[1] Philo's Contribution to Religion (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919), 47–8Google Scholar. Howard, W. F. incorporated Kennedy's observations in a chapter entitled: ‘Symbolism and Allegory’, in The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation (rev. ed. Barrett, C. K.; London: Epworth, 1955; orig. 1931) 185–6.Google Scholar

[2] A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John (2 vols.; ed. McNeile, A. H.; New York: Scribner's, 1929) I: cxi–cxii.Google Scholar

[3] ‘La méthode ironique dans l'enseignement de Jésus’, ETR 4 (1929) 224–41, 323–44;Google Scholar and v (1930) 58–99; ‘Author de Jean 5, 17’, RHPR xxiv (1944) 82–90Google Scholar; ‘Le problème du rite et du mythe dans le quatrième évangile’, RHPR xxxi (1951) 275–92Google Scholar; ‘La structure du quatrième évangile’, RHPR xxxv (1955) 174–95Google Scholar; ‘L'ironie dans l'enseignement de Jésus’, NovT 1 (1956) 3–20Google Scholar; ‘Les sens multiples dans le nouveau testament’, NovT 2 (1957) 185–98Google Scholar; and ‘L'ironie dans le quatrième évangile’, Studia Evangelica 1 (1959) 261–76.Google Scholar

[4] ‘Ambiguity of Word Meaning in John's Gospel’, Classical Weekly 37 (1943) 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[5] ‘Der johanneische Gebrauch doppeldeutiger Ausdrücke als Schlüssel zum Verständnis des vierten Evangeliums’, TZ 4 (1948) 360–72Google Scholar = Vorträge und Aufsätze 1925–1962 (ed. Fröhlich, K.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1966) 176–86.Google Scholar

[6] The Gospel according to St John (London: SPCK, 1955; future references will be to the second edition; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978).Google Scholar

[7] Ibid., 208. Mention should be made here of Hoskyns, E. C., The Fourth Gospel (ed. Davey, F. N.; London: Faber & Faber, 1947Google Scholar) and Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: UP, 1953), who consistently note ‘expressions of double meaning’ and are the acknowledged teachers of Barrett (see prefaces to both editions of his commentary).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[8] Rätsel und Mißverständnis. Ein Beitrag zur Formgeschichte des Johannesevangeliums (Bonn: Hanstein, 1968).Google Scholar

[9] The Gospel according to John (Oxford: Clarendon, 1970) 19–22.Google Scholar

[10] The Literary Devices in John's Gospel (Basel: Reinhardt, 1970Google Scholar); id., ‘The Johannine Double Meaning’, Restoration Quarterly 8 (1970) 106–20Google Scholar (= précis of Literary Devices, ch. 3); cf. also Shedd, R., ‘Multiple Meanings in the Gospel of John’, Current Issues in Biblical Interpretation (ed. Hawthorne, G. F.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 247–58.Google Scholar

[11] See Barrett, , John, 8–11Google Scholar; Schnackenburg, R., The Gospel according to St John (vols. 1 & 2 refer to the English edition: New York: Herder & Herder, 1968 & 1979; orig. 1965 & 1971; and vol. 3 to the German edition: Freiburg: Herder, 1976) 1: 105–11Google Scholar; Brown, R. E., The Gospel according to John (2 vols.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1966–1970) cxxix–cxxxvGoogle Scholar; and Lindars, B., The Gospel of John (London: Oliphants, 1972) 44–6, for methodological consideration of the alleged Semitic evidence and a rejection of such a solution for ‘expressions of double meaning’.Google Scholar

[12] ‘Theology and Irony in the Fourth Gospel’, The Word in the World (Ed. Clifford, R. J. & MacRae, G. W.; Cambridge: Weston, 1973) 83–96.Google Scholar

[13] Rätsel, 1–2, 11–12. Note that Leroy limits his analysis to chs. 2–8 and chooses 11 examples of misunderstanding which are susceptible to gnostic solutions rather than surveying the literary technique and its varied uses within the gospel. Further, the conscious attempt to read into John an overriding dichotomy between an initiate Christianity with its attendant gnostic Christology over against outsiders is not convincing owing to its questionable selectivity of data (see n. 15 below), too great stress upon ύπάγω passages, the failure to analyze sufficiently the function misunderstanding passages play in relation to other literary devices within the gospel, and finally the tendency to render complex a relatively simple literary technique; cf. also Brown, R. E., Bib 51 (1970) 152–4.Google Scholar

[14] John, I: cxi.

