1 Cf. e.g. Westcott, B. F., The Gospel according to St. John (2 vols.; Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, repr. 2004) i.239–40Google Scholar; Lagrange, M.-J., Évangile selon Saint Jean (Paris: Gabalda, 1948 ⁸) 182–4Google Scholar; Barrett, C. K., The Gospel according to St. John (London: SPCK, 1955) 246Google Scholar; Lightfoot, R. H., St. John's Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon, repr. 1957), 153, 162–3Google Scholar; Schnackenburg, R., Das Johannesevangelium: Kommentar zu Kap. 5-12 (HTKNT; Freiburg: Herder, 1971) 89–90Google Scholar; Haenchen, E., Johannes Evangelium: Ein Kommentar (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980) 326–7Google Scholar; Tenney, M. C., The Gospel of John (EBC 9; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981) 77Google Scholar; Bruce, F. F., The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 158–9Google Scholar; O'Day, G. R., John (NIB 9; Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1994) 605Google Scholar; Morris, L., The Gospel according to John (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 333–4Google Scholar;  Moloney, F. J., The Gospel of John (SP 4; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1998) 220, 4Google Scholar; Beasley-Murray, G. R., John (WBC 36; Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1999 ²) 94Google Scholar; Smith, D. M., John (ANTC; Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1999) 157–8;Google ScholarPubMed Köstenberger, A. J., John (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004) 215–17Google Scholar; Thompson, M. M., John: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2015) 150, 154Google Scholar.

2 E.g. Meyer, H. A. W., Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Gospel of John (trans. Urwick, W.; New York: Funk & Wagnalls, rev. edn 1884) 216–17Google Scholar; Godet, F., Commentary on the Gospel of John (2 vols.; New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1886) ii.36Google Scholar; Bernard, J. H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to John (ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928)Google Scholar i.209; Schlatter, A., Der Evangelist Johannes (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1948) 178Google Scholar; Anderson, P. N., The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Its Unity and Disunity in Light of John 6 (Eugene, OR: Cascade, repr. 2010) 207–8Google Scholar: ‘Whatever the original reading, the question is ambiguous. It could be a reference to the Christian observance of the eucharist, or it could simply reflect the confusion of the Jews over what Jesus was predicting about his mission.’

3 Bultmann, R., The Gospel of John: A Commentary (trans. Beasley-Murray, G. R.; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971)Google Scholar 235 n. 5. Cf. Bruce, John, 159.

4 Cf. Bornkamm, G., ‘Die eucharistische Rede im Johannes-Evangelium’, ZNW 47 (1956) 161–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 169. Contra Hoskyns, E. C., The Fourth Gospel (London: Faber and Faber, 1947) 297Google Scholar.

5 The proper translation of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι as ‘the Jews’ or ‘the Judeans’ is not important for this article.

6 Cf. Zumstein, J., Das Johannesevangelium (KEK 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016) 272Google Scholar.

7 For a good discussion, see Ashton, J., Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991) 412–20Google Scholar.

8 See also 1.38–9 (‘what do you seek’); 2.19–22 (the temple of his body); 4.32–3 (food to eat which the disciples do not know); 7.34–5 (‘Where does this man intend to go?’); 8.21–2 (Jesus is ‘going away’); 11.11–12 (Lazarus falling asleep).

9 Not only do these questions respond directly to something Jesus said or did, several also begin with πῶς (3.4, 9; 4.9; 6.42; 7.15; 8.33; 12.34). Cf. Barrett, C. K., ‘“The Flesh of the Son of Man” John 6.53’, Essays on John (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982) 37–49Google Scholar, at 40–1. Here Bultmann, John, 235 n. 4, is forced to admit that his ecclesiastical redactor (for vv. 51–8) ‘clearly models himself on the Evangelist's technique’.

10 At this point our concern is the final form of the text as it stands, and the diachronic unity of the whole is not essential to the argument. For excellent discussions of that question, see Borgen, P., Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of the Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo (NovTSupp 10; Leiden: Brill: 1965) 25, 86–98Google Scholar, 185–92; Beutler, J., ‘The Structure of John 6’, Critical Readings of John 6 (ed. Culpepper, R. A.; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 115–28Google Scholar; Petersen, S., Brot, Licht, und Weinstock (Leiden: Brill, 2008) 201–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Anderson, Fourth Gospel, 72–89.

