia in the Fourth Gospel. And a year after Fortna’s The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor, von Wahlde published The Earliest Version of John’s Gospel: Recovering the Gospel of Signs (1989) using Fortna’s concept of a signs gospel in The Gospel of Signs (1970).¹³² However, these two publications head in different directions. Nicol aims to study σημεῖα traditions (S) and Johannine redaction of the σημεῖα traditions (J) using a historical critical approach. His method consists of three steps including three criticisms: source, form, and redaction.¹³³

In applying source criticism, Nicol aims to separate the tradition (S) and the redaction (J) so as to consider John’s response instead of reconstructing the full content of the source.¹³⁴ Similar to Bultmann’s and Fortna’s criteria, the chosen indicators for source analysis include form,¹³⁵ style,¹³⁶ aporias, and ideological tensions such as faith. Then, signs narratives are examined using the previously mentioned indicators and the results are tested in the next two steps:¹³⁷ (1) the examination of form in relation to its religious environment and the development of the Gospel by comparing the σημεῖα traditions to the Synoptic miracles to reveal the christological purpose (i.e., the character of the σημεῖα traditions);¹³⁸ and (2) the examination of Johannine redaction of the σημεῖα traditions (J) using the theological themes regarding miracles and the reconstruction of the historical situation of the Jews on the basis of the differences of Sitz im Leben of S and John.¹³⁹

With respect to the first step (S), Nicol indicates that the character of S reflects the eschatological prophet who can be recognized as Messiah rather than the θεῖος ἀνήρ.¹⁴⁰ With respect to the second step (J), Nicol concludes that the significance of the miracles is their symbolic meaning for revealing glory,¹⁴¹ and as testimony. Since Nicol detects a negative shift in attitude towards the Jews between S and J, he proposes that the Sitz im Leben of S is for preaching in Jewish missionary work, and the shift of attitude may be accounted for by the historical situation of the expulsion of Jesus’ followers from the synagogue after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.¹⁴² Nicol’s work focuses more on form and redaction criticisms by comparing the delineated σημεῖα traditions from John’s Gospel with the Synoptic miracles synchronically and by unfolding the underlying historical situation between the σημεῖα traditions and John in the redaction process. Thus, differing from Fortna who used the Synoptic miracles as an external reference to detect the seams in case the internal seams were hard to detect, Nicol directly compared σημεῖα traditions (a σημεῖα source) and the Synoptic miracles to reveal the character of the σημεῖα traditions in John.

1.2.3 Von Wahlde’s The Earliest Version of John’s Gospel and The Gospel and the Letters of John

Similar to Nicol’s interest in separating older traditions from the Johannine redaction, von Wahlde intends specifically to identify the different editions of John’s Gospel starting with the earliest one which is claimed to contain Jesus’ miracles during his public ministry. The basic principles of von Wahlde’s method involve three steps: (1) setting the criteria for identifying the target edition; (2) applying the criteria to delineate the edition; (3) examining the features of the edition. Of the total of twenty-two criteria that von Wahlde has set forth, seventeen belong to three major categories, examining linguistic (4 criteria), ideological (9 criteria), and theological (4 criteria) differences.¹⁴³ There are five with other characteristics.¹⁴⁴ Whereas linguistic differences refers mainly to the differences of lexical terms (e.g., for religious authorities, miracles, and Jews), translations of place names, and religious terms, the theological differences focus on sign faith, effortless belief, Christology, and Jesus’ omniscience. Other differences in the thought of the author which are not directly theological are grouped in the ideological differences.¹⁴⁵ These criteria are then applied to delineate the signs material. Finally features such as structure, Christology, place, date of composition, and the Signs Community are synthesized.¹⁴⁶

In 2010, von Wahlde completed separating his three hypothetical editions of John’s Gospel in which he advanced his research by extending it to John’s letters and refining the names of the categories of the criteria for the publication of The Gospel and Letters of John.¹⁴⁷ In general, von Wahlde’s method mainly concentrates on the seeming tensions between terms or concepts (aporias) as indicators of strata. To demonstrate how von Wahlde’s criteria work, among his three categories of criteria (characteristic terminology, characteristics of narrative orientation/ideology,¹⁴⁸ theological characteristics), the first criterion that von Wahlde explains is that the uses of the terms Pharisees, chief priests, and rulers are the characteristics of the first edition referring to the religious authorities, and the Jews is used for the second edition. According to this premise, the possible evidence is elaborated through the text.¹⁴⁹ The second criterion concerns the references to Jesus’ miracles. Whereas Jesus’ miracles are signs in the first edition, they are works in the second edition.¹⁵⁰ Thus, it is predictable that the tensions between signs, works, and faith/belief would be explained as indicators of different editions.¹⁵¹

