^{page 247 note 1} The points raised in this section are nearly all dealt with at greater length in a number of earlier studies. See ‘Nicodemus and Jesus: Some observations on misunderstanding and understanding in the Fourth Gospel’, B.J.R.L. LIII (1970–1971), 337–59Google Scholar (The Manson Memorial Lecture (1970); ‘Onbegrip in Jeruzalem. Jesus en de Joden in Johannes ’, Rondom het Woord, XV (1973)Google Scholar; ‘Jesus as Prophet and King in the Fourth Gospel’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, XLIX (1973)Google Scholar, and ‘The Use of the Word ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ in the Johannine Epistles’ in Studies in John presented to Prof. DrSevenster, J. N. (Suppl. N.T. XXIV) (Leiden, 1970), pp. 66–74.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 2} Schnackenburg, R., Das Johannesevangelium, 1 (Freiburg-Basel-Wien, 1965), pp. 321–8Google Scholar. (further referred to as Commentary I). See also his ‘Die Messiasfrage im Johannesevangelium’, in Neutesta-mentliche Aufsätze (Festschrift J. Schmid, (Regensburg, 1963), pp. 240–64.Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 1} See further the Appendix.

^{page 248 note 2} See especially R. Schnackenburg, ‘Die Messiasfrage’, pp. 249–52, and Dodd, C. H., The Inter-pretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1953), pp. 89–92 and p. 346CrossRefGoogle Scholar, where Dodd says: ‘The evangelist has brought together here most of what he has to say in reply to Jewish objections against the messianic claims made for Jesus.’

^{page 248 note 3} See also ‘Onbegrip for Jesus’.

^{page 248 note 4} On οι 'lουδαιοι see Grässer, E., ‘Die antijüdische Polemik im Johannesevangelium’, N.T.S. IX (1964–1965), 74–90.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 1} Cf. for example the alternation between οί ιουδαίοι (vv. 18, 22) and οι φαρισαίοι (vv. 13, 15, 16, 40) in chapter 9.

^{page 249 note 2} See below, n. I, on p. 262.

^{page 249 note 3} See ‘Nicodemus and Jesus’, passim, and section IV 4 below.

^{page 250 note 1} κράзω occurs also in vii. 28, i, 15 and xii. 44. It is used especially of inspired utterances, see Bultmann, R., Das Evangelium des Johannes (Göttingen, ¹² 1952), p. 50Google Scholar n. 3, who refers to Rom. vii. 15; ix. 27; Gal, iv. 6.

^{page 250 note 2} See further ‘Jesus as Prophet and King’, and ‘Onbegrip in Jeruzalem’.

^{page 250 note 3} J.B.L. XCI (1972), 44–72.

^{page 251 note 1} See ‘Jesus as Prophet and King’, Passim.

^{page 251 note 2} See R. Schnackenburg, ‘Die Messiasfrage’, pp. 240–4, 254–6, and M. de Jonge, ‘The Use of the word ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ in the Johannine Epistles’, pp. 71–4. In i. 17 and xvii. 3 the Use of the expression 'Ιησοῦς Χριστός occurs, both times in a context which emphasizes the unity between Father and Son.

^{page 251 note 3} The title ‘Son of God’ is exactly the one we would expect in i. 34, and therefore it is likely to be original. On the other hand it can be argued that the unusual έκλεκτός (varinant found in μ*, some Old Latin and the two Old Syrian versions and in Ambrose) was changed into the more familiar υιός τού θεού.

^{page 252 note 1} Cf. iv. 25. See Appendix.