11 See e.g. Westcott, St. John, I.221; Bernard, John, 202, 6, 8; Beutler, J., ‘Zur Struktur von Johannes 6’, SNTSU 16 (1991) 89–104Google Scholar. It seems to me that Bultmann's argument (John, 218–20) for the redactional nature of vv. 51–8 overlooks the progressive nature of the discourse. Note Beasley-Murray, John, 87 (‘a unity in progression’). The perplexing question of the character audience in ch. 6, which seemingly changes (ὁ ὄχλος, οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, πολλοὶ … ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ), goes beyond the scope of this essay. For discussion, see Borgen, P., ‘John 6: Tradition, Interpretation and Composition’, From Jesus to John: Essays on New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge (ed. de Boer, M. C.; JSNTSup 84; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993) 268–91Google Scholar; Bennema, C., ‘The Identity and Composition of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι in the Gospel of John’, TynB 60 (2009) 239–63Google Scholar, at 256–8.

12 Translators rarely make clear in v. 51 the καὶ … δέ construction (e.g. the NRSV: ‘and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh’). This appears frequently in the LXX where the καί is best taken as ‘also’, thus ‘and … also’. Cf. e.g. Gen 31.6; 44.9; 2 Kgdms 3.15; 1 Esd 1.49; 8.22; Jdt 2.13; 1 Macc 12.23; 16.3; 2 Macc 7.13; 4 Macc 2.4; Wis 7.3; 11.20; 15.18; etc. Such is also true of John 8.16; 15.27 and 1 Tim 3.10; 2 Pet 1.5; 1 John 1.3; John 1.12. Thus John 6.51 should be translated ‘and the bread that I will give … is also my flesh’. Jesus unpacks a further implication of his teaching. On point here was Olshausen, H., Biblical Commentary on the New Testament (trans. Kendrick, A. C. from the 4th German edn; 3 vols.; New York: Sheldon, Blakeman & Co., 1857)Google Scholar ii.417 (‘not exactly a transition to something altogether different, yet an advance in the subject of discourse’).

13 See Olshausen, Biblical Commentary, ii.418 (‘only increases the pungency of his language’); Barrett, ‘Flesh’, 43.

14 See Leroy, H., Rätsel und Mißverständnis: Ein Beitrag zur Formgeschichte des Johannesevangeliums (BBB 30; Tübingen: Inauguraldiss., 1968) 121–4Google Scholar; Culpepper, R. A., Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1996) 156–7Google Scholar, 162–3.

15 Cf. Duke, P. D., Irony in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985)Google Scholar; MacRae, G., ‘Theology and Irony in the Fourth Gospel’, The Gospel of John as Literature (ed. Stibbe, M. W. G.; Leiden: Brill, 1993) 103–14Google Scholar; Culpepper, R. A., ‘Reading Johannine Irony’, Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith (ed. Culpepper, R. A. and Black, C. C.; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996) 193–207Google Scholar.

16 See e.g. Phillips, G. A., ‘“This Is a Hard Saying: Who Can Be Listener to It?” Creating a Reader in John 6’, Semeia 26 (1983) 23–56Google Scholar; Davies, M., Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel (JSNTSup 69; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992) 242–75Google Scholar, 350–75; Anderson, Fourth Gospel, 194–7, 210–20; Skinner, C. W., ‘Misunderstanding, Christology, and Johannine Characterization: Reading John's Characters through the Lens of the Prologue’, Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John (ed. Skinner, C. W.; LNTS 461; Bloomsbury T. & T. Clark, 2014) 111–28Google Scholar.

17 See Feuillet, A., Johannine Studies (Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1966) 53–117Google Scholar; Meeks, W., The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (NovTSupp 14; Leiden: Brill, 1967) 90–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beasley-Murray, John, 97–8; Hengel, M., ‘The Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel’, The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel (ed. Evans, C. A. and Stegner, W. R.; JSNTSup 104; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994) 380–95Google Scholar, at 388; O'Day, G. R. and Hyler, S. E., John (Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1995) 78Google Scholar.

