[1] For a review of recent research cf. Kysar, R., The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel (Minneapolis, 1975), esp. pp. 178–206Google Scholar; Thyen, H., ‘Aus der Literatur zum Johannesevangelium’, Theol Rund 39 (1974), pp. 1–69, 222–52, 289–330, esp. 53–69, 222–52Google Scholar; 42 (1977), pp. 210–70Google Scholar; 43 (1978), pp. 328–59.Google Scholar Apart from the major commentaries (Bultmann, Schnackenburg, Brown, Lindars, Morris, Schulz, Barrett) I would mention especially Blank, J., Krisis. Untersuchungen zur jolianneischen Christologie und Eschatologie (Freiburg, 1964)Google Scholar; Forestell, J. T., The Word of the Cross (Analecta Biblica 57, Rome, 1974)Google Scholar; Käsemann, E., The Testament of Jesus (London, 1968)Google Scholar; Moloney, F. J., The Johannine Son of Man (Biblioteca Di Scienze Religiose 14, Rome, 1978 ²)Google Scholar; Müller, U. B., Die Geschichte der Christologie der johanneischen Gemeinde (SBS 77, Stuttgart, 1975)Google Scholar; Bühner, J. A., Der Gesandte und sein Weg (WUNT 2/2, Tübingen, 1977)Google Scholar; Miranda, J. P., Die Sendung Jesus im vierten Evangelium (SBS 87, Stuttgart, 1977).Google Scholar

[2] So e.g. Filson, F. V., ‘The Gospel of Life’, in Klaasen, W. – Snyder, G. F. edd., Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation, Otto Piper Festschrift (London, 1961), pp. 111–23, esp. IllGoogle Scholar; Brown, R. E., ‘The Kerygma of the Gospel according to John’, in Batey, R. ed., New Testament Issues (London, 1970), pp. 210–25, here 210 f.Google Scholar

[3] So e.g. Pollard, T. E., Johannine Christology and the Early Church (SNTSMonSer 13, Cambridge, 1970), pp. 6 f., 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar This is not to deny the significance of the Prologue for understanding the whole. So von den Osten-Sacken, P., ‘Leistung und Grenze der johanneischen Kreuzestheologie’, EvTh 7 (1975), pp. 154–76, esp. 158 ff.Google Scholar: ‘Der johanneische Jesus ist wesentlich ein Redender’ (p. 159).Google Scholar Similarly Hooker, M. D., ‘John's Prologue and the Messianic Secret’, NTS 21 (1974/1975), pp. 40–58, esp. 43–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[4] Käsemann, E., The Testament of Jesus (London, 1968), p. 3.Google Scholar

[5] Cf. Schnackenburg, R., The Gospel according to St. John. Vol. 1 (London, 1968)Google Scholar, who holds 3. 31–36 and 3. 13–21 to be an independent piece composed on the basis of the Nicodemus dialogue and presenting ‘a condensation of the principal assertions of John and the Johannine theology’ (p. 380).Google ScholarSimilarly, Blank, Krisis, pp. 53 ff.Google Scholar

[6] So e.g. Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1968), p. 309Google Scholar; Moloney, , Son of Man, pp. 42–4.Google Scholar

[7] Against Brown, R. E., The Gospel according to John, 2 Vols. (London, 1971), p. 159Google Scholar; Morris, L., The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, 1971), p. 244.Google Scholar

[8] So Schnackenburg, John, pp. 382 f.Google Scholar

[9] E.g. 3. 13; 6. 33, 38, 41, 42, 50, 51, 58; 7. 28; 8.14, 42; 13. 3.

[10] E.g. 1.9, 11; 3. 19; 5. 24,43; 10. 10; 12. 13,27,46,47; 15. 22; 16. 28; 18. 37; cf. 6.14; 4. 25; 7. 27, 31; 11. 27.

[11] Cf. 7.27 ff.; 8.14 ff.; 8.42 ff.

[12] E.g. 6. 62; 7. 33, 35; 8. 14, 21, 22; 13. 33, 36; 14. 2, 4,5,12, 28; 16. 5, 7,10,17, 28; 17. 11,13; 20.17.

[13] 13. 33, 36; 14. 4 ff.; 16. 5; cf. 6. 21 f.; 7. 32 ff.

[14] Typical are the following: ‘I declare to the world what I have heard from him.’ (8. 26); ‘I speak what I have seen with my Father.’ (8. 38); ‘All that I have heard from the Father I have made known to you.’ (15.15); ‘The Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak.’ (12. 49; cf. 12. 50).