[15] John, 19–20: 2. 19–21 temple/body; 3. 3–5 anew/above; 4. 10 ff. water; 4. 32 ff. food; 6. 33 ff. bread; 8. 31 ff. free; 8. 38 ff. Father; 11. 11 ff. sleep; 11. 23 ff. resurrection; 13. 8 ff. washing; 14. 4 ff. way; 14. 7 ff. seeing; 14. 21 ff. manifestation; 16. 16 ff. little while; and no clarification: 7. 33 ff. depart/see (cf. 13. 3 ff.); 8. 21 ff. depart. Cf. also Barrett, , John, 208Google Scholar; Sanders, J. N., A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John (ed. Mastin, B. A.; New York: Harper & Row, 1968) 211Google Scholar; Schnackenburg, , John, I: 350Google Scholar; Jaubert, A., Approches de l'évangile de Jean (Paris: du Seuil, 1976) 54–86Google Scholar; Bultmann, R., The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971; orig. 1950) 127 (‘The device is taken from Hellenistic revelation literature…’; see critique above of H. Leroy).Google Scholar

[16] John, 459Google Scholar; cf. Lindars, , John, 474, who prefers the term ‘lead-in’.Google Scholar

[17] See John 8. 19 f. and 38 f. for equally complex uses of the misunderstanding technique (concerning the Father). Note also the added ambiguity of the imperative/indicative construction in 8. 38 (Gingrich, ‘Ambiguity’, 77).

[18] The misunderstanding is consciously structured as the context (stone temple), the ambiguous vocabulary (λύω = ‘tear down’ and έγєίρω = ‘build up’ for a building as well as a body), and the literal/figurative senses of ‘temple’ indicate; cf. Schnackenburg, , John, I: 349–51Google Scholar and Barrett, , John, 199–200.Google Scholar

[19] Tenney, M. C., ‘The Footnotes of John's Gospel’, Bibliotheca Sacra 117 (1960) 355 (note that he refers only to v. 22).Google Scholar

[20] O'Rourke, J. J., ‘Asides in he Gospel of John’, NovT 21 (1979) 215, classifies both verses as ‘theological reflections’Google Scholar; cf. also Schnackenburg, , John, 1: 352Google Scholar; Barrett, , John, 200–1.Google Scholar

[21] Employing the verb μιμνήσκομαι, John here operates from his post-resurrection stance or Martyn's, J. L. ‘second level’; see History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon, 1979) 29 f.Google Scholar and references. Indeed, this verb, used three times in John (2. 17, 22; 12. 16) always interrelates the past and contemporary levels as misunderstanding and understanding (of scripture), respectively; cf. Mussner, F., The Historical Jesus in the Gospel of John (New York: Herder & Herder, 1967) 48–54Google Scholar and Freed, E. D., Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John (Leiden: Brill, 1965) 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[22] Clavier, , ‘Structure’, 181.Google Scholar A similar clarification technique occurs in 11. 50–2 for the interpretation of Caiaphas' statement; cf. Fenton, , John, 20Google Scholar; Wead, , Literary Devices, 53–4Google Scholar; Barrett, , John, 406–7.Google Scholar

[23] Hoskyns, , Fourth Gospel, 319–20Google Scholar; Marsh, J., The Gospel of St John (Baltimore: Penguin, 1968) 358Google Scholar; Fenton, , John, 20–1Google Scholar; Barrett, , John, 325, 341Google Scholar; Clavier, , ‘Ironie dans le quatrième évangile’, 272Google Scholar; Leroy, , Rätsel, 59–67Google Scholar; Meeks, W. A., ‘The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism’, JBL 91 (1972) 64Google Scholar; Lindars, , John, 296, 319Google Scholar; Schnackenburg, , John, 2: 150, 197–8.Google Scholar The similarity between the two passages under discussion is owing to the use of the same literary devices rather than to the preservation of ‘two different forms of the same scene’ – so Brown, , John, 349.Google Scholar

[24] Fenton, , John, 20–1Google Scholar; Clavier, , ‘Structure’, 178–92Google Scholar; id., ‘Ironie dans le quatrième évangile’, 268–75Google Scholar; MacRae, , ‘Theology and Irony’, 84–9Google Scholar; see also Lindars, , John, 53–4.Google Scholar Fenton's list includes: 2. 9 f.; 4.12; 7. 27, 33 f., 42, 52; 8. 21 f.; 11.16, 36; 12. 19; 13. 37; 18. 31; 19. 5, 14, 19 ff.