^{page 252 note 2} A useful survey of recent opinion is found in chapter v, ‘John the Baptist in the Fourth Gospel’, in Walter Wink’s John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition (S.N.T.S. Monograph Ser.7) (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 87–106.Google Scholar

^{page 252 note 3} It is not clear whether in the present text v. 24 refers back to v. 19 or introduces a new deputation. On theories of interpretation and redaction regarding vv. 22–4. see R. Schnackenburg, Commentary I, pp. 280–1, and Brown, R. E., The Gospel according to John (I-XII) (New York, 1966), pp. 67–71.Google Scholar

^{page 252 note 4} Walter Wink, op. cit. pp. 105–6, calls μαρτνρεī in i. 15 and άπεοταλμένς είμī ‘ a timeless present’; cf. the use of the perfect in i. 34; v. 33; see also Schnackenburg, R., Das Johannesevangelium, II (Freiburg-Basel-Wien, 1971) ( = Commentary II), p. 172Google Scholar, on vv. 33–5.

^{page 253 note 1} V. 37 does not introduce a new μαρτυρία but refers back to v. 36 and to the opening statement in vv. 31–2; see R. Schnackenburg, Commentary II, p. 174.

^{page 253 note 2} Of course John was not a real ‘forerunner’, because the one whom he announces was already before him, and is, therefore, higher in rank (see i. 15, 27, 30).

^{page 253 note 3} See also iii. 27, a general statement clearly referring to the special case of Jesus.

^{page 253 note 4} Cf. also Luke iii. 15; Acts xiii. 25.

^{page 253 note 5} See ‘Jesus as Prophet and King’, passim, and Meeks, W. A., The Prophet-King. Moses traditions and the Johannine Christology (Suppl. N.T. XIV) (Leiden, 1967).Google Scholar

^{page 253 note 6} So e.g. Robinson, J.A.T., ‘Elijah, John and Jesus. An Essay in Detection’, N.T.S. IV (1957–1958), 263–81Google Scholar, esp. p. 270.

^{page 253 note 7} See especially Richter, G., ‘Bist du Elias? Joh. i. 21’, B.Z. N.F. VI (1962), 79–92, 238–56, and VIIGoogle Scholar (1963), 63–80. on possible parallels from Qumran see VI, 85–92; on other possible Jewish parallels according to which Elijah might stand on the same level as the Messiah and the Prophet see VII, 70–6. In both cases no evidence is adduced which helps us to understand i. 20–2.

^{page 254 note 1} So e.g. W. Wink, op. cit. pp. 89–90, following C.K. Barrett, and R. E. Brown.

^{page 254 note 2} See i. 49 and xii. 13 where Jesus is called ό βασιλεύς τοῦ 'Ισραήλ cf. Nathanael as άληθῶς'Ισραηλιτης, and iii. 10 Nicodemus as ό διδάσκαλος θού 'Ισραήλ (who because of this position should know better).

^{page 254 note 3} Lund, 1955, pp. 41–98; see also Strack-Billerbeck II, 339 f., 488 f.; Stauffer, E., ‘Agnostos Christos. Joh. ii 24 und die Eschatologie des vierten Evangeliums’ in The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology, ed. Davies, W. D. and Daube, D., (Cambridge, 1954) (² 1964), pp. 281–99Google Scholar, and Müller, U.B., Messias und Menschensohn in jüdischen Apokalypsen und in der Offenbarung des Johannes (Gütersloh, 1972), pp. 147–54.Google Scholar

^{page 254 note 4} See Eth. En. xlviii. 6 f.; lxii. 7; Syr. Bar. xxix. 3; xxxix. 7; lxxiii. 1 IV Ezra vii. 28; xii. 32; xiii. 26, 32, 52; xiv. 9. U.B. Müller, op. cit p. 152, sees a difference between Eth. Enoch (emphasis on a special heavenly abode and pre-existence before creation of the Son of Man) and IV Ezra (emphasis on ‘Preservation’ of the Messiah, expressing the fact that what is going to happen is determined by God). See also de Jonge, M., Th.W.N.T. IX, 507–8.Google Scholar

^{page 254 note 5} A third, and later, conception that the Messiah lives on earth, knowing who he is but awaiting God's time need not occupy us here.

^{page 255 note 1} So e.g. Sjöberg, op. cit. pp. 44–51, 54–6.