One of the problems in his method, addressed by von Wahlde himself, is the issue of circularity of argument.¹⁵² In response, he emphasizes that the main point of the analysis is the consistent presence of features beginning from linguistic features (characteristic terminology), then moving to the ideological and theological. In addition to the problem of circularity, the complexity of von Wahlde’s categories which underlie his proposed multiple editions is impractical in producing Scriptures in ancient times, when the resources for writing were limited.¹⁵³

1.2.4 Labahn’s Jesus as a Giver of Life (Jesus als Lebensspender)

While von Wahlde is interested in investigating the editions of sign material in John’s Gospel through which to speculate on the social-historical situations, Labahn, inspired by Bultmann’s "Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition and Dibelius’s Formgeschichte des Evangeliums," prefers to examine the history of the form (Formgeschichte) of Jesus’ miracles through which the transmission of forms (oral or written) and the additions are traced with the help of form criticism (Formkritik).¹⁵⁴ In 1999, Labahn published the major part of his dissertation in Jesus als Lebensspender: Untersuchungen zu einer Geschichte der johanneischen Tradition ahand ihrer Wundergeschichten and intentionally left out the detailed analysis of the tradition of the feeding (Speisung) and sea walking (Seewandel) miracles (John 6:1–25a) published in his monograph Offenbarung in Zeichen und Wort in 2000.¹⁵⁵

Differing from von Wahlde who focuses on the internal differences in John’s Gospel to postulate the three strata with the signs material as the earliest stratum, Labahn studies individual miracles synchronically and investigates their transformational differences diachronically by comparing the Gattungsmerkmalen and Sitz im Leben with external references such as Synoptic or religious historical parallels to postulate the tradition and history of transmission.¹⁵⁶ Since Labahn’s investigation of the Johannine tradition aims at searching for the original form of tradition and the transmission of each of the miracles, his result can be distinguished from Nicol’s reconstruction of the Johannine σημεῖα tradition which builds upon the common features of the signs source for delineation.

Labahn’s method consists of four major steps to examine each of the miracles: (1) analysis of context and narrative text for validating the tradition; (2) differentiation between tradition, expansion, editing, and additions; (3) analysis of structure, content, and history of the reconstructed tradition, and (4) interpretation of the integrated tradition in John’s Gospel by the Evangelist.¹⁵⁷ These results are summarized in terms of the transmission of the miracle stories and the rule in the Johannine circle and in John’s Gospel.¹⁵⁸ For instance, in the result of the miracle of the abundance of wine at Cana, Labahn suggests that since this story corresponds to the Greco-Roman miracle of Dionysus, it may have functioned as the content of a missionary tract in the earlier stage. Further, in view of the emphasis on glory and the unity between Jesus and the Father in John’s Gospel, Labahn proposes that, in the later stage, this story is transformed for building up and sustaining the Johannine community.¹⁵⁹

Although Labahn employs both synchronic and diachronic approaches and considers the backgrounds of both Jewish and Hellenistic miracle traditions, the focus of the interpretation remains on the differences between the forms of individual parallels to the miracles and the history of transmission drawing from the implicit Sitz im Leben.¹⁶⁰ In other words, despite the distinctive way John’s Gospel uses miracles/signs, the texts of Jesus’ miracles are examined individually and comparatively in terms of tradition through which to postulate the history of transmission rather than finding the meaning from interrelation among the Johannine signs. Although it is uncertain that Johannine signs are exclusively miracles, it is observable that the relationship between miracle (δύναμις) in the Synoptic Gospels and sign (σημεῖον) in John’s Gospel seems to be entangled. As Morris points out, John, unlike the Synoptics, not only uses σημεῖον but also neglects the word δύναμις (Matt 12; Mark 10; Luke 15) to refer to Jesus’ miracles.¹⁶¹