18 Pitre, B., Jesus and the Last Supper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015) 200Google Scholar. Pitre is not wholly alone. Westcott, St. John, i.240 and Moloney, John, 224 both cite Num 11 parenthetically in context but provide no comment. Anderson, Fourth Gospel, 202–3 discusses the miracle of the flesh in his analysis of 6.31.

19 Pitre, Last Supper, 201.

20 Cf. Wis 16.1–4, which is even more precise here: τροφὴν ἡτοίμασας ὀρτυγομήτραν. On the potential differences between κρέας and σάρξ, see Braaten, J. M., ‘Barley, Flesh, and Life: The Bread of Life Discourse and the Lord's Supper’, CTQ 78 (2014) 63–75Google Scholar, at 72–3.

21 Gen 2.23; 6.12; Lev 13.18; Deut 5.26; 2 Sam 19.13; etc.

22 Borgen, Bread from Heaven, 28–99 argued that the Scripture cited in 6.31 explains the particular language selection and syntax of the rest of John 6, as the Johannine discourse conforms to a homiletical and haggadic convention as found in Philo and the Palestinian midrashim. On v. 52 he wrote (90): ‘It is … obvious that v. 52 is a paraphrase of parts from the Old Testament text cited in v. 31b’ (which he thinks is Exod 16.4). He pointed specifically to the ἡμῖν, δοῦναι and φαγεῖν. Borgen has convinced many, although the identity of the Scripture cited in 6.31 remains hotly debated. Options include Exod 16.4, Ps 78/77.24 and Neh 9.15, with some proposing an intentional or unintentional conflation. For differing views, see Richter, G., ‘Die alttestamentlichen Zitate in der Rede vom Himmelsbrot Joh 6,26–51a’, Studien zum Johannesevangelium (ed. Hainz, J.; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1977) 88–119Google Scholar; Montanaro, A., ‘The Use of Memory in the Old Testament Quotations in John's Gospel’, NovT 59 (2017) 147–70Google Scholar, at 168–9.

23 Notice also here the verb ‘be able’ (Heb: יכל; LXX:  δύναμαι), as also in 6.52 (πῶς δύναται …).

24 Hays, R. B., Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016) 284Google Scholar (on John's frequent use of such ‘images and figures’).

25 Applicable to John as well are the comments on Matthew by W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew (ICC; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988–97) ii.506.

26 Here Jesus suddenly introduces the faculty of ‘sight’, linked with ‘belief’ (πᾶς ὁ θεωρῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτóν), which recalls the conversation with Nicodemus and the interpretation there of Num 21. Cf. Köstenberger, John, 213 (‘the thought is similar to 3:13–14’). Cf. also Wis 16.5–7.

27 So Kugel, J. L., Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998) 631Google Scholar. See also Glasson, T. F., Moses in the Fourth Gospel (SBT 40; Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1963) 50Google Scholar; O'Day, John, 601.

28 Although Borgen, Bread from Heaven, 38 argues that the citation in 6.31 provides the subtext for what follows (including v. 52), and does not contend that ‘flesh’ in v. 51ff. has any scriptural resonance (nor does he argue against it; the topic is not considered), he insightfully notes that it was common for homilies and haggadic treatments to include ‘subordinate quotations’ in their unpacking of the main text in question. While Borgen uses this convention to account for the citation of Isa 54.13 in John 6.45, it could also explain the introduction of ‘flesh’ language at the end of the discourse. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, it should be noted that the very sources Borgen cites to advance his position also evidence a progressive exegesis whereby a larger pericope or narrative is considered in sequence. Borgen considers Philo, Leg. 3.162–8 as an extended reflection on Exod 16.4 with ‘subordinate quotations’ from Exod 12. But why he stops at 168 is not clear, since 169 (through 176) continues to explore a later passage in Exod 16 (v. 13), as well as related passages in Num 11. The same is true of Borgen's use of Philo, Mut. 253–63, since this section examines Gen 17.19 (with ‘subordinate quotations’ from the feeding stories and elsewhere) and then moves on to Gen 17.20. The point: Borgen's arguments about homiletical or haggadic convention in John 6 would also support our case for the intertextuality of 6.52. For similar sequential retellings of the Wandering and feeding stories, aside from Ps 78/77.12–34, cf. Josephus, Ant. 3.11–35 (he considers the quail and manna together, following here Exod more closely than Num); LAB 10.7.