^{page 255 note 2} See Strack-Billerbeck IV, 2, 779–98. J. Jeremias, art. Нλ(ε)ίας, Th.W.N.T. II, 930–43, and G. Richter, art. cit. VII, 70–6.

^{page 255 note 3} Cf. Apol. xxxv. 1 ώς δέ κagr;ί λήσειν έμελλε τούς άλλους άνθρώπους γεννηθείς ό χριστός άχρις άνδρωθή, όπερ καί γέγουεν, άκούσατε…Compare also the relation between David, and Samuel, in Ps. Philo, , Lib. Ant. LIX. 4Google Scholar “et cum veniret propheta non clamaverrunt me et quando nominatus est christus obliti sunt me’.

^{page 255 note 4} See also lxvii. 2.

^{page 255 note 5} In Luke iv. 18 and Acts x. 38 Jesus is portrayed as the Anointed by the Spirit- see further de Jonge, M. and van der Woude, A. S., ‘IIQ Melchizedek and the New Testament ’, N.T.S. XII (1965–1966), 301–26Google Scholar, esp. pp. 309–12 and the literature mentioned there. i. 26–7 and i. 31–3 compare a baptism with the Spirit and one with water; here John clearly uses an earlier Christian tradition in his own way. In i. 25 a connection is made between baptism and the coming of the Messiah, Elijah or the Prophet-Jews are the speakers here, and no clear parallels have yet been found (G. Richter, art. cit. VII, 67 ‘Die Vorstellung einer messianischen Taufe ist bis jetzt nicht bezeugt…’). In any case no connection is made between baptism and anointing, cf. however Luke iii. 16 after iii. 15.

^{page 256 note 1} See lxxxviii. 7 combining references to John i. 20, 23 and Matt. iii. 11. In Dial. xlix the conception of two advants of the Christ is combined with that of two advents of Elijah. The Spirit of God which was in Elijah was also in John (xlix. 3 and xlix. 6, 7, cf. Luke i. 17).

^{page 256 note 2} See esp. E. Sjöberg, op. cit. p. 82. On the general question of the reliability of Justin's Dialogue as source for Jewish belief see von Harnack, A., Judentum und Judenchristentum in Justins Dialog mit Tryphu (T.U. XXXIX, 1) (Leipzig, 1913), pp. 47–98Google Scholar. esp. p. 54 and pp. 61–78.

^{page 256 note 3} A polemical attitute towards followers of John the Baptist may also have been of importance for the shaping of this section of the Gospel, but it should not be overrated (so W. Wink, op. cit. pp. 98–105). In our case it is important to note that there is no evidence that the Johannine sect ever regarded John as Elijah (so also Brown, R. E., The Gospel according to St. John (I–XII, New York, 1966), pp. 47–8.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 4} It may be useful to emphasize a few points in Justin's argumentation in chapter xlviii. At Trypho's remarks that he considers it strange and even foolish to believe προυπάρΧειν θεòν όντα πρό αίώνων τοῦτον τόν Χριστόν (§I) Justin replies that the matter seems to be strange especially to those of Trypho' race, who prefer to believe and to practise what ‘Your teachers’ teach rather than what God asks (τέ τῶν διδασκάλων ύμῶν–τά τοῦ θεοῦ, implict reference to Isa. xxix. 13 cf. Matt. xv. 9) (§2). Also with regard to Jewish Christians who maintain that the Christ is a άνθρωπος έξ άνθρώπων he states that the Christ himself commanded not to follow άνθρωπείοις διδάγμασι but τοῖς δίά τῶν μακαρίων προϕητῶν κηρυΧθεῖσι καί δι' αύτοῦ διδαΧθεῖσι (§4). Yet Justin concedes that Divine Sonship, including Preexistence and virgin birth, are not necessary prerequisites for Messiahship. One cannot deny that Jesus is the Christ-έάν ϕαίνηται ώς άνθρωπος έξ άνθρώπων λεννηθείς, καί έκλολή λενόμενος είς τό Χριστόν είναι άποδεικνύηται.

