[1] Published in NTS 15 (1968–1969), pp. 168–90Google Scholar, and reprinted in Neirynck, F., Evangelica. Gospel Studies – Etudes d'évangile. Collected Essays, edited by Van Segbroeck, F. (BETL, 60; Leuven, 1982), pp. 273–95Google Scholar (with additional note, p. 296). Abbreviations: ETL = Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses;BETL = Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (Leuven University Press and Peeters).Google Scholar

[2] More particularly among catholic scholars an important change can be observed in the question of Johannine authorship. In the Louvain series of ‘Dissertationes ad gradum magistri’ there is only one dissertation on the Fourth Gospel, De quarti evangelii auctore, by Camerlynck, A. (1899).Google Scholar The dissertation was written in defence of the authorship of John the apostle. This traditional view was restated a few years later in a decree by the Biblical Commission (1907) and it was almost invariably adopted by catholic scholars. At our first Colloquium on John in 1956, Ph.-M. Menoud, who delivered a paper on recent Johannine studies, could refer to the traditional view as being held by ‘les savants catholiques’. In 1959 F.-M. Braun prudently advanced the hypothesis of the disciple-secretary. It was taken up and further developed by R. Schnackenburg in the first volume of his commentary (1965), and the same distinction between the authority behind the gospel (John the apostle) and the writer of the gospel (the evangelist, a disciple of John) is found (independently?) in R. E. Brown's commentary (I, 1966). In later studies this modification of the traditional view is presented as being inaugurated by Braun, Schnackenburg and Brown. (In this connection it may be useful to recall that the disciple hypothesis has its roots in 19th century criticism and that it had been formulated in 1907 as a reply to the Biblical Commission by the Louvain professor Paulin Ladeuze. His suggestion was published in Revue biblique and, in the light of the recent development of catholic scholarship, Ladeuze deserves to be mentioned as a precursor.) More recently, in 1970, Schnackenburg has changed his mind and at the conclusion of the third volume of his commentary (1975), in a last excursus on the Beloved Disciple, the difficulties to be raised against the identification with John the son of Zebedee are carefully listed and evaluated as convincing evidence. R. E. Brown is inclined to follow him (1979). This is the negative consensus in the new debate about the Beloved Disciple passages. One of these passages, Jn. 20. 2–10, will inevitably be a focal point in our investigation.

[3] Cf. Neirynck, F., ‘John and the Synoptics’, in L'évangile de Jean, ed. de Jonge, M. (BETL, 44; Leuven, 1977), pp. 73–106Google Scholar, reprinted in Evangelica (1982; see note 1), pp. 365–98 (with additional note, pp. 398–400)Google Scholar; Jean et les Synoptiques. Examen critique de l'exégèse de M.-É. Boismard (BETL, 49; Leuven, 1979).Google Scholar

[4] In NTS 26 (1979–1980), pp. 425–44 (see also infra, note 6)Google Scholar; 27 (1980–1981), pp. 287–94.Google Scholar Lindars' test case is the saying in Jn. 3. 5, 6, par. Mt. 18. 3; Mk. 10. 15. The author concludes that ‘John and Matthew have derived the saying from variant translations of the Aramaic original, in which the idiom represented by Matthew's στραΦητε is treated differently’ (p. 293). Unfortunately, Dupont's explanation of Mt. 18. 3 ‘au niveau du travail redactionnel de l'évangéliste’ is not even mentioned. Cf. Dupont, J., ‘Matthieu 18,3: έάν μή στραΦητε καί γένησθε ώς τά παιδία’, in Neo-testamentica et Semitica. FS M. Black, ed. Ellis, E. E. and Wilcox, M. (Edinburgh, 1969), pp. 50–60.Google Scholar

[5] In NTS 26 (1979–1980), p. 444.Google Scholar

[6] Smith, D. M., ‘John and the Synoptics’, in Biblica 63 (1982), pp. 102–13, esp. p. 112.Google Scholar

[7] Cf. de Solages, B., Jean et les Synoptiques (Leiden, 1979), esp. pp. 170–85.Google Scholar See my book review in ETL 56 (1980), pp. 176–9.Google Scholar

