^{page 222 note 1} In this article ‘John’ and ‘Johannine’ may be taken to refer to the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles as well as to their authors, but not to the Apocalypse unless so specified. Nothing is thereby intended or implied about the identity of the author(s). To friends and colleagues too numerous to mention, who have read this paper or heard it along the way and offered helpful, critical comment and encouragement I wish to express my thanks, as well as to the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation for a fellowship grant which enabled me to have a year's leave to work on problems of Johannine origins.

^{page 223 note 1} ‘The Concept of the Church in the Gospel and Epistles of St John’, New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson, ed. Higgins, A. J. B. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959), pp. 230–45;Google Scholarwith which compare the same author's Church Order in the New Testament (Studies in Biblical Theology, 32; London: SCM, 1961), pp. 117–36.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 2} Brown, R. E., The Gospel According to John (i–xii) (The Anchor Bible, 29; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966), pp. cv–cxi.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 3} Käsemann, E., The Testament of Jesus, trans. Krodel, G. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), has, of course, drawn far-reaching conclusions about the nature of johannine Christianity and the Johannine church from an analysis of the theological bearing or direction of relevant texts, especially John xvii.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 1} The difference between the First Epistle and the Fourth Gospel, with its stronger missionary interest, has been set forth by Hahn, F., Mission in the New Testament (Studies in Biblical Theology, 47; London: SCM, 1965), pp. 152–63.Google ScholarOn the Fourth Gospel compare Bultmann, , The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. Beasley-Murray, G. R. et al. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), pp. 509 f. The missionary aspect of John's Gospel is not denied by Käsemann (The Testament of Jesus, p. 70), although he scarcely emphasizes it.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 2} The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church: Its Origin and Influence on Christian Theology up to Irenaeus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943).Google Scholarvon Loewenich, W., Das Johannes-Verständnis im zweiten Jahrhundert (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 13; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1932), pp. 60–115. Although von Loewenich does not adumbrate Sanders' thesis, his findings are not irreconcilable with it.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 3} Braun, F. M., Jean le Théologien et son Évangile dans l'Église ancienne (Études Bibliques; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1959), esp. pp. 65 f.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 4} Hillmer, M. R., ‘The Gospel of John in the Second Century’ (unpublished Th.D. thesis, Divinity School, Harvard University, 1966).Google ScholarHillmer draws upon insights of Köster, H., Synoptische Über-lieferung bei den apostolischen Vätern (Texte und Untersuchungen, 65; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1957), concerning the impossibility of showing literary dependency upon the canonical Gospels in instances where neither quotation formulas nor materials or characteristics peculiar to a particular evangelist are present.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 1} Hillmer, p. 171: ‘This hesitating and gradual acceptance of Johnon the part of the Apologists and at the same time the extensive use of it in Gnostic writings, such as the Excerpta ex Theodoto and the Naassene Fragment, suggests that it was in Christian-gnostic circles that John was preserved and first recognized as important.’