^{page 257 note 1} See, again, iii. 31–6; 14, 21–9; ix. 29–30.

^{page 257 note 2} In the background of vi. 42 and vii. 27 we may suppose the tradition preserved in Mark vi. 1–6 (Par. Matt. xiii. 53–8, cf. Luke 15–30). See also Mark xi. 27–30 (par. Matt. xxi. 23–7, Luke xx. 1–8). In John, however, this is entirely recast in terms of the ascent–descent theme-on which see W. A. Meeks, ‘The Man from Heaven in Johannine sectarianism’, esp. pp. 59–60 where he assumes the influence of Jewish Wisdom myths on the conception of the apostolic Prophet.

^{page 257 note 3} The principal texts are summed up in n. 4 on p. 254.

^{page 257 note 4} See p. 255 above.

^{page 257 note 5} In I Enoch, xlviii. 6, 7 and lxii. 7 speak of a revelation of the hidden Son of Man to the holy and righteous (elect). It is not clear whether this revelation takes place at the end of time or at the end of time or at an earlier Period-see U. B. Müller, op. cit. pp. 47–51, against E. Sjöberg, op. cit. p. 46.

^{page 257 note 6} History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (New York and Evanston, 1968), pp. 81–8.Google Scholar

^{page 258 note 1} Klausner, J., The Messianic Idea in Israel (transl. Stinespring, W. F.) (New York, 1955), p. 506Google Scholar, quoted e.g. by J. L. Martyn, op. cit. p. 506, and by Hahn, F., Christologische Hoheitstitel (Göttingen, 1963), p. 360 n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 258 note 2} So R. Schnackenburg, Commentary II, pp. 205–6. n. 2.

^{page 258 note 3} One should note that the question is σύ ει ό έρχόμενος (also in Luke vii. 19).

^{page 258 note 4} Miracles are also connected with the Son of David (Mark x. 46–52, par. Matt. xx. 29–34; Matt. ix. 27–31; xii. 22–4 xv. 21–8; xxi. 14–16). This tradition is to be explained differently; there seems to be a connection with Solomon, cf. Sap Sap. vii. 17–21; Josephus, , Ant. VIII, 44–4Google Scholar; Testament of Solomon. Contra Chr. Burger, , Jesus als Davidssohn (Göttingen, 1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See Berger's, K., forthcoming ‘Die Königlichen Messiastraditionen des N.T.’, in N.T.S. XIX (1972–1973).Google Scholar

^{page 258 note 5} Op. cit. pp. 87–8.

^{page 258 note 6} A.S. van der Woude and the present author tried to show that the word Messiah is connected with different figures which play a role in Jewish expectation and also that we cannot speak of ‘fixed concepts’ -see their contribution ‘Messianische Vorstellungen im Spätjudentum’ in Th.W.N.T. IX, 500–18 (belonging to the article χρίω κτλ.).

^{page 258 note 7} See M. de Jonge and A. S. van der Woude, ‘IIQ Melchizedek and the New Testament’, pp. 306–7; cf. C.D. ii. 12; vi. 1 and IQM xi. 7.

^{page 258 note 8} In vi. 14 the indirect connection between σημεīα and (a Jewish view on) kingship runs via the προφήτης-title.xii. 18 is (part of) a redactional link between the pericope of the Entrance into Jerusalem and the preceding Lazarus-episode. Thereby also an indirect connection is made between the title ⋯ βασιλεὐς τοũ ˊΙσραήλ and the σημεīου. There is no reason to suppose that this was important for the evangelist, nor that he wanted to suggest that this was 'theologically' important for the crowd.

^{page 259 note 1} On the question of the right terminology (Jewish sympathizers or Christians of Jewish descent) see below IV 4.