[8] NTS 26 (1979–1980), p. 443 (and note 40).Google Scholar

[9] Cf. Smith, D. M., The Composition and Order of the Fourth Gospel. Bultmann's Literary Theory (Yale Publications in Religion, 10; New Haven-London, 1965), pp. 219–20 (and 121–3).Google Scholar Sec Bultmann, R., Das Evangelium des Johannes (Meyer's Kommentar, 2, 10th ed.; Göttingen, 1941), p. 58 (Jn. 1. 22–23, 27, 32)Google Scholar: ‘eine Ergänzung aus der synoptischen Tradition’, ‘wieder eine Einfügung aus der synoptischen Tradition’; p. 63, n. 1Google Scholar: ‘Der Red. erstrebt Angleichung an die synopt. Tradition’; p. 124, n. 7 (Jn. 3. 24)Google Scholar: ‘eine Glosse der kirchlichen Redaktion … Der Evglist bemüht sich sonst nicht um Ausgleich einer Erzählung mit dem synopt. Bericht’. Sec, however, p. 321 (Jn. 12. 25, 26)Google Scholar: ‘Der Evglist hat ihn [the text of the source] V. 24–26 durch eigenartig redigiertes Material aus der synoptischen Tradition ergänzt’ (cf. p. 325, n. 4). Compare also p. 319 (Jn. 12.14–15).

[10] Brown, R. E., The Gospel according to John (The Anchor Bible, 29–29A, Garden City, N.Y., 1966, 1970), vol. 1, pp. XLVI–XLV1I (cf. p. XXXVIII: ‘we remain uncertain …’).Google Scholar See also pp. 244 and 451. In a comment on Jn. 12. 5 he even notes that ‘in giving the value of the perfume as more than three hundred silver pieces, Mark seems to represent a more developed form of the tradition’ (p. 451).Google Scholar

[11] Boismard, M.-E. – Lamouille, A., L'évangile de Jean (Synopse des quatre évangiles en français, 3; Paris, 1977), p. 460.Google Scholar See also p. 47.

[12] Thyen, H., ‘Entwicklungen innerhalb der johanneischen Theologie und Kirche im Spiegel von Joh 21 und der Lieblingsjüngertexte des Evangeliums’, in L'évangile de Jean, ed. de Jonge, M. (BETL, 44; Leuven, 1977); pp. 259–99, esp. 288–90 (289).Google Scholar See also ‘Aus der Literatur zum Johan-nesevangelium. 4. 12: Joh 21 und die Lieblingsjüngertexte des Evangeliums’, in Theologische Rundschau 42 (1977), pp. 213–61, esp. pp. 251–2.Google Scholar

[13] L'évangile de Jean, p. 46.

[14] ‘Entwicklungen’, p. 289, n. 79.Google Scholar Compare Theologische Rundschau 39 (1975), p. 293Google Scholar; 42 (1977), pp. 226–7 and 234: ‘einen gewissen Ausgleich mit den Synoptikern hat m.E. gerade erst der Redaktor hergestellt’.

[15] Published in 1977; cf. supra, n. 2. On Jn. 20. 1–18, see pp. 95–106 (Evangelica, pp. 387–98Google Scholar).

[16] Barrett, C. K., The Gospel according to John (London, ² 1978).Google Scholar

[17] Ibid., pp. 560 and 564.

[18] Brown, R. E., John (1970), p. 999.Google Scholar

[19] Haenchen, E., Das Johannesevangelium. Ein Kommentar aus den nachgelassenen Manuskripten herausgegeben von Ulrich Busse (Tübingen, 1980), pp. 567–72.Google Scholar Compare Busse, U., ‘Ernst Haenchen und sein Johanneskommentar. Biographische Notizen und Skizzen zu seiner johanneischen Theologie’, in ETL 57 (1981), pp. 125–43.Google Scholar

[20] Ibid., p. VIII (J. M. Robinson).

[21] Richter, G., ‘Die Fleischwerdung des Logos im Johannesevangelium’, in Novum Testamentum 13 (1971), pp. 81–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 14 (1972), pp. 257–76, esp. pp. 124–5Google Scholar; reprinted in Studien zum Johannesevangelium, ed. Hainz, Josef (Biblische Untersuchungen, 13; Regensburg, 1977), pp. 182–3.Google Scholar Richter refers to Jn. 1. 14; 6. 51b–58; 19. 34b–35; 19. 39–40; 20. 24–29; 20. 2–10 as anti-docetic texts, to be assigned to the redactor.