[15] This variation of the model differs in that it stresses present relationship as the basis of the work and words of the revealer, rather than the notion that the revealer has been sent to tell what he has heard. Cf. 5. 30, where the Son speaks what he hears (present tense).

[16] This is not to deny that, within this common pattern of revelation, elements interplay which may be of diverse origin (e.g. witness, work, seeing, hearing, indwelling etc.). But our primary concern is to establish the basic pattern as used by the evangelist. Cf. Von den Osten-Sacken, ‘Leistung’, who speaks of ‘einer kaum mehr zu übertreffenden Monotonie’ with which the evangelist stresses the unity of the Son with the Father and the revelation of God in Jesus (162). A detailed analysis of these variants is found in Forestell, , The Word of the Cross, pp. 17–57.Google Scholar Cf. also Schnackenburg, R., Das Johannesevangelium. 2. Teil (HThKomm IV 2, Freiburg, 1977 ²), pp. 152–7.Google Scholar

[17] On this see the excellent studies by Bühner and Miranda op. cit. See also Miranda's, earlier work which his second study modifies: Der Voter, der mich gesandt hat (Bern-Frankfurt, 1976 ²). I have not had access to this work.Google Scholar

[18] E.g. 5.30ff.;7. 16 ff.; 8. 16ff.;12. 45 ff.

[19] 5. 43; 12. 48; 13. 20; 17. 8;cf. 1. 5, 11 f.

[20] ‘The Son of God’ occurs in traditionally messianic contexts: 1. 34, 49; 10. 36 (cf. 10. 24); 11. 4, 27; 19. 7 (cf. 19. 3); 20. 31; (cf. 5. 25). For ‘The Son of God’ as a traditional Christian messianic designation cf. Hahn, Ferd., Christologische Hoheitstitel (Göttingen, 1966 ³), pp. 281, 284–92.Google Scholar

[21] Cf. Schnackenburg, , John, Vol. 1, p. 532Google Scholar; Higgins, A. J. B., Jesus and the Son of Man (London, 1964), pp. 159 f.Google Scholar For a full discussion of alternative interpretations cf. Moloney, , Son of Man, pp. 23–41Google Scholar, who opts however for the meaning: you shall see Jesus as the revealer (p. 36). Similarly Lindars, B., ‘The Son of Man in the Johannine Christology’ in Lindars, B. – Smalley, S. S. edd., Christ and Spirit in the New Testament (In honour of C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge, 1973), pp. 43–60, here p. 47Google Scholar; Forestell, The Word of the Cross, pp. 23 f. I shall argue that the affirmation of messiahship implicit in Nathanael's response is interpreted by the evangelist as an affirmation that Jesus is the true revealer, as messiahship is understood elsewhere in the gospel, while the evangelist has Jesus refer to himself as Son of Man when he speaks of something more or ‘greater’ than that. Cf. 3. 12–14; 5. 20–27; 6. 62; cf. 14. 12.

[22] Cf. Smalley, S. S., ‘Johannes 1,51 und die Einleitung zum vierten Evangelium’ in Pesch, R.Schnackenburg, R. edd., Jesus und der Menschensohn (Für Anton Vögtle, Freiburg, 1975), pp. 300–13Google Scholar: ‘Die Bedeutung Jesu als dcs Menschensohnes 1st bei Johannes sogar grösser als seine Bedeutung als der Logos Gottes.’ (p. 313).Google Scholar But in my opinion he goes too far when he claims: ‘Das gesamte Johannesevangelium lasst sich gewissermassen als Midrasch zu Jon 1,51 ansehen.’ (p. 313)Google Scholar, and attempts to trace a multitude of theological allusions surfacing in this one verse (cf. p. 309 f.).