^{page 259 note 2} R. Schnackenburg, Commentary II, p. 219 n. 3, follows van Iersel, B., ‘Fils de David et Fils de Dieu’, in Ls Venue du Messie (Recherches Bibliques VI) (1962), pp. 113–32Google Scholar, in calling έκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ a typically Christian phrase. Van Iersel regards έκ σπέρματος Δαυίδin connection with the use of the title ‘Son of God’ (Rom 1. 3–4). It should be noted, how-ever, that a phrase very similar to έκ σπέρματος Δανίδ occurs in all but the Latin versions of IV Ezra xiii. 32 and is likely to be original (seeM. Jonge, de, Th.W.N.T. IX, 507Google Scholar, following the editions of B. Violet, and L. Gry, and U. B. Müller, op. cit. p. 152).

^{page 259 note 3} The assertion of the Jewa is said to be warranted by Scripture. On this see Freed, E. D., Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John (Suppl. N.T. XI) (Leiden, 1965), pp. 39–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It is interesting to note that the Targum interprets Mi. v. Ib as referring to the calling of the name of the Messiah from the beginning, cf. I En. xlvii. 3 and further instances in E. Sjöberg, op. cit. p. 58 nn. 2 and 3.

^{page 260 note 1} Chr. Burger, op. cit. pp. 153–8, is too one-sided when he regards this as a completely inner-Christian controversy in which John's opponents are disqualified as Jews.

^{page 260 note 2} So Bultmann, R., Commentary, pp. 269–72Google Scholar. Cf. R. Schnackenburg, Commentary II, p. 495: ‘Ihm genügt die Anknüpfungsmöglichkeit im Kontext, im überigen formuliert er nach seinem Kerygma 3, 14….

^{page 260 note 3} See De la Potterie, I., ‘L' Exaltation du Fils de l'homme’, Gregorianum XLIX (1968), 460–78.Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 4} νόμος with the wider meaning ‘Scrihpture’, cf. x. 34; xv. 25. and W. Bauer s.v. νόμος 4b, col. 1074.

^{page 261 note 1} van Unnik, W. C., ‘The quotation from the Old Testament in John 12:34’, Nov. Test. III (1959), 174–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 261 note 2} So also R. Leivestad, in his discussion of this passage on pp. 250–1 of his article ‘Exit the Apocalyptic Son of Man’, N. T. S. XVIII (1971–1972), 243–67.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 3} In ix. 35–8 Jesus identifies himself as Son of Man; he blind man has to ask τίς έστιν, κύριε, ίναπιστεύσω είς αύτόν; before he confesses his faith in the Son Man, as Jesus requests.

^{page 261 note 4} See de Jonge, M., Th. W. N. T IX, 505–6Google Scholar (on Eth. Enoch and 507 (on IV Ezra). In IV Ezra and Syr. Bar. a distinction is made between the days of the Messiab and the Age to Come. We should note, however, that, nevertheless, in Syr. Bar. Xl. 3 the reign of ‘my Messiah’ is said to last ‘for ever’, ‘until the world of corruption is at end and until the times aforesaid are fulfilled’.

^{page 261 note 5} Translation by A. Lukyn Williams in his Justin Martyr. The dialosgue with Trypho, Translation, Introduction and Notes (London, 1930). The last sentence presupposes Gal. iii. 13 referring to Deut. xxi. 23. See also See also R. Schnackenburg, Commentary II, p. 252.

^{page 262 note 1} Whether or not it incroporated and redacted a document dealing with Jesus' σημεία, what this source contained and how its christology was criticized explicitly and implicitly need not be decided here. A good survey of recent opinion on this subject is found in J. M. Robinson's ‘The Johannine Trajectory’ in Robinson, J. M. and Koester, H., Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia, 1971), pp. 232–68.Google Scholar See also Wilkens, W., Seichen und Werke, Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des 4. Evan geliums in Erzählungs- und redestoff (A.T.A.N.T. 55) (Zürich, 1969)Google Scholar (and Fortna's, R. criticism in J.B.L. LXIX (1970), 457–62)Google Scholar; Lindars, B., Behind the Fourth Gospel (London, 1971)Google Scholar, chapter 2, and Nicol, W., the Semeia in the Fourth gospel (Suppl. N.T. XXXII) (Leiden, 1972).Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 2} R. Schnackenburg, ‘Die Messiasfrage’, pp. 251–2, would put here also xii, 34. Because we cannot prove that the Jews identify here Messiah and Son of Man a comparison with Justin, Dial. c. Tryph xxxii. 1 remains hazardous. S. himself remarks ‘Stärker getrieben aber wird er sicher wieder von seinem positiven christologischen Interesse an die “Erhöhung des Menschensohnes” und den damit gegebenen “Weggang” des Sohenes zum Vater’ (p. 252).