[22] Langbrandtner, W., Weltferner Gott oder Gott der Liebe (Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie, 6; Frankfurt-Bern-Las Vegas, 1977), pp. 30–2 (reference to Richter on p. 32, n. 2),Google Scholar

[23] Thyen, H., ‘Entwicklungen’ (1977), p. 290.Google Scholar But see Theologische Rundschau 44 (1979), p. 123, n. 38Google Scholar: Thyen changed his mind regarding Jn. 1. 14 under the influence of Hofrichter, P., Nicht aus Blut, sondern monogen aus Gott geboren. Textkritische, dogmengeschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchung zu Joh 1, 13–14 (Forschung zur Bibel, 31; Würzburg, 1978).Google Scholar

[24] Hoffman, P., ‘Auferstehung Jesu Christi. II/1. Neues Testament’, in Theologische Real-enzyklopädie vol. 4/3–4 (1970), pp. 478–513, esp. p. 506.Google Scholar

[25] In a somewhat different approach Till A. Mohr compares Jn. 20. 2–11a(!) with the episode of Peter and the other disciple in 18. 15–16, equally redactional, in contrast with the ‘Johannine’ passages in 13. 23 ff.; 19. 26–27 and 19. 34b–35 (pp. 394–6): the entire denial story in 18. 15–18, 25–27 is added by the redactor ‘in Anlehnung an die Syn’ (pp. 276–7).Google Scholar Cf. Mohr, T. A., Markus-und Johannespassion. Redaktions- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der Markinischen und Johanneischen Passionstradition (Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 70; Zürich, 1982).Google Scholar Unfortunately, pertinent studies which appeared since 1974 are not considered in this dissertation (Basel, 1980).

[26] Becker, J., Das Evangelium des Johannes (Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament, 4/1–2; Gütersloh-Würzburg, 1979, 1981), vol. 2, pp. 434–9Google Scholar: ‘Exkurs 9: Die Gestalt des Lieblingsjüngers’ (cf. p. 607).Google Scholar

[27] Ibid., pp. 606 and 613. Cf. supra, n. 23 (Thyen, 1979).

[28] Schnackenburg, R., Das Johannesevangelium. III. Teil. Kommentar zu Kap. 13–21 (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, IV/3; Freiburg-Basel-Wien, 1975, ⁴ 1982), pp. 355–80.Google Scholar See also pp. 449–64: ‘Exkurs 18: Der Jünger, den Jesus licbte’. Compare Hartmann, G., ‘Die Vorlage der Osterberichte in Joh 20’, in ZNW 55 (1964), pp. 197–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fortna, R. T., The Gospel of Signs. A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel (SNTS MS, 11; Cambridge, 1970), pp. 134–44.Google Scholar

[29] Ibid., p. 362.

[30] Ibid., p. 369. – See also, in the line of Schnackenburg's Commentary, Schmitt, J., ait. ‘Résurrection de Jésus’, in DBS, fasc. 56 (1982), col. 569–71.Google Scholar

[31] L'éivangile de Jean (cf. supra, n. 11), pp. 453–66.Google Scholar

[32] Das Evangelium des Johannes (1981), pp. 604–19 (esp. p. 606).Google Scholar

[33] Das Joliannesevangelium (1975), p. 375.Google Scholar

[34] Das Evangelium des Johannes (1981), p. 617.Google Scholar

[35] L'évangile de Jean, p. 461.Google Scholar

[36] Ibid., p. 455.

[37] Mahoney, R., Two Disciples at the Tomb. The Background and Message of John 20. 1–10 (Theologie und Wirklichkeit, 6; Frankfurt, 1974), pp. 41–69.Google Scholar

[38] In commentaries on Luke: Ernst, J., 1977Google Scholar; Schneider, G., 1977Google Scholar; Marshall, I. H., 1978Google Scholar; Jeremias, J., 1980Google Scholar; Schmithals, W., 1980Google Scholar; Fitzmyer, J. A., 1981Google Scholar; Schweizer, E., 1982Google Scholar; in commentaries on Lk. 24: Dillon, R. J., 1978Google Scholar; Guillaume, J.-M., 1979.Google Scholar

[39] There can be no doubt that Jn. 20. 1–18 forms a division in the text of chapter 20, because of the role of Mary Magdalene in vv. 1(–2) and (11–)18, the time indication τη δέ μιά τών σαββάτων … πρωί σΚοτίας Ěτισης in v. 1 (cf. v. 19 οὕοης ονν όψίας τη µιā σαββάτων) and the localisation of ‘the empty tomb stories’. Compare the editions of the Greek New Testament: 20. 1–18, 19–23, 24–29, 30–31 (Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, Nestle, von Soden, Vogels). See also the commentaries on John: Barrett, Becker, Brown, Schnackenburg (p. 355), et al. The Greek New Testament (¹1966–³1975) has a less satisfactory division: ‘The Resurrection of Jesus’ (1–10), ‘The Appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene’ (11–18). Unfortunately, it has been adopted by Nestle-Aland²⁶.