[23] Recently both Rückstuhl, E. (‘A bstieg und Erhöhung des johanneischen Menschensohnes’, in Pesch, R. – Schnackenburg, R. edd., Jesus und der Menschensohn (Für Anton Vögtle, Freiburg, 1975), pp. 314–41, here 324 f.)Google Scholar and Moloney, (Son of Man, pp. 54–6)Google Scholar have argued against a reference to the ascension of the Son of Man in 3. 13. The major problem with such an understanding is the anachronism it implies. It is one thing for Jesus to speak as the exalted one; it is quite a different matter to have him speaking of the ascension in the past tense. Rückstuhl (326 f.) points to a widespread Jewish tradition of denying that anyone has ever ascended to heaven (cf. Prov. 3. 4; Bar. 3. 29; Wisd. 9. 16). Moloney (p. 57) paraphrases: ‘I am telling you what I have seen. You cannot understand these things, for not one of you has ascended to heaven to discover them; but the Son of Man has come down from heaven, and, as such, can speak with unique authority.’ Borgen, P. (‘Some Jewish Exegetical Traditions as Background for the Son of Man Sayings in John's Gospel (3, 13–14 and context)’ in do Jonge, M., ed., L'Évangile de Jean, BETL 44, Gembloux, 1977, pp. 243–58)Google Scholar and Bühner (Gesandte, pp. 341 ff.Google Scholar) take 3. 13 to refer to a pre-existent ascension within the heavenly realm as the basis of commission. See the valid critique by Moloney, Son of Man, pp. 233 f. But against both these views and those of Moloney and Riickstuhl, the more natural reading is to see in 3. 13 a reference to Jesus' ascension. So Schnackenburg, John, Vol. I, pp. 392 f.Google Scholar This is even more so if with Barrett, C. K., (The Gospel according to St. John, London, 1978, p. 213)Google Scholar we allow the reading ‘who is in heaven’, which would clinch the anachronism! Brown, John, points to a similar anachronism in 4. 38 (cf. also 13. 31; 15. 27; 17. 11). In fact it is vital for the understanding of the gospel that one recognise how frequently the evangelist makes contemporary allusions. Cf. already in ch. 3; 3. 5 (baptism!); 3. 8 (the Spirit; given only after Jesus' glorification! 7. 39); 3. 11 (the church assumed!); 3. 16, 18 f. (clearly post Easter perspectives?) Cf. also Schulz, S., Das Evangelium nach Johannes (Göttingen, 1975), pp. 13 f.Google Scholar; Colpc, C., ò νìòς τον¯ άνθρώπον, TDNT 8 (1972), p. 466.Google Scholar

[24] Cf. Moloney, , Son of Man, pp. 51 ff., 244–7Google Scholar, who denies any reference to the ascension as exaltation, and limits the reference totally to the historical earthly crucifixion and the final act of revelation. But see III below where we argue that in the context of Johannine thought ‘lifting up’, ‘glorification’, ‘exaltation’, and ‘ascension’ are not to be separated. This is not to deny the possibility that an originally independent tradition is being used here (so Schulz, , Johannes, p. 59Google Scholar; Schnackenburg, John, Vol. I, p. 395Google Scholar), which may once have limited its reference to the crucifixion and borne conscious allusions to Isa. 52. 13 LXX.

[25] So Kramer, W., Christ, Lord, Son of God (London, 1966), pp. 111–15.Google Scholar

[26] On the meaning of the ‘Ego Eimi’ formula cf. Moloney, , Son of Man, pp. 135 ff.Google Scholar; and esp. Bühner, , Gesandtee, pp. 158 ff.Google Scholar

[27] Cf. Moloney, , Son of Man, pp. 120–3, 244–7Google Scholar, who interprets the saying as a rejection by Jesus of doubt in what amounts to a tone of sarcasm: What more does he have to do to legitimate himself – ascend to heaven? There's no need for him to do that. But this is forced.

[28] Anarthrously, probably reflecting Danielle influence, so Moloney, , Son of Man, p. 81Google Scholar; Blank, , Krisis, p. 162.Google Scholar

[29] So Moloney, , Son of Man, pp. 83–5.Google Scholar But once again Moloney presses the text into a statement about revelation: judgement takes place as a result of revelation. This oversystematises. Blank, (Krisis, pp. 163 f.)Google Scholar traces a development of the traditional judgement motif of the Son of Man complex of ideas so that in the fourth gospel the Son of Man is pictured also as the giver of life (cf. 6. 27, 53). When this function is being exercised already during his earthly ministry Jesus refers to himself as the Son. Cf. also Maddox, R., ‘The Function of the Son of Man in the Gospel of John’, in Banks, R. ed., Reconciliation and Hope (Festschrift for Leon Morris, London, 1974), pp. 186–204, here 195 ff.Google Scholar

[30] So Riedl, J., ‘Wenn ihr den Menschensohn erhöht habt, werdet ihr erkennen (Jon 8,28)’ in Pesch, R. – Schnackenburg, R. edd. Jesus und der Menschensohn (Für Anton Vögtle, Freiburg, 1975), pp. 355–70, here 361.Google Scholar

[31] On the relationship between this and other Johannine Son of Man sayings cf. Maddox, , ‘Function’, pp. 198 f.Google Scholar, who makes the point that the saying is not ‘an oddity’ besides the others. Maddox is however too quick to affirm with Borsch, F., The Son of Man in Myth and History (London, 1967), pp. 304 f.Google Scholar, that the prominence of the title is entirely due to the strength of the tradition that in his lifetime Jesus has used this title of himself. We hope to show that this view disregards the influence of a particular cluster of ideas surrounding the title which was taken up and developed by the evangelist to fulfil a vital role in his christology.