^{page 263 note 1} ‘Die Messiasfrage’, pp. 257–64.

^{page 264 note 1} See also R. Schnackenburg, ‘Die Messiasfrage’, pp. 262–3, and Mussner, F., Die johnanneische Sehweise und die frage nach dsem historischen Jesus (Questiones Disputatae 28) (freiburg-Basel-Wien, 1965).Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 2} see p. 250 n. 3.

^{page 264 note 3} Op. cit. p. 70.

^{page 264 note 4} Formulation by Meeks, op. cit. p. 69, of the general purport ofMartyn's, J. L.History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, mentioned already in n. 6 on p. 257.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 5} The same would seem to apply mutatis mutandis to the Gospel of Matthew. On the whole the way from a literary document like the Gospel of John to a reconstruction of the actual situation in which it was written is much longer and much more difficult than some authors seem to realize.

^{page 265 note 1} This would have to be shown first of all in an analysis of the use of the titles Son, Son of God, Son of Man, and of the ἂνω–κάτω scheme.

^{page 265 note 2} See also E. Grässer in the article quoted above (n. 4 on p. 248), esp. pp. 88–90.

^{page 265 note 3} Here we should remember that the Fourth Gospel in its present form shows also signs of the beginning of a struggle against docetism (i. 14; vi. 51 b-59; xix. 34–7 and comp. I-II John).

^{page 265 note 4} See II2 above, with the reference to my ‘Nicodemus and Jesus’

^{page 265 note 5} See i. 12; ii. II. 16, 18, 36; vi. 29, etc.

^{page 265 note 6} See also xi. 16 where some Pharisees react positively without really taking Jesusš side as the sequel shows.

^{page 265 note 7} The reaction of the ναθηραι in v. 61 is called λολλugr;σρός, like that of the Jews in v. 41, 43. The reaction of the ‘disciples’ comes, however, after the last part of the discourse (vi. 51 b-58) with its anti-docetic emphasis on the flesh and blood of Jesus. From the Johannine point of view Judaism and docetism, in different ways, deny the same truth, i.e. that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God - see e.g. the statement in I John ii. 22, 23 and the present author's comment on it in his De Brieven, van Johannes (Nijkerk, 1986), pp. 116–24Google Scholar. See also Borgen, P., Bread from Heaven (Suppl. N.T. x) (Leiden, 1965), pp. 183–92Google Scholar, and Dahl, N.A., ‘Der Erstgeborenne des Statans und der Vater des Teufels (Polyk. 7: I und Joh. 8: 44Google Scholar)’ in Apophoreta. Festschrift Haenchen, E. (B.Z.N.W. xxx) (Berlin, 1964), pp. 70–84, esp. pp. 79–81.Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 1} On this verse see especially Dodd, C. H., ‘A l'arriére-plan d'un dialogue johannique’, R.H.P.R. XXXVII (1957), 5–17,Google Scholar and a forthcoming publication by B.E Schein, The seed of Abraham. John 8: 31–59; see Meeks, W.A., J.B.L. XCI (1972), 67Google Scholar n. 76 (Mr Schein kindly sent me a typescript copy of his paper).