Some studies on the structure of Jn. 20 tend to neglect the obvious data of a ‘synchronic’ reading of the text by treating 20. 1–10 and 11–18 as two units. See Dupont, Liliane, Lash, C., Levesque, G., ‘Recherche sur la structure de Jean 20’, in Biblica 54 (1973), pp. 482–98 (a paper read at the Oxford Congress in 1973).Google Scholar The authors include 20. 30–31(!) in a chiastic structure of Jn. 20: 1–10 30–31 11–18 24–29 19–23 A different chiastic structure (without w. 30–31) has been proposed by D: Mollat: 1–10 24–29 11–18 19–23 Cf. Mollat, D., ‘La foi pascale selon le chapitre 20 de 1'Evangile de saint Jean’, in Resurrexit. Actes du Symposium international sur la résurrection de Jésus (Rome 1970), ed. Dhanis, E. (Vatican, 1974), pp. 316–39 (esp. p. 317)Google Scholar; reprinted in Mollat, D., Études johanniques (Paris, 1979), pp. 165–84 (esp. p. 167).Google Scholar

[40] Gundry, R. H., Matthew. A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1982), p. 591.Google Scholar Cf. Trompf, G. W., ‘The First Resurrection Appearance and the Ending of Mark's Gospel’, in NTS 18 (1971–1972), pp. 308–30, esp. p. 317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[41] Dillon, R. J., From Eye-Witnesses to Ministers of the Word. Tradition and Composition in Luke 24 (Analecta Biblica, 82; Rome, 1978), pp. 62–5.Google Scholar Cf. Wanke, J., Die Emmauserzählung. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Lk 24, 13–35 (Erfurter Theologische Studien, 31; Leipzig, 1973), p. 80Google Scholar; Alsup, J. E., The Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories of the Gospel Tradition. A History of-tradition Analysis (Calwer Theologische Monographien, A/5; Stuttgart, 1975), p. 104.Google Scholar

[42] For a critique of this hypothesis see Neirynck, F., ‘Marc 16,1–8. Tradition et rédaction’, in ETL 56 (1980), pp. 56–88, esp. pp. 56–62 (Evangelica, pp. 239–71, esp. 239–45).Google Scholar

[43] Markus- und Johannespassion (1982) (cf. supra, n. 25), pp. 365–88Google Scholar: Mk. 16. 1–4a, 5, 8a, followed by a christophany (compare Jn. 20. 1, 11b–18). Cf. p. 378: ‘V.5: Von dem Engel war schon im ältesten Bestand der Erzählung die Rede … Freilich haben sie den Jüngling nicht als Engel erkannt’; p. 401: ‘durch die Aufwertung der Angelophanie [vv. 6–7] kam cs zu der Verdrängung der Christophanie (vor Maria Magdalena)’.

[44] Becker, J., Johannes, p. 609.Google Scholar Cf. Schnackenburg, R., Johannesevangelium, p. 364: ‘text-kritisch umstritten’.Google Scholar

[45] Greeven, H., Synapse der drei ersten Evangelien (Tübingen, 1981).Google Scholar As I could indicate in ‘Lc xxiv. 12. Les témoins du texte occidental’ (1978; cf. infra, n. 97). Greeven's references to the Eusebian canons (Eus^can?), to the Palestinian Syriac version (Sj) and to the Diatessaron (Δ md me n p), as well as the reference to Marcion in GNT, among the witnesses in support of the omission of the verse should be cancelled.

[46] John, , p. 1000. See also p. 969.Google Scholar

[47] Ibid., p. 1002.

[48] Cf. supra, n. 1: in NTS, pp. 176–84 (Evangelica, pp. 281–9; see also pp. 388–90).Google Scholar