^{page 225 note 2} See Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, trans, and ed. Kraft, R. A. and Krodel, G. et al. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), pp. 187, 206–12, for John's disuse among the orthodox, particularly at Rome.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 3} To attempt to bring John under the categories of either orthodoxy or heresy is, however, anachronistic, as Smalley, Stephen has noted in his recent article, ‘Diversity and Development in John’, N.T.S. XVII (1971), 276–92.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 4} The term is, of course, that of Robinson, J. M. and Köster, H., Trajectories Through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971).Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 1} For the view that John drew upon Paul, see for example Barnett, Albert, Paul Becomes a Literary Influence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941), pp. 104–42, esp. 104 f.Google ScholarFor the once generally held assumption that John knew and used the Synoptic Gospels, see Colwell, E. C., John Defends the Gospel (Chicago: Willett, Clark, 1936), esp. pp. 7 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 2} Contrast Schweitzer, A., The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (New York: Henry Holt, 1931), p. 349: ‘The Hellenistic conception of redemption through union with Christ is set forth with admirable completeness in the Gospel of John.’Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 1} Blinzler, J., Johannes und die Synoptiker: Ein Forschungsbericht (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien, 6; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk), pp. 31 f., with some reason challenged my earlier statement, N.T.S. x (1964), 349, about an emerging consensus (e.g. Gardner-Smith, Goodenough, Bultmann, Dodd) on John's independence of the Synoptics. Since a statistical count of scholars would surely not yield a sweeping consensus on Johannine independence, there was justification for Blinzler's refusal to agree that one existed.Google ScholarNevertheless, the positions taken by Brown, esp. p. xlvii; Schnackenburg, R., The Gospel According to St. John, Vol. I: Introduction and Commentary on Chapters 1–4 (Herder's Theological Commentary on the New Testament; New York: Herder & Herder, 1968), pp. 41–3;Google ScholarSanders, J. N., A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, ed. Mastin, B. A. (Harper's New Testament Commentaries; New York: Harper & Row, 1968), pp. 8–12;Google ScholarMorris, L., The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1971) pp.49–52Google ScholarFortna, R. T., The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel (S.N.T.S. Monograph Series, 11; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), pp. 8–11, 226 ff., all espousing Johannine independence of the Synoptics, lead me to believe that I was certainly pointing to a very significant direction of scholarship, whether or not that deserves to be called a consensus.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 1} As has been suggested by MacRae, George W., ‘The Fourth Gospel and Religionsgeschichte’, C.B.Q. XXXII (1970), 13–24, esp. pp. 22 f.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 2} See Bultmann's, article of 1926, ‘The New Approach to the Synoptic Problem’, reprinted in Existence and Faith: Shorter Writingsof Rudolf Bultmann, ed. Ogden, Schubert M. (New York: Living Age Books, 1960), pp. 35–54, esp. p. 38. Bultmann ascribes the enunciation of this principle to Wellhausen and, although he states it in general terms, obviously regardsit as particularly applicable to the Gospels.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 1} These were recognized long ago by scholars convinced on linguistic andconceptual grounds that the Apocalypse could not be the work of the evangelist. See, for example, the discussion of R. Charles, H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: Clark, 1920), I, xxix–xxxiv, esp. xxxii–xxxiii.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 2} Especially, but not only, by Fortna, Robert, The Gospel of Signs, and also ‘Source and Redaction in the Fourth Gospel's Portrayal of Jesus' Signs’, J.B.L. LXXXIX (1970), 51–66.Google ScholarFor other, recent forms of a sign–source theory see Bammel, E., ‘JohnDid No Miracle: John 10: 41’, in Miracles: Cambridge Studies in their Philosophy and History, ed. Moule, C. F. D. (London: Mowbray, 1965), pp. 179–202Google Scholarand ‘The Baptist in Early Christian Tradition’, N.T.S. XVIII (1971), 95–128, esp. 108–13, 122–6;Google ScholarBecker, J., ‘Wunder und Christologie: zum literarkritischen und christologischen Problem der Wunder im Johannesevangelium’, N.T.S. XVI (1970), 130–48.Google ScholarSevere strictures against Fortna's work have been advanced by Lindars, Barnabas, Behind the Fourth Gospel (Studies in Creative Criticism; London: SPCK, 1971), pp. 28 ff. Yet he nevertheless regards the possibility of separating out the Synoptic-like (narrative) material in the Fourth Gospel as more promising than the task of reconstructing a discourse source (p. 27), since, as he thinks, narrative sources of some sort do, in fact, underlie the Fourth Gospel.Google ScholarThe Johannine Passion narrative represents a distinct set of problems, now treated comprehensively by Dauer, A., Die Passionsgeschichte im Johannesevangelium: eine traditions-geschichtliche und theologische Untersuchung zu Joh 18: 1–19: 30 (Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament, 30; Munich: Kösel, 1972), who concludes hat the Johannine Passion has been influenced by the Synoptics in its development, but nevertheless represents a basically independent form of the tradition.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 3} See p. 227 n. 1, and n. 2 above.