In light of the above discussion, it is important to note that whereas the foundation of source criticism in John’s Gospel very much depends on the presuppositions behind the aporias and the enumeration of two signs, the examination of the miracle traditions leans on the external parallels of miracles rather than use of signs. These presuppositions and grounds themselves are not above criticism. Particularly, the identification of aporias very often depends on subjective interpretation at face value according to the interpreter’s own cultural background of logical thinking. This may deviate from the understanding of John’s contemporaries who interpreted John’s Gospel according to their own knowledge and production of religious texts.¹⁶² Further, the postulation of the Sitz im Leben and comparing individual Johannine miracles with individual external parallels of miracles without knowing the use of σημεῖον in the Gospel as a whole would not do justice to John’s specifically chosen term σημεῖον. It may hinder the understanding of the interrelationship of the σημεῖα that may include non-miraculous events.

In fact, the influence of Bultmann’s hypothesis of a sign-source (miracle-source), his concept of the Synoptic tradition of miracle stories, along with the trend of the diachronic historical investigation of signs that views the text as window, tends to underscore its sources, forms, and the compositional process but downplay the meaning of signs in their specific position and their interrelationships in the Gospel as a whole.¹⁶³ These methods tend to trace how the Gospel comes to the final form rather than what meaning it bears in this form. Thus, the interest in reconstructing the signs source, reordering the signs, recovering the editions, and the transmission history of miracle traditions overrides the investigation of the organization of signs as the Evangelist’s active choice to develop the Gospel in which their meaning and function are embedded.¹⁶⁴ The present study attempts to investigate the underlying meaning of the specific organization of signs in the final form by first clarifying the use of sign in John’s Gospel on the basis of a different set of presuppositions through which to reveal its development as a structural framework in achieving the purpose of the Gospel.

1.3 Narrative Approaches and its Hybrid Methods

The distinctiveness of John’s Gospel from the Synoptic Gospels has drawn scholars’ attention not only towards the investigation of sources and traditions but also towards its literary and dramatic features. In four decades since Culpepper’s narrative analysis of John’s Gospel was published (1983), interest in applying a narrative approach to biblical studies has increased. His book hastened the paradigm shift from historical investigation to text-based method in Johannine studies. Instead of looking at the text as window, now it is mirror.¹⁶⁵ Multiplied methodological combinations take up a literary approach to narrative with different emphases such as on plot, implied author or reader, characters, and irony, along with other models.¹⁶⁶ The study of signs seems to be subsumed under or subordinate to the modern Western story framework or the ancient Greco-Roman poetic and rhetoric tropes such as recognition scenes, Greek tragedy, and the trial motif.¹⁶⁷ To indicate this, I will discuss each type of these frameworks with examples below.

1.3.1 Johannine Signs in Story, Recognition Scenes, and Greek Tragedy

Culpepper (1983), in his Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, comments briefly on the role of signs, developed from the miracle stories of the Synoptic Gospels, as major episodes in his discussions of the duration of narrative time and plot.¹⁶⁸ Culpepper observes that the durations of the scenes of the narrative are short compared to the story time and he finds this significant for the study of the plot, particularly in analyzing the episodic features.¹⁶⁹ Thus, in Johannine composition, the role of the sign contributes to the major episodes in which sign and discourse are progressively entwined together.¹⁷⁰ Culpepper claims that each episode basically consists of the same plot, in which Jesus’ identity is progressively disclosed through the repetitive signs, discourses, and imageries.¹⁷¹ However, at that time, the role of signs was not elaborated further. Twenty-five years later, Culpepper again turned to the task of elucidating the role and functions of Johannine signs using Larsen’s study of recognition scenes as the plot of John’s Gospel.¹⁷²