[32] Of the two references to Jesus' glorification in 13. 31 f., the first, expressed in the past tense, refers to the total span of events which has just begun, and comes to its climax in Jesus' return to glory; the second, expressed in the future, refers to the immediate event of the crucifixion as an aspect of the whole through which the glorification will come to fulfilment in heaven. So: Lindars, , John, pp. 461 f.Google Scholar; Morris, , John, pp. 630 f.Google Scholar; Schulz, , Johannes, pp. 178 f.Google Scholar Cf. Moloney, , Son of Man, pp. 195 f.Google Scholar, who separates two events: glorification as crucifixion and glorification as return to glory.

[33] Moloney, , Son of Man, pp. 202–7Google Scholar, finds in Pilate's words ‘Behold the man’ (19. 3) a reference to the Son of Man designation. Against this Cf. Schnackenburg, R., ‘Die Ecce-homo-Szene und der Menschensohn’ in Pesch, R. – Schnackenburg, R. edd., Jesus und der Menschensohn (Für Anton Vögtle, Freiburg, 1975), pp. 371–86.Google Scholar

[34] So Blank, , Krisis, pp. 61–3Google Scholar who sees the cross as ‘Anfang und Beginn der Erhohung’. Similarly Schnackenburg, John, pp. 596 ff.Google Scholar; Brown, , John, p. 147.Google Scholar Drawing on the research of Thüsing, W., Die Erhohung und Verherrlichung Jesu im Johannesevangelium (Münster, 1970 ²), esp. p. 116Google Scholar, Moloney, Son of Man, appears to want to see two stages; the exaltation/glorification of the Son of Man at the crucifixion as the supreme revelation of regality and love; and second, the return to glory of the Son (pp. 63, 65, 177, 198–200). But ‘the hour’ to come is clearly identified both with the death of Jesus and with his ascension as return to the Father. Thus in 13. 1 and 17. 1, 5 ‘hour’ refers to the return, and in 12. 23, 27, 31 ff., 34; 13. 31 f. (the ‘now’) refers to the impending hour of Jesus' death with all its implications, including the change in power structure effected by Jesus' exaltation to the Father, the basis for the success of Christian mission. So Schnackenburg, , Johannes 2, pp. 499 ff.Google Scholar 19. 30 does not mean that the Spirit is given from the cross (against Moloney, , Son of Man, p. 178Google Scholar), but refers to Jesus' dying. The Spirit comes only after Jesus has been glorified (7. 39), just as scripture and certain words of Jesus are now understood after Jesus has been glorified (12. 16; cf. 2. 22 where the same idea is expressed but in the form ‘after he was raised from the dead’). What was ‘finished’ (19. 30) on the cross was not the particular function of the Son of Man understood as Revealer, thus the glorification of the Son of Man, but the revelation by the Son of the Father (So Blank, , Krisis, , p. 267Google Scholar; cf. Moloney, , Son of Man, p. 178Google Scholar), understood within the context of the Father-Son revelation model. The Son of Man is the title used for the ‘something greater’, which, as we have seen, includes both Jesus' death and his exaltation to heavenly glory, his ascension (1. 51; 3.12 f.; 6. 62; 5. 20 ff.; 14.12). 3.14 refers to more than the lifting up of Jesus upon the cross (against Moloney, , Son of Man, p. 62Google Scholar). It refers to the basis on which the Son of Man as judge gives eternal life: not only his death, but also his ascension in glory. Cf, Riick-stuhl, , ‘Abstieg’, p. 333Google Scholar, who takes a modified stance: ‘Erhöhung und Verherrlichung liegen nur teilweise ineinander. Die Verherrlichung Jesus durch Gott setzt sich über seine Erhöhung ans Kreuz hinaus in seiner Auferweckung und Heilsherrschaft fort. Die Erhohung Jesus fällt deswegen auchnicht einfach mil seiner Rückkehr in die himmlische Welt zusammen. Sie ist die Schwelle zu ihr. Zeichen für diesen Sachverhalt ist die Tatsache, dass die beiden johanneischen Aufstiegstellen -6,62 und 20,17 – den Aufstieg Jesu nicht mit seiner Kreuzigung gleichsetzen.’ But this places too much weight on these texts in isolation. As a result Rückstuhl can claim: ‘So hat Johannes Heilsinn und Heilskraft des Todes Jesu am Kreuz in einer Weise gedeutet, verdeutlicht und veranschaulicht, wie das zuvor keinem Verkünder und Theologen gelungen war, auch Paulusnicht.’ (p. 334). Against this cf. Blank, , Krisis, pp. 80–5, 267 f.Google Scholar; Riedl, , ‘Menschensohn’, pp. 363 f.Google Scholar; Nichol, W., The Semeia in the Fourth Gospel (Leiden, 1972), pp. 128 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Forestell, , The Word of the Cross, pp. 61–74.Google Scholar

