Daniel DeForest London argues that the Fourth Gospel offers a potentially transformative response to the question of suffering and the human compulsion to blame. Based on his reading of John 9 (the man born blind), London argues that the Gospel does not offer a theodicy, but rather a theodical spirituality, an experience of praying the question of suffering and remaining open to a divine response. London shows how the Johannine Jesus’s response poses three sets of symbols in dichotomy (day/night, vision/blindness, sheep/wolf), each subverted by another, core symbol (light, judge, shepherd). By interpreting these symbols in light of mimetic theory, he argues that Jesus’s response reveals the scapegoat mechanism in which an innocent victim is blamed by violent victimizers. However, rather than blaming the victimizers, Jesus continues to engage with the characters who appear to be villains: the light of the world transforms night and day into one continuous day; the Good Shepherd welcomes sheep and wolf into his beloved flock. In this way, readers are invited to bring to the Johannine Jesus their own violence, resentment, and wolfish rage regarding the question of suffering and to experience the theodical spirituality of the Fourth Gospel.

This is the groundbreaking sequel to Fortna's The Gospel of Signs which reconstructed a source underlying the Fourth Gospel narrative. Here he not only brings that reconstruction up to date but also provides commentary, section by section, on both the text of the reconstructed Johannine source and its redaction in canonical John (Part One).In Part Two, Fortna systematically draws together the theological movement from source to present Gospel covering such topics as Christology, the value of signs for faith, salvation, Jesus' death, eschatology and community, and "the Jews" in relation to geography in the Fourth Gospel. This work, then, provides a comprehensive and unique redaction-critical treatment of the whole Johannine narrative.

This innovative study attempts a comprehensive reading of the Fourth Gospel so as to make sense of its theology, anthropology and history. The most valuable insights of structuralism and reader-response criticism have been taken up, without ignoring what those methods ignore, namely, questions intrinsically related to the Fourth Gospel itself. Moreover, a just appreciation of the text requires the reader to recognize that particular historical situations affect the nature of any narrative.