In his article (2008) Cognition in John: The Johannine Signs as Recognition Scenes, Culpepper argues that the role of signs, in view of the plot of recognition scenes, is to function as tokens for Jesus’ identity.¹⁷³ Further, the sign narratives and related discourses, under the lens of the five elements of the type scene,¹⁷⁴ are interpreted as bent, or adapted with respect to the basic form. Having examined eight pericope of the miracles, Culpepper concludes with five observations on the functions of Johannine signs, briefly as follows.¹⁷⁵ First, [t]he signs are appropriate tokens for the creative Logos incarnate in Jesus.¹⁷⁶ Second, [t]he signs as tokens evoke intertextual echoes of the mighty works of Moses and the prophets.¹⁷⁷ This observation is drawn from the miracles of changing water to wine and feeding the multitude.¹⁷⁸ Third, [t]he bending or deformation of the form of the signs as recognition scenes is progressive and rhetorically motivated.¹⁷⁹ Fourth, [t]he sequence of the Johannine σημεῖα progressively devalues the significance of the signs as tokens while shifting the focus to Jesus’ claims.¹⁸⁰ Fifth, the last observation is about the trajectory of the recognition scenes in the Johannine signs that sheds light on the functions of signs rhetorically in the Johannine narrative.¹⁸¹

However, there is a lacuna regarding the core question: What are σημεῖα in John’s Gospel? Do they refer to miracles only? Would other tokens in the recognition scenes, such as the τύπος of the nails of Jesus’ hands, be σημεῖα (John 20:25)? In order to do justice to the distinctiveness of Johannine σημεῖα, these questions should be addressed.

In fact, Larsen’s view of Johannine signs in relation to recognition scenes is different from Culpepper’s view of signs. In Recognizing the Stranger: Recognition Scenes in the Gospel of John (2008), Larsen states that even if the Johannine signs are semiotic acts and accordingly participate in a narrative sequence, they do not qualify as recognition type-scenes, on the whole.¹⁸² Further, he points out that the Gattung of the Johannine signs is one of a kind. Besides the fact that it deviates from the Gattung of Synoptic miracles; no one single generic form would fit the Johannine signs.¹⁸³ Holding onto this understanding, Larsen differentiates the σημεῖα narratives into two groups: (1) those signs that exhibit the features of the recognition scenes; and (2) those that are recognition type-scenes.¹⁸⁴ He specifies three σημεῖα narratives, from seven, that noticeably implement and alter the type-scene conventions: healing the man at the pool of Bethzatha (John 5:1–18), walking on the water (John 6:16–21), and healing the man born blind (John 9:1–41).¹⁸⁵ Taking σημεῖα as recognition tokens, Larsen perceives that Johannine signs are primarily "a kind of ‘documentary proof’ or recognition tokens (sēmeta) intended to reveal Jesus’ identity.¹⁸⁶ Additionally, by comparing the Johannine use of σημεῖον in the plot of John with incidents in the book of Tobit, Larsen suggests that Johannine signs serve to establish the indexical relation between the sent one and the sender by linking the works of Jesus with God to show that Jesus reveals himself in the same way as God does through his works in Jewish tradition.¹⁸⁷ Noting that the narrator and observers use the term σημεῖον more often than Jesus, Larsen concludes that these observations may substantiate the cognitive and demonstrative" function of σημεῖον.¹⁸⁸

Similar to Culpepper who comments briefly on the role of signs in his discussion of duration of narrative time and plot,¹⁸⁹ Brant touches on the role of signs in her discussion of the unity of plot. Brant observes that although John’s Gospel may show traces of composition, disarrangement, and edition, the impulse toward unity is evident especially when the devices that unite its parts are examined in the light of the glorious achievement of unity in the Greek tragedies.¹⁹⁰ This unity is established by strategic ordering of information.¹⁹¹ One of the dramatic devices for unity that Brant discusses is suspense—that is, the way that the beginning and subsequent episodes anticipate its conclusion.¹⁹² In John’s Gospel, this device is reflected through Jesus’ hint at the time of his death (John 2:4, 19; 3:14; 5:25; 6:39, 51, 70; 7:7, 19, 33, 34; 8:14, 21, 28; 10:17; 12:32). Brant proposes that this kind of dramatic tension can be created by ordering the events backwards.¹⁹³ She, thus, elaborates this backward construction using the causation between the signs and the discourses (deed and word). Brant claims that [t]he signs seem to lead to the discourses, but in actual fact the discourses have caused the signs. The discourses are the true action of the gospel, just as dialogue is the action of a drama.¹⁹⁴ Thus, the specifically chosen signs in John’s Gospel are for revealing the thematic focus of the discourses.¹⁹⁵ To illustrate the equivalence of the role of signs in tragedies, Brant uses the crimson tapestry in Agamemnon. She states that although the carpet would not affect the plot as Agamemnon will enter the palace by walking on it or not, it functions as an omen of Agamemnon’s death. She further concludes that [l]ike the signs of the Fourth Gospel, the tapestry becomes the occasion for dialogue and an index of events to come.¹⁹⁶ In other words, the selected signs in John’s Gospel do not play a central role but rather function as indicators for the discourses to come.