[49] Evans, C. F., Resurrection and the New Testament (Studies in Biblical Theology, 2/12; London, 1970), pp. 83 and 87Google Scholar; Steinseifer, B., ‘Der Ort der Erscheinungen des Auferstandenen. Zur Frage alter galiläischer Ostertraditionen’, in ZNW 62 (1971), pp. 232–65, p. 238CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Boismard, M.-E., Commentaire (Synopse, 2; Paris, 1972), p. 446Google Scholar; Curtis, K. P. G., ‘Three Points of Contact between Matthew and John in the Burial and Resurrection Narratives’, in JTS 23 (1972), pp. 440–4, pp. 441–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lange, J.. Das Erscheinen des Auferstandenen im Evangelium nach Matthäus. Eine traditions-und redaktionsgeschiclitliche Untersuchung zu Mt 28, 16–20 (Forschung zur Bibel, 11; Würzburg, 1973), pp. 368–84Google Scholar; Walter, N., ‘Eine vormatthäische Schilderung der Auferstehung Jesu’, in NTS 19 (1972–3), pp. 415–29, pp. 415–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alsup, J. E., The Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories (1975; cf. supra, n. 41), pp. 108–14, esp. p. 114Google Scholar; Crossan, J. D., ‘Empty Tomb and Absent Lord (Mark 16: 1–6)’ in The Passion in Mark, ed. Kelber, W. H. (Philadelphia, 1976), pp. 135–52, esp. pp. 139 and 142Google Scholar; Perrin, N., The Resurrection Narratives. A New Approach (London, 1977), pp. 47–8Google Scholar; Fischer, K. M., Das Ostergeschehen (Berlin, 1978; Göttingen, ² 1980), p. 46Google Scholar; Hendrickx, H., The Resurrection Narratives of the Synoptic Gospels (Manila, 1978), pp. 40–4Google Scholar; Kremer, J., Die Osterevangelien -Geschichten urn Geschichte (Stuttgart-Klosterneuburg, 1977), p. 74: ‘nicht ganz unmöglich’.Google Scholar

[50] The Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories, pp. 206–11, esp. p. 210.Google Scholar

[51] Cf. supra, n. 35.

[52] For B. Lindars, R. E. Brown, R. Schnackenburg (and R. H. Fuller), see ‘John and the Synoptics’ (cf. supra, n. 3), pp. 96–8 (Evangelica, pp. 388–90).Google Scholar

[53] Lindars, B., The Gospel of John (New Century Bible; London, 1972), p. 595.Google Scholar See also ‘The Composition of John xx’, in NTS 7 (1960–1961), pp. 142–7, esp. p. 143.Google Scholar

[54] Brown, R. E., John, p. 999.Google Scholar

[55] Hartmann, G., ‘Die Vorlage’ (1964; cf. supra, n, 28), pp. 199 and 219, n. 56.Google Scholar

[56] L'évangile de Jean, p. 463.Google Scholar

[57] Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1963), p. 172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[58] L'évangile de Jean, pp. 301–2.Google Scholar

[59] In Boismard's hypothesis Jn. 20. 14c–17 is added by Jn. II-A and the original christophany in Document C (Jn. II) is restricted to v. 14b: θεωρεī τόν Ίησοṽν έαττα.

[60] Becker, J., Johannes, p. 615.Google Scholar

[61] Cf. Plummer, A., An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Matthew (London, 1909), p. 422Google Scholar: ‘it may have been our Lord's purpose to convince them that He was the Jesus that they had known, and that He employed the usual greeting for that reason’.

[62] In the gospels: Mk. 15.18 par.; Mt. 26. 49; Lk. 1. 28.

[63] Cf. Alsup, J. E., The Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories, pp. 111–2: ‘The Mαριάμ address might be considered a functional equivalent for Jn. here.’Google Scholar

[64] Brown, R. E., John, p. 1004.Google Scholar Cf. Lindars, B., p. 605Google Scholar; Barrett, C. K., p. 564.Google Scholar

[65] Schnackenburg, R., Das Johannesevangelium, p. 375.Google Scholar See also Brown, R. E., John, p. 1004Google Scholar; Lindars, B., John, p. 607; et al.Google Scholar

[66] Boismard, M.-E., L'évangile de Jean, p. 461Google Scholar; ‘ne me louche pas’ (but see p. 465: ‘cesse de me toucher’); Becker, J., Johannes, p. 617: ‘rühre mich nicht an!’.Google Scholar

[67] Brown, R. E., John, p. 1011.Google Scholar

[68] Becker, J., Johannes, p. 617Google Scholar: ‘sonst ist ein Berührungsverbot des Auferstandenen überhaupt unbekannt (20,25.27!)’. See also Hoffmann, P., ‘Auferstehung’ (cf. supra, n. 24), p. 506.Google Scholar

[69] See also Bultmann, R. (p. 532, n. 6)Google Scholar, Brown, R. E. (p. 992), et al.Google Scholar