[25] MacRae, , ‘Theology and Irony’, 91Google Scholar; cf. also Wead, , Literary Devices, 55–7Google Scholar; Clavier, , ‘Ironie dans le quatrième évangile’, 273–4Google Scholar; Jaubert, , Approches, 65–72Google Scholar; de Jonge, M., ‘Jesus as Prophet and King in the Fourth Gospel’, Jesus: Stranger from Heaven and Son of God: Jesus Christ and the Christian in Johannine Perspective (Missoula: Scholars, 1977) 67.Google Scholar

[26] Lindars, , John, 119.Google Scholar For more general considerations, see Meeks, W. A., The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (Leiden: Brill, 1967) 61–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; id., ‘Man from Heaven’, 44–72Google Scholar; de Jonge, , ‘Jesus as Prophet and King’, 49–76.Google Scholar

[27] Cf. Clavier, , ‘Ironie dans l'enseignement de Jésus’, 4–6Google Scholar, who discusses irony as question and Wead, Literary Devices, 59 f., who considers at length the technique of the unanswered question; see also Schnackenburg, , John, II: 160–2.Google Scholar

[28] For a discussion of this problem, see Lindars, , John, 304–5Google Scholar; Barrett, , John, 333.Google Scholar

[29] Oepke, A., TDNT, 2: 335.Google Scholar It should be noted here that some scholars, notably Bultmann, , John, 135, n. 1Google Scholar and Schnackenburg, , John, I: 368Google Scholar, deny the existence of words of double meaning in John and invariably opt for one of the possible meanings.

[30] Cullmann, , ‘Johanneische Gebrauch’, 367Google Scholar; Bultmann, , John, 99Google Scholar; Morris, L., Commentary on the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971) 156Google Scholar; Barrett, , John, 180Google Scholar; Lindars, , John, 113.Google Scholar

[31] Meeks, , ‘Man from Heaven’, 64–5.Google Scholar

[32] See the discussion of Schnackenburg, , John, II: 16–17Google Scholar, especially 17, n. 31, where he lists Strachan, Temple, Bultmann, Johnston, and Heising as denying a reference to the Eucharist but Barrett and Brown as presenting the alternative view. Schnackenburg, characteristically opposed to double-meaning terms, remains uncommitted, leaving open the possibility. On the sacramentalism of John, cf. Kysar, R., The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel: An Examination of Contemporary Scholarship (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975) 249–59Google Scholar; Barrett, , John, 82–5Google Scholar; id., ‘The Dialectical Theology of St John’, New Testament Essays (London: SPCK, 1972) 67–8Google Scholar; Brown, , John, cxi–cxiv.Google Scholar

[33] Cullmann, , ‘Johanneische Gebrauch’, 369–70Google Scholar; Schnackenburg, , John, II: 330Google Scholar; Barrett, , John, 395.Google Scholar

[34] Barrett, , ‘Dialectical Theology’, 59–61.Google Scholar See Brown, , John, 497–538Google Scholar; Dodd, , Interpretation, 133–285Google Scholar; Stemberger, G., La symbolique du bien et du mal selon saint Jean (Paris: du Seuil, 1970) passimGoogle Scholar; and Sanders, , John, 76, 120, 167Google Scholar, for extended treatment of the peculiarities of Johannine vocabulary.

[35] Barrett, , John, 325Google Scholar; Marsh, , John, 134–5.Google Scholar

[36] MacRae, , ‘Theology and Irony’, 93–4Google Scholar; Cullmann, , ‘Johanneische Gebrauch’, 365–6Google Scholar; Morris, , John, 225–6Google Scholar; Jaubert, , Approches, 56.Google Scholar See the more general discussion of Son of Man in John: Barrett, , John, 72–3, 187, 212–15, 303–4Google Scholar and Martyn, , History and Theology, 129–43.Google Scholar

[37] Interpretation, 434Google Scholar; see also Meeks, , ‘Man from Heaven’, 62–4.Google Scholar

[38] Borgen, P., Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo (Leiden: Brill, 1965) 59–98Google Scholar (in light of the comments of Martyn, , History and Theology, 125–8Google Scholar, and Barrett, , ‘Dialectical Theology’, 56–9Google Scholar); Dunn, J. D. G., ‘John vi: A Eucharistic Discourse’, NTS 17 (1970–1971) 328–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barrett, , John, 289–301.Google Scholar On the expression ‘bread from heaven’ and its OT background, cf. Borgen, , Bread from Heaven, 33–8Google Scholar and Freed, , Old Testament Quotations, 11–16, 118.Google Scholar