[35] Moloney, , (Son of Man pp. 211 f., 246Google Scholar) stresses that the Son of Man is used of Jesus as the incarnate one and bears witness primarily to his function as Revealer. But apart from 3. 13 and 6.62 which assume the pre-existence of Jesus as Son of Man, the title is used of Jesus not primarily in relationship to his function as the incarnate one, but in relationship to his function as the one to be exalted and glorified. Its focus is the end of Jesus' life. It is ‘the Son’ which bears the weight of the revelation complex. To my mind both Moloney and Forestell overstress the thesis that the cross is the climax of revelation. It is important to note that Forestell sees the cross as a revelation of the love of the one who lays down his life for his own (Word of the Cross, p. 74Google Scholar). Bühner (Ge-sandte, pp. 404 ff.), ultimately because of his doubtful interpretation of 3. 13 as pre-existent anabasis, is led to see the Johannine Son of Man primarily as a revealing figure. This does not fit the orientation of the cluster.

[36] Cf. Forestell, , The Word of the Cross, pp. 193–5.Google ScholarMüller, U. B., ‘Die Bedeutung des Kreuzes-todes Jesu im Johannesevangelium’, Ker. u. Dogma 21 (1975), pp. 49–71.Google Scholar

[37] So Blank, , Krisis, pp. 283–5.Google Scholar

[38] This may well reflect a preference for the use of Son of Man as a designation in words attributed to Jesus speaking of himself, and some have pointed to the synoptic Caesarea Philippi and Jewish trial episodes, where there is a similar movement from messianic affirmation to Son of Man sayings as in Jn. 1. Cf. Moloney, , Son of Man, pp. 33 f.Google Scholar; Smalley, , ‘Johannes 1,51’, p. 310Google Scholar, Colpe, ò νìòς τού άνθρώπον, p. 468). Certainly ‘Christ’ (and ‘Prophet’) are mostly popular acclamations made by others in John: (‘Christ’: 4. 29; 7. 41; 9. 22; 11. 27; cf. 1. 20, 25, 41; 3. 28; 4. 25; 7. 26, 27, 31, 41 f.; 10. 24; 12. 34; 20. 31; ‘prophet’; 1. 45; 4. 19; 6. 14; 7. 40; 9. 17; cf. 1. 21, 23, 25; 7.52). Messianic christology is by no means denigrated by the evangelist. But it is only adequately understood in the sense of the central christological structure (as with the ‘signs’). Cf. Martyn, J. L., History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (New York, 1968), pp. 120–42Google Scholar, who sees a two level drama in John. At a lower popular level, messianic Mosaic attributions are appropriate. But midrash discussion leads to awareness that Jesus is Son of Man. Martyn traces such a development in chapters 3, 6, 7, and 9, and sees it as reflecting movement of belief amongst synagogue leaders from belief in Jesus' messiahship to belief in him as Son of Man. My analysis gives a very different explanation of the relationship between messiahship and Son of Man traditions in the gospel.

[39] It is this conflation of terminology that leads Moloney, , Son of Man, pp. 199 f.Google Scholar, to separate the glorification of the Son of Man from the glorification of the Son.

[40] Cf. Borgen, P., ‘God's Agent in the Fourth Gospel’ in Neusner, J. ed. Religions in Antiquity (Essays in memory of E. R. Goodenough, Leiden, 1968), pp. 137–48Google Scholar; and Bühner, Gesandte, passim. Of both the disciples and the Paraclete it can be said that they go or come as those who are sent to make known what they have seen and heard. Cf. 1. 31–38; 14. 26; 15. 26; 1 Jn. 1. 1 f. Both are given an authority modelled on that of the Son who was also sent as bearer of revelation (cf. 20. 21–23; 3. 8–11).