^{page 230 note 1} On the form-critical analysis of the Fourth Gospel see especially C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, pp. 5–9 and pcssim; also Fortna, The Gospel of Signs, pp. 14 f.

^{page 230 note 2} E.g. Noack, B., Zur johanneischen Tradition: Beiträge zur Kritik an der Literarkritischen Analyse des vierten Evangeliums (Copenhagen: Rosenkilde og Bagger, 1954);Google ScholarBultmann's, review, Theologische Literaturzeitung LXXX (1955), 521–6.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 3} Dodd, pp. 366–87, observes parabolic forms in xii. 24; xvi. 21; xi. 9–10; viii. 35; x. 1–5; iii. 29 and, by way of an appended note (p. 386 n. 2), in v. 19–20a. For a more extensive presentation of v. 19–20a as a parable see Lindars, B., ‘Two Parables in John’, N.T.S. XVI (1970), 318–29, esp. pp. 318–24. He also discusses iii. 29 (pp. 324–9).Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 4} On the conscious development of the concept of tradition in I John see Conzelmann, H., ‘Was von Anfang war’, NeutestamentlicheStudien für Rudolf Bultmann zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag am 20. August 1954 (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 21; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1957), pp. 194–201.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 5} Jeremias, J., New Testament Theology, Part One: The Proclamation of Jesus, trans. Bowden, J. (London: SCM, 1971), pp. 56–61, argues that Matthew xi. 27/Luke x. 22 must be considered an authentic word of Jesus and disputes the contention that the logion is Johannine. Nevertheless, he grants that it is the kind of logion from which Johannine theology grew (p. 59).Google ScholarSuggs, M.J., who doubts the authenticity of the saying, carefully places it within the horizon of Jewish and Jewish-Christian reflection upon wisdom; cf. Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew's Gospel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970), pp. 71–97, esp. p. 83 n. 51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarSanders, J. T., The New Testament Christological Hymns: Their Historical Religious Background (S.N.T.S. Monograph Series, 15; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), pp. 133–9, suggest that the New TestamentChristological hymns, including the Johannine prologue, have their ‘formal matrix’(p. 136) within the thanksgiving of the wisdom school. Thus Matthew xi. 27/Luke x. 22 may be an important bit of evidence in the search for Johannine origins. Does this logion stem from the same sort of reflection upon wisdom in which Johannine Christology originated?Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 1} Sanders, pp. 20–4, 29–57, summarizes the arguments and evidence brought forward in earlier research.