[39] Cullmann, , ‘Johanneische Gebrauch’, 366Google Scholar; Jaubert, , Approches, 79Google Scholar; Schnackenburg, , John, I: 399.Google Scholar

[40] Wead, , Literary Devices, 32Google Scholar; Barrett, , John, 413Google Scholar; Hoskyns, , Fourth Gospel, 415Google Scholar; Morris, , John, 578.Google Scholar

[41] Barrett, , John, 490.Google Scholar

[42] Most commentaries; cf. also Wead, , Literary Devices, 40–1.Google Scholar

[43] So also Cullmann, , ‘Johanneische Gebrauch’, 364.Google Scholar

[44] On the broader issue of symbolism in John, cf. Dodd, , Interpretation, 133–43Google Scholar; Schneiders, S. M., ‘History and Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel’, L'évangile de Jean: sources, rédaction, théologie (ed. de Jonge, M.; Gembloux: Duculot, 1977) 371–6Google Scholar; Stemberger, Symbolique; and Schottroff, L., Der Glaubende und die feindliche Welt (Neukirchen: NV, 1970)Google Scholar; for an assessment of the work of the last two (as moral and cosmological dualism respectively), see Kysar, , Fourth Evangelist, 132, 189–92, 215–19.Google Scholar

[45] Barrett, , ‘Dialectical Theology’, 59–60.Google Scholar

[46] On the ‘I am’ sayings as ironic devices in John, see MacRae, , ‘Theology and Irony’, 93Google Scholar and as metaphor, cf. Wead, , Literary Devices, 74–94.Google Scholar John's peculiar use of Christological titles may very well point to the universality of which MacRae speaks; cf. ‘The Fourth Gospel and Religionsgeschichte’, CBQ 32 (1970) 13–24.Google Scholar

[47] See the discussion of Barrett, , John, 541Google Scholar (note the interesting shift to greater emphasis upon ambiguity in the second edition, away from the Hellenistic heavenly Man theme in the first, 450). Cf. Clavier, , ‘Structure’, 190Google Scholar; Sanders, , John, 400–1Google Scholar; Schnackenburg, , John, III: 294–6Google Scholar; Jaubert, , Approches, 69–70.Google Scholar

[48] While scholars readily admit that καθαίρω/καθαρός has both an agricultural (pruning, weeding, winnowing) and a religious (purifying) sense (so Lindars, , John, 488–9Google Scholar; Brown, , John, 660Google Scholar), with Barrett, , John, 473Google Scholar, we might note further that the religious aspect itself is twofold: cultic (cleansing) and moral/ethical (bearing fruit). It is especially the reference to Plato, Phaedo 114c, which underscores the ethical dimension of the term: ‘those who purify themselves fully through philosophy’; cf. also Schnackenburg, , John, III: 110–11.Google Scholar

[49] Cullmann, , ‘Johanneische Gebrauch’, 370Google Scholar; Barrett, , John, 438, 554Google Scholar; Lindars, , John, 448, 582Google Scholar; Brown, , John, 550, 907–8.Google Scholar

[50] See Wead, , Literary Devices, 31, 99Google Scholar, for a list of scholars and their views. Note that recent commentators such as Schnackenburg, , John, I: 367Google Scholar, and Lindars, , John, 150–1Google Scholar, rigorously defend the meaning ‘from above’ as the only sense intended. We might also point out that Lindars is not correct when he says: ‘The misunderstanding does not depend on the two possible meanings of άνωθєν, but on a literal, as opposed to a metaphorical idea of birth’, ‘Traditions behind the Fourth Gospel’, de Jonge, Evangile, 114, n. 28.

[51] Cullmann, , ‘Johanneische Gebrauch’, 364–5Google Scholar; Dodd, , Interpretation, 303Google Scholar; Meeks, , ‘Man from Heaven’, 52–3Google Scholar; Fenton, , John, 53Google Scholar; Brown, , John, 130Google Scholar; Morris, , John, 212–13Google Scholar; Barrett, , John, 205–6Google Scholar; Jaubert, , Approches, 56.Google Scholar

[52] Barrett, , John, 544Google Scholar; cf. also MacRae, , ‘Theology and Irony’, 91–2Google Scholar; and Jaubert, , Approches, 70–1.Google Scholar