[41] We cannot pursue this question here. Cf. Thyen, ‘Johannesevangelium’ for an extensive survey of current views. Maddox, ‘Function’, is surely correct when he writes: ‘the whole farewell discourse is to be read in the light of the Son of Man theme’ (p. 203).Google Scholar

[42] The verbs most commonly used for Jesus' going to the Father in the central structure are πορεúομαι and ύπάγω, not άναβαίνω, which is used in the Son of Man logia 3. 13 and 6. 62. The exception is 20. 17, where a different tradition has probably supplied the word. The Καγάβασιςάναβάοις terminology is particularly associated with the Son of Man tradition in John. The only other place where καταβαίνω occurs in a christological context is in the manna sayings of chapter 6. Here the motif determines the choice of words. Because of the peculiar terminology it is misleading to make the general claim that the idea of the Son's coming and going derives from the Son of Man tradition, as do Meeks, W. A., ‘The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism’, JBL 91 (1972), pp. 44–72, here 51 f.Google Scholar; and Maddox, , ‘Function’, p. 196.Google Scholar Cf. Bühner, , Gesandte, pp. 3, 386, 418 f.Google Scholar

[43] This is not to deny that at an earlier stage of the tradition the thought of humiliation was present. This is best illustrated by Phil. 2. 6–11. Exaltation follows humiliation in Jewish tradition. So Riedl, , ‘Menschensohn’, pp. 363 f.Google Scholar, Blank, , Krisis, pp. 81–5Google Scholar, who points above all to Isa. 52. 13 LXX and the wider suffering servant passage extending into Isa. 53 linking it to the synoptic Son of Man sayings about his suffering. The use of ùψοūν and δοεάζειν possibly originally as a result of the influence of Isa. 52. 13, does not mean that whenever these terms are present there is also the picture of the suffering servant in an author's mind as Riedl appears to presume (‘Menschensohn’, p. 364Google Scholar). It would be equally erroneous to assume that the parallel to exaltation in Phil. 2 must mean that John has a kenotic christology.

[44] Cf. Nichol, , Semeia, pp. 131 ff.Google Scholar, who attempts to harmonise by speaking of a proleptic use of ‘glory’ during the ministry of Jesus; similarly Blank, , Krisis, pp. 272 f.Google Scholar; Bühner, , Gesandte, p. 395.Google Scholar But 1.14,18 surely speaks against such a view. Cf. Müller, , ‘Bedeutung des Kreuzestodes’, pp. 66 ff.Google Scholar, who wants to detect a paraenetic purpose in the tension, illustrating that believers too must expect glory in suffering. Similarly von den Osten-Sacken, ‘Leistung’, p. 161.Google Scholar

[45] Moloney, (Son of Man, pp. 211–13)Google Scholar stresses the need to see Son of Man and Son as distinctive Johannine themes and lists features which he considers characteristic of each.

[46] A similar development may be illustrated from the epistle to the Hebrews where exaltation traditions are overlaid with a more developed christology according to which the Son, by virtue of his sonship, himself returns. Cf. 1. 4–9; 5. 5–10 with 7. 16; 1. 2 f. and see Loader, W. R. G., Sohn und Hoherpriester. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefs (Neukirchen, 1981).Google Scholar

[47] Higgins, , Son of Man, p. 155.Google Scholar

[48] E. D. Freed is hardly correct when he writes that the ‘Son of Man is only a variation for at least two other titles, namely, the Son of God and the Son … there is no separate Son of Man christology in the fourth gospel.’ ‘The Son of Man in the Fourth Gospel’, JBL 86 (1967), pp. 402–9, here 403.Google Scholar H. Conzelmann's contention is also unhelpful, that the titles of Jesus in the fourth gospel are but expositions of the Logos (Outline of New Testament Theology (London, 1969), p. 333Google Scholar). There is evidence of a merging in the last discourses, but the assimilation is as Maddox sees ‘not yet complete’ (‘Function’, p. 193Google Scholar). This is why it is also incorrect to say that the Johannine Messiah is the Son of Man, as does Schnackenburg (John, Vol. 1, p. 532Google Scholar), or that the Son of Man is the Son, though they may sometimes share similar predications as in 3. 15 f. The distinctive features of Son and Son of Man in the gospel also tell against the view that the Son sayings are a more advanced stage of interpretation of the Son of Man concept (against Schulz, Johannes, p. 62Google Scholar). But also see below Section IV 3 (a). Unfortunately I have not had access to his earlier work, Unter-suchungen zur Menschensohn-Christologie im Johannesevangelium, Göttingen, 1957.Google Scholar

[49] Unfortunately I have not had access to Appold, M. L., The Oneness Motif in the Fourth Gospel (WUNT 2/1, Tübingen, 1976).Google Scholar

