{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020293911826452064, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0006997900629811056, 'mean_word_length': 4.882716049382716, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book Review: The Earliest Version of John's Gospel: Recovering the Gospel of Signs

This volume began as the author's dissertation, written at Marquette University under the direction of Dr. Noel Lazure. Von Wahlde, who teaches at Loyola University of Chicago, has produced numerous articles on the Gospel of John and is currently at work on a book on the crisis in the Johannine community that is reflected in 1 John. The Earliest Version is part of a sustained and coherent program of research. It outlines von Wahlde's view of the three stages of the composition of the Fourth Gospel (narrative source, Evangelist, and redactor) and sets forth in a definitive way his analysis of the first stage, the gospel or narrative source used by the Evangelist who produced the second edition of the Gospel. Von Wahlde's forthcoming book is related to The Earliest Version in that it deals with the situation of the [ohannine community at the time of the writing of 1 John and the final redaction (or third stage) of the Gospel of John. What we have in The Earliest Gospel, therefore, is the first part of an ambitious and promising program of research that systematically and coherently presents an original analysis of the historical, literary, and theological issues that must be dealt with if one is going to interpret the Johannine writings. When this program of research is completed, it will likely stand as a major synthesis, perhaps eventually even rivaling those of Bultmann, Dodd, or Brown in significance. A commentary or major work on the second stage will be needed to complete the picture. I found the first part of The Earliest Version to be the most valuable part of the book. Indeed, I think it is now the most formidable statement available regarding the criteria and procedures required for source criticism of the Gospel of John. Von Wahlde's criteria are broader and more numerous than those of Robert Fortna (with whom he will inevitably be compared). Von Wahlde recognizes the benefit of contextual features, particularly the aporia or literary seams with which Fortna works, but von Wahlde has also introduced into the discussion the significance of the variations in terminology used for "the Jews" or "the chief priests and Pharisees." The terminological or stylistic criteria are comparable to those that are widely used in Pentateuchal studies. To these von Wahlde adds theological concerns (such as the understanding of belief). This methodological statement represents a major advance that will be recognized by future studies in this field. The result is the identification of a gospel narrative that combined both the signs and the passion narrative. By proposing a source that contained both signs and passion material, von Wahlde stands in agreement with Fortna, but von Wahlde's criteria are broader, and the source he identifies