[53] The arguments and citations are taken from Brown, , John, 880–1Google Scholar; see also Bultmann, , John, 664, n. 2Google Scholar; Hoskyns, , Fourth Gospel, 524Google Scholar; Marsh, , John, 609–10Google Scholar; Lindars, , John, 570Google Scholar; Wead, , Literary Devices, 57–8Google Scholar; and Morris, , John, 799.Google Scholar For a detailed presentation of arguments in favour of a transitive meaning (though rejecting double meaning), cf. de la Potterie, I., ‘Jésus roi et juge d'après Jo. 19.13; έκάθισєν έπί βήματος’, Bib 41 (1960) 221–33Google Scholar and Meeks, , Prophet-King, 73–6.Google Scholar

[54] So de la Potterie, , ‘Jésus’, 223–5.Google Scholar

[55] Martyn, , History and Theology, 21Google Scholar and Schneiders, , ‘History and Symbolism’, 271–6Google Scholar; cf. also Lindars, ‘Traditions’.

[56] See Jaubert, , Approches, 71, n. 36Google Scholar, for other examples of syntactic ambiguity in John.

[57] In this sense one can agree with Leroy, , Rätsel, 21–5, 45–7Google Scholar, that there exists in John evidence for a Sondersprache particularly intelligible to the initiate, but one wonders how esoteric that knowledge really is. Most misunderstandings and especially ironic passages rely not upon gnostic peculiarities for their resolution but upon what Fenton calls the Christian's ‘God's eye view’. Neither the Jewish authorities nor the other characters of the gospel, including the disciples, know as much as the Christian reader does. The special knowledge of the Johannine reader is intimately related to the Christian's post-resurrection perspective.

[58] Among others, see Schnackenburg, , John, I: 246–7Google Scholar, who wishes to avoid the slightest hint of ‘the possibility of defeat’ (247).

[59] So Lindars, , John, 87Google Scholar; Feuillet, A., Le prologue du quatrième évangile (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1968) 51–3Google Scholar; Stemberger, , Symbolique, 48.Google Scholar

[60] ‘Dialectical Theology’, 55.Google Scholar

[61] So also Gingrich, , ‘Ambiguity’, 77Google Scholar; Hoskyns, , Fourth Gospel, 143Google Scholar; Marsh, , John, 105Google Scholar; Sanders, , John, 73Google Scholar; Fenton, , John, 35Google Scholar; Jaubert, , Approches, 88Google Scholar; Barrett, , John, 158.Google Scholar Note that while allowing this option, Brown, , John, 8Google Scholar, states: ‘we should mention the possibility that katalambanein had one meaning when the verse stood as part of an independent hymn, and took on another meaning when the hymn became the Prologue of the Gospel’.

[62] Provisionally Woll, cf. D. B., ‘The Departure of “the Way”: The First Farewell Discourse in the Gospel of John’, JBL 99 (1980) 225–39.Google Scholar

[63] Among others see Bonsirven, J., ‘Les aramaïsmes de s. Jean l'évangeliste?’, Bib 30 (1949) 425–32Google Scholar; Wead, , Literary Devices, 34–9Google Scholar; and Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3rd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1967); cf. n. 11 above.Google Scholar

[64] Bertram, G., TDNT 8: 610Google Scholar and Barrett, , John, 9.Google Scholar

[65] Both of these are vehicles of Semitic influences; see Lindars, , John, 157–8Google Scholar; also Brown, , John, 133Google Scholar; Schnackenburg, , John, I: 395–6Google Scholar; Jaubert, , Approches, 56.Google Scholar

[66] On the source question see especially Kysar, , Fourth Evangelist, 13–33Google Scholar; Smith, D. M., ‘The Sources of the Gospel of John: An Assessment of the Present State of the Problem’, NTS 10 (1963–1964) 336–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; id., The Composition and Order of the Fourth Gospel: Bultmann's Literary Theory (New Haven: Yale University, 1965)Google Scholar; Brown, , John, xxviii–xxxiiGoogle Scholar; Lindars, B., Behind the Fourth Gospel (London: SPCK, 1971)Google Scholar; id., ‘Traditions’, 107–24Google Scholar; MacRae, , ‘Fourth Gospel’, 15–20Google Scholar; Barrett, , John, 15–21.Google Scholar

[67] Nicol, W., The Sēmeia in the Fourth Gospel: Tradition and Redaction (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ruckstuhl, E., ‘Johannine Language and Style: The Question of Their Unity’, de Jonge, Evangile, 145.Google Scholar

[68] It is commonplace for the following sources to be discussed in relation to the Fourth Gospel: a Sign-Source (Sēmeia-Quelle), a Revelation-Source (Offenbarungsreden-Quelle), a special passion/resurrection source (whether Mark or an independent document), and John's relation to the Synoptics and/or Jesus tradition. See the discussion of Smith, Composition and Order, 15–56 and Barrett, John, 15–21.