[70] Ctr. Schnackenburg, R. (p. 376, n. 52).Google Scholar

[71] Schnackenburg, R., p. 376, n. 52.Google Scholar

[72] Boismard, M.-E., p. 461.Google Scholar

[73] Gardner-Smith, P., Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge, 1938), p. 80.Google Scholar Cf. Boismard, M.-E., L'évangile de Jean, p. 461: ‘Æ message est totalement différent’.Google Scholar

[74] Wenham, D., ‘The Resurrection Narratives in Matthew's Gospel’, in Tyndale Bulletin 24 (1973), pp. 21–54, p. 33, n. 40 (with reference to my ‘Les femmes au tombeau’).Google Scholar

[75] Matthew's understanding of εlς тήν Гαλiλαίαν is almost certainly a correct interpretation of Mk. 16. 7. Ctr. van lersel, B., ‘De betekenis van Marcus vanuit zijn topografische structuur’, in Tijd-schrift voor Theologie 22 (1982), pp. 117–38, esp. p. 136Google Scholar; ‘“To Galilee” or “InGalilee” in Mark 14, 28 and 16,7?’, in ETL 58 (1982), pp. 365–70.Google Scholar

[76] Cf. Dillon, R. J., From Eye-Witnesses (cf. supra, n. 41), p. 32.Google Scholar

[77] Johannes, p. 618.Google Scholar

[78] Das Johannesevangelium, p. 316.Google Scholar

[79] The Gospel of Signs (1970; cf. supra, n. 28), p. 140.Google Scholar

[80] Cf. ‘Les femmes au tombeau’, pp. 183–4 (Evangelica, pp. 288–9).Google Scholar See also Lange, J., Das Erscheinen des Auferstandenen (cf. supra, n. 49), pp. 375–6.Google Scholar

[81] Cf. Barrett, C. K., John, p. 66.Google Scholar

[82] Schnackenbuig, R., Das Johannesevangelium, p. 378.Google Scholar

[83] John, p. 607.Google Scholar

[84] Richter, G., ‘Der Vater und Gott Jesu und seiner Brüder in Joh 20,17. Ein Beitrag zur Christo-logie im Johannesevangelium’, in Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift 24 (1973), pp. 95–114; reprinted in Studien (cf. supra, n. 21), pp. 266–80.Google Scholar

[85] Das Johannesevangelium, p. 378, n. 59.Google Scholar

[86] L'evangile de Jean, p. 465.Google Scholar

[87] Compare Commentaire (1972), p. 446: ‘Peut-être y a-t-il cependant emprunt de Jn au récit de Mt’!Google Scholar

[88] Cf. Benoit, P., ‘Marie-Madeleine et les disciples au tombeau selon Joh 20,1–18’, in Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche. FS J. Jeremias, ed. Eltester, W. (BZNW, 26; Berlin, 1960, ² 1964), pp. 141–52, esp. p. 146Google Scholar; reprinted in Exégèse et théologie, vol. 3 (Paris, 1968), pp. 270–82, esp. p. 275.Google Scholar

[89] Ibid., note 17: cf. E. Schwartz, J. Wellhausen, F. Spitta. See also Hartmann, G. (p. 206)Google Scholar and Schnackenburg, R. (p. 373).Google Scholar

[90] L'évangile de Jean, pp. 462–3.Google Scholar

[91] The Gospel of Signs, p. 139.Google Scholar

[92] L'évangile de Jean, p. 341.Google Scholar

[93] Studien zum alttestamentlichen Hintergrund des Johannesevangeliums(SNTS MS, 22; Cambridge, 1974), p. 212.Google Scholar

[94] Das Erscheinen des Auferstandenen (1973; cf. supra, n. 49), pp. 382–3.Google Scholar

[95] Cf. Hengel, M., ‘Maria Magdalena und die Frauen als Zeugen’, in Abraham unser Vater. FS O. Michel (AGSU, 5; Leiden-Köln, 1963), pp. 243–56.Google Scholar

[96] Pace Brown (John, p. 1003Google Scholar: Cf. C. H. Dodd) and Hug, J. (La finale de l'évangile de Marc, Paris, 1978).Google Scholar