[50] So Brown, , John, p. 408Google Scholar: ‘Although the Johannine description and acceptance of the divinity of Jesus has ontological implications, … in itself this description remains primarily functional.’ Similarly Barrett, C. K., ‘“The Father is greater than I” (Jn 14,28): Subordinationist Christology in the New Testament’ in Gnilka, J. ed., Neues Testament und Kirche (Für R. Schnackenburg, Freiburg, 1974), pp. 144–59Google Scholar: Miranda, , Sendung, p. 78Google Scholar; Bühner, , Gesandte, pp. 212 f.Google Scholar Cf. also Mas-tin, B. A., ‘A neglected feature of the christology of the fourth gospel’, NTS 22 (1975/1976), pp. 32–51, esp. 48 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar: Robinson, J. A. T., ‘The Use of the Fourth Gospel for christology today’ in Lindars, B.Smalley, S. edd., Christ and Spirit in the New Testament (In honour of C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge, 1973), pp. 61–78.Google Scholar

[51] Bühner, , Gesandte explores the angelological background of the juxtaposition of strict subordination and heavenly origin in Johannine christology (pp. 322 f., 316 ff.).Google Scholar

[52] On the post Johannine developments cf. Pollard, , Johannine Christology, passim.Google Scholar

[53] This is not to suggest that ideas of pre-existence are derived totally from the application of this motif. Miranda, (Sendung, pp. 63 ff.)Google Scholar rightly stresses besides this the prophet motif, and Bühner, (Gesandte, pp. 341 ff.)Google Scholar beyond the prophet motif the general idea of emissary authorisation, in particular its development in rabbinic and esoteric Judaism towards the speculation about prophetic and angelic anabasis. The fact remains however that the pre-existent relationship between Jesus and God receives reflection in the New Testament almost exclusively in contexts which are hymnic and which make use of sophia categories (Col. 1. 15–20; Heb. 1. 2 f.; Jn. 1. 1–18; cf. Phil. 2. 6–11; 1 Cor. 8. 6). Both the form and the juxtaposition of statements about pre-existence and post-existent glory suggest that the primary Sitz im Leben is worship. Jesus is God's vice regent Logos/Sophia, through whom all things were made and who reflects the image of God. Whil this motif made possible a conceptual bridge from post-existent glory to pre-existent glory at the heavenly level ‘above’, it was the prophet motif which made possible the bridge to pre-existence ‘below’ at the earthly level. The two motifs are present in the fourth gospel but not yet fully integrated. For beyond the prologue there is little trace of the sophia tradition and pre-existence is much more closely linked with the emissary motif, which in turn determines the functional nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son. Thus for John the angelic/Son of Man type of heavenly emissary and the Logos hypostasis figures have similar ontological and relational ‘weight’ -as they probably would have had in contemporary Jewish speculation (cf. Hengel, M., Der Sohn Gottes, pp. 73 ff.Google Scholar; Young, F., ‘Two Roots or a Tangled Mass?’ in Hick, J., ed., The Myth of God Incarnate (London, 1977), pp. 87–124; esp. 116 ff.Google Scholar; Loader, W. R. G., ‘The Apocalyptic Model of Sonship’, JBL 97 (1978), pp. 525–54).Google Scholar

[54] See esp. the excellent study of Bühner, Gesandte.

[55] So Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament Vol 2 (London, 1955), p. 66.Google Scholar

[56] Op. cit., p. 66.

[57] Testament of Jesus, pp. 25, 74 ff.Google Scholar Cf. the discussion in Brown, , ‘Kerygma’, pp. 219 ff.Google Scholar

[58] So Fortna, R. T., ‘Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Redaction Critical Perspectives’, NTS 21 (1974/1975), pp. 489–504, here 491–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nichol, , Semeia, p. 122.Google Scholar

[59] ‘Zur Interpretation des Johannesevangeliums’ in Geschichte und Glaube. Erster Teil, Gesam-melte Aufsatze III (München, 1968), pp. 104–21.Google Scholar

[60] Müller, Christologie, suggests perhaps rightly that this development has taken place by the time of the Johannine epistles amongst those who deny Jesus has come in the flesh. See the critique in Thyen, Theol. Rund. 42 (1977), pp. 220–2.Google Scholar

[61] Cf. Blank, , Krisis, pp. 162 f.Google Scholar; Smith, D. M., ‘Johannine Christianity: Some Reflections on its Character and Delineation’, ATS 21 (1974/1975), pp. 222–48, esp. 230 f. n. 5, who raise the question of the traditio-historical relationship.Google Scholar

[62] Focus on the special tradition of the sending of ‘the only Son’ in 3. 16 f. (cf. Rom. 8. 3, 32; Gal. 4. 4) has to my mind obscured the true traditio-historical background of the ‘sending’ motif as it appears within the central structure of the author's christology, namely the commissioning traditions of the kind represented in the synoptics (against Buhner, , Gesandte, p. 416Google Scholar; cf. Miranda, , Sendung, pp. 14 ff., 42 ff.Google Scholar; Schnackenburg, Johannes 11, pp. 157 f.).Google Scholar 3, 16 f. belongs to a different stream of tradition from that of the central structure (so even the terminology: ‘God’, ‘only Son’, and the original soteriological focus).