1.3.2 Johannine Signs in Trial Motif

Apart from the above frameworks, others emphasize that Johannine signs play a significant role rhetorically as evidence in the trial motif (witness/lawsuit/forensic). Since the notion of sign is vaguely defined as evidence, the impact of signs cannot be precise. To indicate this, Hindley (1965) claims that the function of Johannine signs is obviously to testify, provided that the interpretation of the miracles is not restricted to the seven signs.¹⁹⁷ He suggests four different effects possible on the recipients: (1) a neutral response (e.g., the man at the pool of Bethesda, John 5:15); (2) an opposition (e.g., the response of the Jews to Lazarus’s resurrection, John 11:46–53); (3) a preliminary faith (e.g., the bystanders at the narrative of the feeding of the multitude, John 6:14); (4) a revelation of God’s glory (e.g., at Cana and Lazarus’s tomb).¹⁹⁸ Hindley distinguishes between the evidence-value and sign-value of miracles. The former is providing grounds for inference, and the latter is the quality of event and response by which the spiritual significance of an event is perceived.¹⁹⁹

In Harvey’s Jesus on Trial: A Study in the Fourth Gospel (1977), he observes that the presentation of the miracles and the use of the term signs are different from the traditions demonstrated in the Synoptic Gospels. Further under the trial motif, he suggests that signs denote the kind of evidence which is admissible in order that a man may be believed who advances a claim to be an agent.²⁰⁰ Thus, part of the evidence of Jesus’ agency is provided primarily by Jesus’ signs and secondarily by Jesus’ works.²⁰¹

On the basis of the purpose statement of John’s Gospel (John 20:30–31) that the purpose is to convince people to believe Jesus is the Christ, Warner (1990) states that the signs that were chosen from a large collection bear persuasive purposes.²⁰² He applies rhetorical criticism in dialogue with different forms of higher criticism (e.g., form and redaction) to inspect John’s Gospel synchronically at four discrete levels: that of narrative, that of judgment, that of sign and that of transformation.²⁰³ In considering what Johannine signs signify, he admits that the standard rhetorical categories fail us, for what is required is not so much analysis in terms of rhetoric as of poetics.²⁰⁴ Thus, in light of Bultmann’s emphasis on Jesus as the Revealer who has been sent, and Dodd’s insight of dividing off the first half of John’s Gospel as the Book of Signs, Warner suggests that Jesus’ signs denote the nature and condition of entry into the new era and also demonstrate Jesus as restorer, nourisher, guide, light, and finally, with the raising of Lazarus, life.²⁰⁵

In order to resolve the tension between signs and faith, Johns and Miller (1994), in their article The Signs as Witnesses in the Fourth Gospel, investigate the predominant juridical motif in John and argue that the vocabulary of witness and judgment establish the judicial arguments in which works and signs are the evidence. Thus, the miracles function as proof of Jesus’ identity. They conclude that signs play a consistently positive role for faith in the Gospel of John.²⁰⁶ Further, they suggest that both signs and works bear witness to Jesus’ identity to persuade the characters and finally the reader.²⁰⁷

Whereas Johns and Miller (1994) proposes signs as proof of Jesus’ identity, Salier suggests the notion of σημεῖα as proof but in a different context. In his monograph, The Rhetorical Impact of Sēmeia in the Gospel of John (2004), Salier investigates the language use of σημεῖον in general and its rhetorical strategic role and function in the narratives in particular. This study employs a method that combines narrative criticism with conservative reader response to study the rhetorical impact produced by the sign language and narratives in its original cultural context.²⁰⁸ Salier dedicates a chapter entitled Speaking of σημεῖα to study the connotation of σημεῖον in