[97] Neirynck, F., ‘The Uncorrected Historic Present in Lk. xxiv.12’, in ETL 48 (1972), pp. 548–53Google Scholar (Evangelica, 1982, cf. supra, n. 1; pp. 329–34Google Scholar); ‘Lc. xxiv 12: Les témoins du texte occidental’ [1975], in Baarda, T. et al. , (ed.), Miscellanea Neotestamentica (Suppl NT, 47; Leiden, 1978), pp. 45–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar (Evangelica, pp. 313–28Google Scholar); ‘Le récit du tombeau vide dans l'évangile de Luc (Lc 24,1–12)’, in FS J. Vergote, OLP 6/7 (1975–1976) pp. 427–41Google Scholar (Evangelica, pp. 297–311; note additionnelle, pp. 311–12Google Scholar); ‘John and the Synoptics’ (1977; cf. supra, n. 3), pp. 98–104Google Scholar (Evangelica, pp. 390–6Google Scholar); ‘ΠΑΡΑΚϒψΑΣ ΒΛΕΠΕN. Lc 24, 12 et Jn 20,5’, in ETL 53 (1977), pp. 113–52 (Evangelica, pp. 401–40)Google Scholar; ‘AΠHΛΘEN ΠPOΣ EAϒTON. Lc 24,12 et Jn 20, 10’, in ETL 54 (1978), pp. 104–18 (Evangelica, pp. 441–55).Google Scholar See also ‘Jn 20,1–10 et les Synoptiques’, in ETL 53 (1977), pp. 430–45, reprinted in Jean et les Synoptiques (1979; cf. supra, n. 3), pp. 71–86.Google Scholar

[98] Dillon, R. J., From Eye-Witnesses to Ministers of the Word (1978; cf. supra, n. 41), pp. 59–67 and 109–10.Google Scholar Compare Wanke, J., Die Emmauserzählung (1973), pp. 79–81.Google Scholar

[99] Op. cit., p. 65, 110, and pp. 62–4 (the example of Lk. 5. 1–11).

[100] The evidence for ‘the plurality of disciples’ as ‘the tradition's “given”’ in Lk. 5. 4b–6 (p. 64: cf. Jn. 21. 2, 6) is hardly convincing. Cf. Jean et les Synoptiques, pp. 139–54 (‘Le récit de la pêche miraculeuse’).Google Scholar

[101] Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu (Göttingen, ⁴ 1967), p. 144.Google Scholar

[102] ‘A Note on Reading Luke xxiv.12’, in ETL 48 (1972), pp. 542–8, p. 547.Google Scholar

[103] Dibelius, M., Aufsätze zur Apostelgeschichte, ed. Greeven, H. (Göttingen, ² 1953), p. 49, n. 1 (see also p. 160: ‘der Plural … entspricht einer literarischen Konvention’).Google Scholar

[104] Gardner-Smith, P., Saint John (cf. supra, n. 73), p. 76Google Scholar

[105] Historical Tradition (cf. supra, n. 57), p. 141.Google Scholar

[106] E.g. Becker, J., Johannes (1981), p. 613Google Scholar: ‘Ursprünglich … Petrus und einige Junger (vgl. Lk 24,22–24)’.

[107] Neirynck, F., ‘The “Other Disciple” in Jn 18,15–16’, in ETL 51 (1975), pp. 113–41 (Evangelica, pp. 335–63)Google Scholar; Jean et les Synoptiques, pp. 79–86: ‘L'autre disciple: Jn 20,3–10 et 18,15–16’.Google Scholar

[108] Ct. Evangelica, p. 395, n. 122.Google Scholar

[109] Cf. infra, n. 117.

[110] Lindais, B., John, p. 603.Google Scholar

[111] Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums (Göttingen, 1980), p. 313.Google Scholar

[112] Cf. supra, n. 97: ‘AπHΛΘEN πPOΣ EAϒTON’.

[113] Cf. Evangelica, pp. 331–4, 391–5.Google Scholar

[114] On the singular έξη¯λθεν, cf. Jean et les Synoptiques, pp. 81–3.Google Scholar

[115] Hartmann, G., ‘Die Vorlage’ (cf. supra, n. 28), p. 100.Google Scholar

[116] Cf. Evangelica, pp. 429–40.Google Scholar

[117] Compare όθόνια and σονδάριον with Κειρίαι and σονδάριον in 11. 44.