[63] On the background of the ‘sending’ motif Cf. Blank, J., ‘Die Sendung des Sohnes. Zur christo-logischen Bedeutung des Gleichnisses von den bösen Winzern Mk 12, 1–12’, in Gnilka, J. ed., Neues Testament und Kirche (Für R. Schnackenburg, Freiburg, 1974), pp. 11–41Google Scholar; Miranda, Sendung, and Bühner, Gesandte, passim; also Loader, , ‘Sonship’, pp. 536 ff., 541 ff.Google Scholar

[64] So Blank, , ‘Sendung’, pp. 28 ff.Google Scholar; Schulz, S., Q: Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten (Zürich, 1972), pp. 224 ff.Google Scholar

[65] Cf. Cullmann, O., Der Johanneisclie Kreis (Tübingen, 1975)Google Scholar, who constructs an hypothesis, that there is a direct link between missionaries referred to in Jn. 4. 38, the Stephen circle, the Hellenists, and the Fourth Gospel.

[66] So Schulz, Q, pp. 215 ff. For what follows cf. also Hahn, , Hoheitstitel, pp. 321 ff.Google Scholar

[67] For what follows see also Loader, , ‘Sonship’, pp. 536 f.Google Scholar

[68] Cf. Loader, , ‘Sonship’, pp. 537 f.Google Scholar

[69] So Schulz, Q, p. 222Google Scholar; F. Schweizer, Art. νίός, TDNT 8 (1972), pp. 366–92 esp. 373 n. 278Google Scholar; Bühner, , Gesandte, pp. 198, 202, 263.Google Scholar

[70] Cf. Forestell, Word of the Cross, p. 65.Google Scholar For the use of glorification terminology in both Jewish and Christian synoptic Son of Man tradition, cf. Blank, , Krisis, pp. 270, n. 13.Google Scholar

[71] Cf. Gen. 1. 26. On the religio-historical background of the hymn cf. Gnilka, J., Der Philipper-brief (HThKommX 3, Freiburg, 1968), pp. 138 ff.Google Scholar Our concern in mentioning Adamic terminology is not to support the res rapienda Adam-Servant-of-Yahweh interpretation of, for instance, Cullmann, O., Die Chiristologiedes Neuen Testaments (Tübingen, 1966 ⁴) pp. 178 ff.Google Scholar, but to note a potential Man-Son of Man background to the description of the pre existent one, which brings it close to the notion of the pre existent Son of Man in John. For a new way of relating the Son of Man and Adamic traditions of the New Testament, cf. Loader, , ‘Sonship’, pp. 548 ff.Google Scholar

[72] Cf. Moloney, , Son of Man, pp. 119–20Google Scholar, who assumes John knew the synoptic tradition.

[73] See n. 69 above.

[74] This is convincingly worked out by Maddox, R., ‘The Function of the Son of Man according to the Synoptic Gospels’, NTS 15 (1968/1969), pp. 45–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[75] Loader, , ‘Sonship’, esp. pp. 528–36.Google Scholar

[76] Loader, , ‘Sonship’, pp. 531, 642.546.Google Scholar Failure to perceive the two kinds of influence emanating from the Son of Man idea leads Bühner to confuse the motif of authorisation of the emissary (now completely overlaid by the central ‘Father-Son’ structure, though he thinks to find it still in 3. 13 with ‘Son of Man’) with the Johannine Son of Man cluster and its distinctive motifs which operate with a different focus (Gesandte, pp. 406 f. et passimGoogle Scholar).

[77] Cf. Blank, , Krisis, pp. 162 f.Google Scholar

[78] Cf. Roloff, J., ‘Der johanneische “Lieblingsjiinger” und der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit’, NTS 15 (1968/9), pp. 129–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the fascinating study by Culpepper, R. A., The Johannine School (Mis-soula, 1975) esp. pp. 264–70.Google Scholar

[79] Der Johanneische Kreis, p. 14.Google Scholar

[80] Cf. Mussner, F., The Historical Jesus in the Gospel of St. John (London, 1967) esp. pp. 86 ff.Google Scholar

[81] Cf. on different grounds Cullmann, , Der Johanneische Kreis, p. 101Google Scholar; Robinson, J. A. T., Re-dating the New Testament (London, 1976), pp. 254 ff.Google Scholar