^{page 266 note 2} See alsoAllen, E., ‘The Jewish Christian Church in the Fourth Gospel’, J.B.L. LXXIV (1955), 88–92,Google Scholar and Grant, R. M., ‘The Origin of the Fourth Gospel’, J.B.L, LXIX (1950), 305–22.Google Scholar On the Fourth Gospel's anti-Jewish atttitude Grant remarks: ‘The circumstances under which such an attack would seem advisable would be those in which Jewish Ghristians insisted that the synoptic gospels (any one of them) were adequate representations of the ministry of Jesus, or in which Jews outside the Church pointed to the Jewishness of Jesus. Naturally Jews outside the Church would influence Christians only slightly unless there were Jewish Christians inside who would be moved by Jewish arguments’ (p. 320).

^{page 267 note 1} See also ‘Jesus as Prophet and King’.

^{page 268 note 1} The Prophet-King, p. 46 n. 2.

^{page 268 note 2} We may also point here to the activity of the ‘Spirit of truth’ in xvi. 12–15. He will lead the believers εις τήν άλήθειαν ᾶασαν. Like a true prophet he will not speak άϕ' έαυτοῦ but will speak what he hears καί τά έρχόμενα άναγγελεī ύμīν (v. 13, see also vv. 14, 15).

^{page 268 note 3} (London, 1964). For our purpose especially Part Four ‘Eschatology’ (pp. 357–90) is important.

^{page 268 note 4} Pp. 216–57.

^{page 268 note 5} Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeitcn 30 (Berlin-New York, 1971).Google Scholar See especially chapter XI ‘Der Taheb’ (pp. 276–305) and chapter XII, ‘Der Prophet wie Mose’ (pp. 306–27).

^{page 268 note 6} Kippenberg, op. cit. p. 303 n. 218, refers to Abraham haq-Qabbāsî.

^{page 268 note 7} Op. cit. p. 318 n. 1. Macdonald, op. cit. p. 361, says rather more vaguely on iv. 25: ‘… though Messiah is hardly the right term in the Samaritan case, for their concept of the one who is to come is not quite like that of Judaism and Christianity’.

^{page 268 note 8} Apol. liii. 6. Justin adds that they did so έχοντες τόν παρά τοῦ θεφυ λόγον διά τῦν προϕηδῦν παραδοθένδα αύδοīς!

^{page 269 note 1} See Kippenberg, op. cit. chapter XII.

^{page 269 note 2} Op. cit. p. 313 and pp. 115–17 (on John iv), pp. 324–7 (on ‘the prophet’, especially in John). Kippenberg's treatment of Johannine texts is, on the whole, disappointing.

^{page 269 note 3} So rightly Meeks, , The Prophet-King, p. 34.Google Scholar This distinction is not important for the use of the prophet-title as starting-point for Johannine christology-see also M. de Jonge, ‘Jesus as Prophet and King’.

^{page 269 note 4} Besides the Johannine parallels mentioned by W. A. Meeks compare also I Macc. iv. 46 where one stores the stones of the defild altar somewhere until a prophet will come το άποκριῆηναι περί αύτῶν (cf. xiv. 41). See also C.D. vi. 10 f. (the coming of a with new instructions), and I QS ix. 10 f. (where the prophet and the anointed one(s) of Aaron and Israel have this function); on these and other texts see de Jonge, M., ‘The role of Intermediaries in God's final intervention in the future according to the Qumran Scrolls’, in Michel, O. et al., Studies on the Jewish Background of the New Testament (Assen, 1969), pp. 44–63,Google Scholar esp. pp. 54–5.

^{page 269 note 5} See W. A. Meeks, op. cit. pp. 246–54, and J. Macdonald, op. cit. pp. 362–71.

^{page 269 note 6} So op. cit. chapter XII.

^{page 269 note 7} See op. cit. pp. 27–9.

^{page 269 note 8} MM II, 44, 31 f.; MM IV 108, 6 f.; MM IV 111, 13 f., see Kippenberg, op. cit. pp. 289–93 and his note 159 on p. 293: ‘Offensichtlich die wichtigste Tätigkeit des Taheb, da sie zum drittenmal erwähnt wird.’

^{page 270 note 1} See Kippenberg, op. cit. pp. 113–14 and chapter IX, pp. 234–54.