^{page 231 note 2} For obvious reasons the works in question cannot be summarized and evaluated here, but some important form- and tradition-historical analyses may be noted very briefly. Leroy, Herbert, Rätsel und Missverständnis: ein Beitrag zur Formgeschichte des Johannesevangeliums (Bonner Biblische Beiträge, 30; Bonn: Hanstein, 1968), investigates the Johannine misunderstandings against the background of the form and function of the riddle in antiquity, and attributes to them a settingand function in a community establishing its distinctiveness and identity over against the Judaism from which it has emerged.Google ScholarBerger, Klaus, Die Amen-Worte Jesu: eine Untersuchung zum Problem der Legitimation in apokalyptischer Rede (Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentlicheWissenschaft, 39; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1970), makes asomewhat analogous inquiry into the setting and functioning of amen-words, including those in the Fourth Gospel (esp. pp. 95–120).Google ScholarSomewhat earlier was Borgen, P., Bread from Heaven: an Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo (Supplements to Novum Testamentum, 10; Leiden: Brill, 1965), whose investigation posits Jewish midrashim as a milieu of the Fourth Gospel.Google ScholarPrecursor to these studies in seeing inJohn traditional form and substance arising from a Jewish setting was Schulz, S., Untersuchungen zur Menschensohn-Christologie im Johannesevangelium: zugleich ein Beitrag zur Methodengeschichte der Auslegung des 4. Evangeliums (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957);Google Scholarcf. the same author's Komposition und Herkunft der johanneischen Reden (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament, 81; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1960).Google ScholarSchweizer's, E. well-known monograph, Ego Eimi: die religionsge-schichtliche Herkunft und theologische Bedeutung der johanneischen Bildreden, zugleich ein Beitrag zur Quellen-frage des vierten Evangeliums (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 56; 2. Aufl.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), is concerned principally with the conceptual background of the Johannine material, but in the very nature of the case also with the form; the same may be said of the less known but none the less important work of K. Kundsin (Kundzins), ‘Charakter und Ursprung der johanneischen Reden’, Latvijas Universitates Raksti (Acta Universitatis Latviensis): Teologijas Fakultates Serija 1, 4 (1939), 185–301.Google ScholarStrata within the Gospel arising out of a putative Johannine Christian environment have been isolated by Richter, Georg, Die Fusswa-schung im Johannesevangelium (Biblische Untersuchungen, I; Regensburg: Pustet, 1967), whosees in the two interpretations of the feet-washing different strata of different origin.Google ScholarCf also Richter's, article, ‘Zur Formgeschichte und literarischen Einheit von Joh 6: 31–58’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft LX (1969), 21–55, in which he argues against Borgen's assignment of vv. 51b–58 to the original discourse on the basis of Borgen's own criteria governing the form of a midrashic homily. Immediately following the article of Richter on John vi. 31–58 there appeared in the same journal an article by J.Becker, ‘Aufbau, Schichtung und theologiegeschichtliche Stellung des Gebetes in Johannes 17’ (pp. 56–83), in which he challenged the usual assumption of the literary unity of John xvii, mainly on the basis of the isolation of diverse theological or ecclesiastical interests.Google ScholarHe followed this shortly with a similar analysis of the farewell discourses, ‘Die Abschiedsreden Jesu im Johannesevangelium’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, LXI (1970), 215–46.Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 3} As Bultmann, pointed out, Theologische Literaturzeitung, LXXX (1955), 521–6.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 1} The language question is related to the investigation of the history of the Johannine tradition. On Johannine language see Brown's, Schuyler useful summary and assessment, ‘From Burney to Black: the Fourth Gospel and the Aramaic Question’, C.B.Q. XXVI (1964), 323–39. The appropriate question may no longer be whether John was composed in Aramaic, but at what stratum or point in the history of its development Aramaic (or Semitic) sources or influences had their impact.Google ScholarBlack, Matthew, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3rd ed.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), pp. 149–51, referring to Bultmann's discourse-source theory, suggests that we may be dealing with an Aramaic source of Jesus' sayings, transformed by what he calls a ‘targumizing’ process. This suggestion (which already stood in the 1954 edition of Black's work, pp. 257 f.) accords rather well with the direction of much recent investigation.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 1} On the Spirit-Paraclete's actual functioning in the Johannine community see now Georg: Johnston, , The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John (S.N.T.S. Monograph Series, 12; CambridgeCambridge University Press, 1970), esp. pp. 127–48. Leroy, p. 180, regards the authoritative figure of Jesus in John as really the exalted Lord, speaking by means of the Spirit through inspired prophets. Moreover, he sees no contradiction between such charismatic activity and an interest in tradition.CrossRefGoogle ScholarOn Jesus, Spirit and the Johannine community note also Käsemann, The Testament of Jesus, esp. pp. 36 ff., as well as Kragerud, Alv, Der Lieblingsjünger im Johannesevangelium (Oslo: Osloer Universitäts Verlag, 1959), esp. pp. 93–112, to whom Käsemann refers.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 2} Kundsin, pp. 268–84, already saw a close formal relationship between the I-words of Revelation and the sayings of the Fourth Gospel. Precisely this relationship accords with the view that the sayings of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel and in Revelation stemfrom similar, prophetic phenomena in early Christianity.