29 Notice the clearly intentional use of ἐμπίμπλημι in 6.12 (‘they were satisfied’), which Deut 8.10 and Ps 78/77.27–8 use for the wilderness feedings. Note also Jesus’ desire that the disciples pick up the remains so that none be lost and Exod 16.19–21.

30 See Brown, R. E., The Gospel according to John (AB 29; 2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1966–70)Google Scholar i.255–6.

31 Cf. O'Day, John, 596; Beasley-Murray, John, 89; Hays, Gospels, 301.

32 See here Ps 78/77.30; 1 Cor 10.3 (πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ πνευματικὸν βρῶμα ἔφαγον).

33 Cf. Westcott, St. John, i.224; Barrett, John, 235–41; Thompson, John, 146–52; Hays, Gospels, 322.

34 The syntax here is suggestive. John 6.39 reads:  ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκέν μοι μὴ ἀπολέσω ἐξ αὐτοῦ. The μὴ ἀπολέσω ἐξ αὐτοῦ is odd, and indeed Bezae attempts to smooth it out as ἀπολέσω μηδέν. But John's syntax is biblical. Cf. Exod 19.24 (‘let not the priests and the people force their way to come up to God, lest the Lord destroy some of them (μήποτε ἀπολέσῃ ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν)’); 30.38 (‘whosoever shall make any in like manner, so as to smell it, shall perish from his people (ἀπολεῖται ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ)’); Lev 7.20 (‘and any soul that eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offering which is the Lord's … shall perish from the people (ἀπολεῖται ἡ ψυχὴ ἐκείνη ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ)’); etc. Relevant too is John 17.12, which links Jesus with the ‘messenger of the Lord’ in Exod 23.20 as he says ‘I guarded (ἐφύλαξα) them, and not one of them was lost (καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀπώλετο) …’ Cf. Gieschen, C. A., Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden: Brill, 1998) 275–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Cf. Glasson, Fourth Gospel, 101–2; Köstenberger, John, 213 (‘obvious parallels’); etc.

36 See Schnackenburg, R., ‘Zur Rede vom Brot aus dem Himmel: Eine Beobachtung zu Jo 6,52’, BZ 12 (1968) 248–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, Johannesevangelium, 89–90. Cf. Kysar, R., John (ACNT; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986) 107Google Scholar; Sloyan, G. S., John (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1988) 72Google Scholar; Köstenberger, John, 215.

37 Cf. Hays, Gospels, 321–2. On the association of σημεῖον with Moses and the Exodus, see Allison, D. C. Jr., The Intertextual Jesus: Scripture in Q (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000) 53–7Google Scholar; Lierman, J., The New Testament Moses: Christian Perceptions of Moses and Israel in the Setting of Jewish Religion (WUNT ii/173; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 56–63Google Scholar.

38 In addition to Ps 78/77, Num 11 repeats twice Moses’ incredulity at the prospect of God providing flesh for the people. In Num 11.13, Moses asks God, ‘Where am I to get flesh for this people?’, and in v. 21 Moses responds to God's assertion with further disbelief. Josephus’ interesting retelling of this in Ant. 3.298 maintains the incredulity but whitewashes Moses: ‘Hereupon Moses, although he was so basely abused by them, encouraged them in their despairing condition and promised that he would procure them a quantity of meat, and that not for a few days only, but for many days. This they were not willing to believe [from ἀπιστέω]; and when one of them asked where he could obtain such vast plenty of what he promised, he replied, “Neither God nor I, although we hear such opprobrious language from you, will stop our labours for you; and this soon appear also.”’ See also Philo, Mos. 1.196.

39 On the compatibility, and even necessity, of such synchronic and diachronic approaches, see Ashton, J., ‘Second Thoughts on the Fourth Gospel’, What We Have Heard from the Beginning: The Past, Present, and Future of Johannine Studies (ed. Thatcher, T.; Baylor: Baylor University Press, 2007) 1–18Google Scholar.