[118] Fortna, R. T., The Gospel of Signs, p. 137.Google Scholar

[119] Ctr. Boismard. Cf. Jean et les Synoptiques, p. 86.Google Scholar

[120] Cf. Haenchen, E., Das Johannesevangelium, p. 569Google Scholar: ‘Die Unkenntnis der Schriftstelle macht beides verständlich: daß der eine Jünger zum Glauben kam und der andere nicht’; and Lindars, B., John, p. 602Google Scholar: the Beloved Disciple comes to faith, ‘but the substance of his faith has still not been formulated. Here at last John tells us what it is, but at the same time he explains why it took time for the truth to dawn to the disciples’. – Paul, S. Minear now pleads for ‘a radical revision in the usual exegesis of verse 8’. Not the Beloved Disciple's faith in the resurrection but the disciples' misunderstanding is emphasized in v. 8c: ‘They now “believed” in Mary's report and thus joined in her confession of ignorance, “we don't know where”’ (p. 127). This ignorance was the result of their ignorance of scripture (v. 9); and they returned home ‘as if nothing at all had happened to change things’ (v. 10; cf. 16. 32). Cf. Minear, P. S., ‘“We don't know where …” John 20:2’, in Interpretation 30 (1976), pp. 125–39, esp. pp. 127–8Google Scholar; see also ‘The Original Functions of John 21’, in JBL 102 (1983), pp. 85–98, esp. pp. 88–9.Google Scholar – Compare Augustine (in reaction to ‘nonnulli parum ad-tendentes’): ‘Vidit scilicet inane monumentum, et credidit quod dixerat mulier, eum de monumento esse sublatum’ (CC 36, p. 664).Google Scholar Cf. Bengel, Kuinoel, et al. W. Nauck is generally cited as the latest defender of such an interpretation of έπίετενσεν: ‘: er überzeugte sich (von dem Tatbestand, die Leiche war nicht da)’; cf. ‘Die Bedeutung des leeren Grabes für den Glauben an den Auferstan-denen’, in ZNW 47 (1956), pp. 243–67, p. 254 (with reference to E. von Dobschütz and A. OepkeGoogle Scholar; cf. Kremer, J., Die Osterbotschaft der vier Evangelien, Stuttgart, 1968, p. 91: ‘er vergewisserte sich’).Google Scholar This interpretation has been discussed and rejected by Mollat, D. (‘La découverte du torn-beau vide: Jn 20,1–9’, in Assemblies du Seigneur, ser. 2, 21 [1969], 90–100, p. 98)Google Scholar, Brown, R. E. (John, II, 1970, p. 987)Google Scholar, Mahoney, R. (Two Disciples at the Tomb, 1974, pp. 262–4)Google Scholar, Kremer, J. (Die Osterevangelien, 1977, p. 168: a retraction).Google Scholar – Lk. 24. 12 has its place in Minear's theory: ‘it could represent an early copyist's assimilation of the Lukan to the Johannine text, and thus it would be the earliest exegesis of John 20: 8,10’ (p. 128).Google Scholar

[121] Cf. supra, n. 112.

[122] See Becker, J., Johannes, pp. 607–8Google Scholar; Mohr, T. A., Markus- und Johannespassion (cf. supra, n. 25), pp. 388–9: ‘Spannungen, die die Einheitlichkeit des Abschnitts in Frage stellen’.Google Scholar

[123] Mohr, T. A., op. cit., p. 394.Google Scholar Cf. Hirsch, E., Studien zum vierten Evangelium (BHT, 11; Tübingen, 1936), p. 127.Google Scholar

[124] Cf. Brown, R. E., John, p. 988.Google Scholar

[125] Barrett, C. K., John, p. 401.Google Scholar

[126] Lindars, B., John, p. 400.Google Scholar

[127] Brown, R. E., John, p. 426.Google Scholar

[128] Ibid., p. 1005.

[129] A parenthetical remark can be placed here concerning the Beloved Disciple in relation to Peter. Much weight is given to this relationship in the discussion about the historicity of the Beloved Disciple. It should be clear, however, that in no way can the historical character of the incident, in Jn. 20 and elsewhere, be assured by this association with Peter. The hypothesis that he must have been a resident of Jerusalem suffers greatly from this ambiguity. On the other hand, it is not insignificant that, by way of contrast, the Beloved Disciple is there at the dark moments of discipleship: at the identification of the traitor, one of the twelve, with Peter as the spokesman of the group (13. 23–25); at the denial of Peter (18. 15–16); standing by the cross, the disciples, ‘even Peter, with whom he appears elsewhere’, being absent (19. 25–17); and at the tomb, with Peter who fails to come to faith (20. 2–10).

[130] Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels (cf. supra, n. 73), p. 81.

[131] Compare Jn. 20. Ic καί βλέπει τόν λίθον ήνρμέον έκ τον¯ μνημєίον and 2d ήραν τόν κúριον έκ τοū μνημεíον with Lk. 24. 2–3: εūρον δέ τόν λίθον άποκυλισμένον άπό τοῦ μνημείον εισελθοῦσαι δέ ούχ εύρον τό σμα τοῡ κνρίον Ίησοῦ.