[69] In defense of the Sign-Source: Schnackenburg, , John, I: 44–74Google Scholar; Fortna, R. T., The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: UP, 1970)Google Scholar; Robinson, J. M., ‘The Miracles Source of John’, JAAR 34 (1971) 339–48; Nicol, SēmeiaGoogle Scholar; Kysar, R., ‘The Source Analysis of the Fourth Gospel: A Growing consensus’, NovT 15 (1973) 134–52Google Scholar; Smith, D. M., ‘The Setting and Shape of a Johannine Narrative Source’, JBL 95 (1976) 231–41Google Scholar; Martyn, , History and Theology, 64–5, 164–8Google Scholar; id., ‘Source Criticism and Religionsgeschichte in the Fourth Gospel’, Jesus and Man's Hope (Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, 1970) I: 247–73; and against this theory, in addition to the references in n. 66 to Lindars, Brown, and Barrett, cf. also Ruckstuhl, ‘Johannine Language and Style’.

[70] Sēmeia, 25–6.Google Scholar

[71] Fortna, , Gospel of Signs, 79Google Scholar and Nicol, , Sēmeia, 37–8.Google Scholar It should be noted that both scholars consider 11. 16 redactional.

[72] ‘Traditions’, 105–24Google Scholar; cf. also Ruckstuhl, , ‘Johannine Language and Style’, 141–5Google Scholar; and Michaels, J. R., ‘The Johannine Words of Jesus and Christian Prophecy’, SBL Seminar Papers (Missoula: Scholars, 1975) 2: 233–64.Google Scholar

[73] Fortna, , Gospel of Signs, 34.Google Scholar

[74] Lindars, , John, 123–33.Google Scholar

[75] See Kysar, , Fourth Evangelist, 26–7.Google Scholar

[76] Fortna, , Gospel of Signs, 182.Google Scholar

[77] Barrett, , John, 180Google Scholar and Fenton, , John, 42.Google Scholar

[78] Fortna, , Gospel of Signs, 68Google Scholar and Nicol, , Sēmeia, 34, n. 4Google Scholar, consider 6. 38 Johannine or even post-Johannine. Besides, on textual grounds many judge the phrase єύχαριστήσαντος τού κυρίου to be a gloss; see Barrett, , John, 285, for a discussion of the pertinent data.Google Scholar

[79] Kysar, , Fourth Evangelist, 26–7.Google Scholar

[80] See Lindars, , ‘Traditions’, 111.Google Scholar

[81] ‘Recent commentaries seem to bear out our conclusion that theories of literary dependence are being displaced by theories of a common tradition’, Kysar, , Fourth Evangelist, 64.Google Scholar This statement refers to literary dependence upon the Synoptics; however, the cutting edge of this conclusion is also, in view of the present study, a powerful argument against, at least, the Sign-Source and even more against a Sēmeia gospel.

[82] Proponents of the Sēmeia-Source vary considerably in their estimate of the relationship between the Jesus and/or Synoptic traditions and their alleged source; cf. Kysar, , Fourth Evangelist, 17–37.Google Scholar

[83] MacRae, , ‘Theology and Irony’, 92–3Google Scholar; Clavier, , ‘Ironie dans le quatrième évangile’, 268–76Google Scholar; Schnackenburg, , John, I: 515–28Google Scholar; Schneiders, , ‘History and Symbolism’, 271–6Google Scholar; de Jonge, , ‘Signs and Works in the Fourth Gospel’, Jesus, 117–40.Google Scholar

[84] Martyn, , History and Theology, 29–30, 88–9, 137–8.Google Scholar

[85] See MacRae, , ‘Theology and Irony’, 87–9Google Scholar, on the three principal characteristics of Johannine irony: dualism, distance, and ambiguity; id., ‘Fourth Gospel’, 21.Google Scholar

[86] Cf. the excellent discussion of Barrett, , ‘Dialectical Theology’, 49–69Google Scholar; see also Clavier, , ‘Structure’, 175–8Google Scholar; id., ‘Problèms’, 282Google Scholar; de Jonge, M., ‘Nicodemus and Jesus: Some Observations on Misunderstanding and Understanding in the Fourth Gospel’, Jesus, 29–47Google Scholar; and Meeks, , ‘Man from Heaven’, 44–72.Google Scholar