40 B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994²) 183. Cf. Brown, John, I.282.

41 G. Fee, Papyrus Bodmer ii (P66): Its Textual Relationships and Scribal Characteristics (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1968) 51 notes that ‘there is a tendency in P66 to add the possessive pronoun’, citing 4.53; 13.22; 18.11; 20.17, 30. He also rightly observes that ‘each instance must be evaluated on its own merits’.

42 I am indebted to Wieland Willker's Online Textual Commentary for this point, available at http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/. For his reconstruction, see http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/prob/Jo-6-52-P75.pdf.

43 Westcott, B. F. and Hort, F. J. A., Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, repr. 2003) 31Google Scholar.

44 For methodological suggestions here, see Elliott, J. K., ‘Using an Author's Consistency of Usage and Conjectures as Criteria to Resolve Textual Variation in the Greek New Testament’, NTS 62 (2016) 122–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 See e.g. M. J. J. Menken, ‘John 6,51c–58: Eucharist or Christology’, Critical Readings of John 6, 183–204, at 200–1.

46 So Jeremias, J., The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (trans. Perrin, N. from the 3rd German edn; London: SCM, 1966) 198–201Google Scholar, who argues that the Aramaic underlying σάρξ is בשרא. See also Beasley-Murray, John, 94. For σάρξ and αἷμα, see Ignatius, Rom. 7.3; Philad. 4; Justin Martyr, 1 Ap. 66.2.

47 This eucharistic reading is not, however, essential to the argument here, nor does it settle the numerous debates about vv. 51–8. Some excellent studies include Roberge, M., ‘Le discours sur le pain de vie, Jean 6,22–59. Problèmes d'interprétation’, LTP 38 (1982) 265–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stuhlmacher, P., ‘Das neutestamentliche Zeugnis vom Herrenmahl’, ZTK 84 (1987) 1–35Google Scholar; Menken, ‘Eucharist or Christology’.

48 Pitre, Last Supper, 204–5, 230–1. Also noted by Bernard, John, 209.

49 Menken, M. J. J., Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form (CBET 15; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996) 206Google Scholar n. 1: the view that John sometimes makes recourse to the Hebrew ‘is more or less standard nowadays’.

50 See Dodd, C. H., According to the Scriptures (London: Nisbet & Co., 1952) 40Google Scholar; Barrett, St. John, 28–9.

51 Cf. Menken, Quotations, 187–204; Marcus, J., ‘Rivers of Water from Jesus’ Belly (John 7:38)’, JBL 117 (1998) 328–30Google Scholar (on a linkage between ‘wells’ (מעין) and ‘salvation’ (ישועה) with ‘belly’ (מעים) and ‘Jesus’ (ישוע) respectively).

52 Barrett, St. John, 431; Schnackenburg, Johannesevangelium, 515–23.

53 Menken, Quotations, 123–38.

54 Evans, C. A., ‘Obduracy and the Lord's Servant: On the Use of the Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel’, Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis (ed. Evans, C. A. and Stinespring, W. F.; Homage 10; Atlanta: Scholars, 1987) 221–36Google Scholar, at 232–6.

55 Dodd, According to the Scriptures, 65; Menken, Quotations, 177.

56 Cf. W. D. Davies, ‘Aspects of the Jewish Background of the Gospel of John’, Exploring the Gospel of John, 43–64, at 44.

57 See brief discussion in Beasley-Murray, John, 87–8.

58 Brown, John, i.238.

59 See Anderson, Fourth Gospel, 187–92. On the ‘this generation’ sayings, see Allison, Intertextual Jesus, 57–9.

60 See Kieffer, P., ‘Jean et Marc: convergences dans la structure et dans les détails’, John and the Synoptics (ed. Denaux, A.; BETL 51; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992) 109–26Google Scholar; Fortna, R. T., ‘Jesus Tradition in the Signs Gospel’, Jesus in Johannine Tradition (ed. Fortna, R. T. and Thatcher, T.; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001) 199–208Google Scholar.

61 Marcus, J., Mark 1–8 (AB 27A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000) 488Google Scholar. Cf. Strauss, D. F., The Life of Jesus Critically Examined (trans. Eliot, G. from the 4th German edn; London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., 1902) 517–18Google Scholar.