^{page 233 note 3} MacRae, G. W., ‘Some Elements of Jewish Apocalyptic and Mystical Tradition and their Relation to Gnostic Literature’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge University, 1966), has impressively argued that the concepts of the divine name, heavenly veil and wisdom, found in both Jewish and Gnostic texts, are related, and that the direction of influence is from Judaism to Gnosticism. Kundsin, while seeing apocalyptic as an important factor in the development of the Fourth Gospel, nevertheless agrees that with respect to world-view the standpoint of the author may be described as Gnostic (pp. 287 f.).Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 4} Frhr., H. von Campenhausen, Kirchliches Ami und geistliche Vollmacht in der ersten drei Jahrhunderten (Beitraäge zur historischen Theologie, 14; 2. Aufl.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1963), pp. 203 f.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 5} See, for example, Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 11, 3:‘Whether the Epistles were written by the author of the Gospel himself or simply came out of his “school” can here be disregarded.’

^{page 234 note 1} Dodd, C. H., ‘The First Epistle of John and the Fourth Gospel’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, XXV (1937), 129–56, made the case for separate authorship on stylistic and conceptual grounds. There followed the brief but significant article of H. Conzelmann, ‘Was von Anfang war’, in which he pointed to the significant shift in the meaning of ⋯ρχη from Gospel (pre-existence of logos) to First Epistle (beginning of the tradition)as typical of the distinguishing churchly, traditional interests of the author of the EpistleCrossRefGoogle Scholar (Neutestamentliche Sludien für Rudolf Bultmann, pp. 194–201). Conzelmann's insights have been developed farther by Klein, Günter, ‘Das wahre Licht scheintschon – Beobachtungen zur Zeit und Geschichtserfahrung einer urchristlichen Schule’, Zeilschrift für Theologie und Kirche, LXVIII (1971), 261–326.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 2} Die drei Johannesbriefe (Kristisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament, 14. Abt., 7. Aufl.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967), pp. 9 f.

^{page 234 note 3} See above, p. 229 n. 1; cf. nn. I, 2 on p. 233.

^{page 234 note 4} See p. 233 n. 3 above; and Wilson, R. McL., Gnosis and the New Testament (Oxford: Blackwell, 1968), p. 132. That there are several treatises from Nag Hammadi bearing the title apocalypse may not in itself be a decisive factor, however, since these are typically revelation discourses of the redeemer. The whole question of the nature and relation of apocalyptic and apocalyptic form is thereby raised.Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 1} This view has become fairly common. See, for example, Brown, Raymond E., The Gospel According to John (xiii-xxi) (The Anchor Bible, 29A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970), pp. 583 ff., 608 ff.; alsoGoogle ScholarBecker, , Zeitschrifl für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, LXI (1970), 217 f.Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 2} This was, of course, the position of Bultmann, Bornkamm, E. Lohse and, at one time, Jeremias. On the subsequent discussion between Borgen, who regards these verses as genuine, and Richter who dissents from his arguments, see p. 231 n. 2 above.

^{page 235 note 3} E.g. the translations in i. 38 ff.; ὕδατος κα⋯ in iii. 5; the qualification of the statement that Jesus baptized in iv. 2, as well as the note that John had not yet been cast into prison in iii. 24.

^{page 235 note 4} As Bultmann, The Gospel of John, pp. 483 f., holds. Among the recent works on the Beloved Disciple, note especially Roloff, J., ‘Die johanneische “Lieblingsjünger” und der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit’, N.T.S. xv (1968), 129–51; R. Schnackenburg, ‘Der Junger, den Jesus liebte’, Evangelisch-Katholisches Kommentar (Vorarbeiten, 2), pp. 97–117;Google Scholaras well as ‘On the Origin of the Fourth Gospel’ in Jesus and Man's Hope (Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, 1970), I, 223–46, esp. pp. 233–43;Google ScholarLorenzen, Thorwald, Der Lieblingsjünger im Johannesevangelium: eineredaktionsgeschichtliche Studie (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien, 55; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1971), who finds that the beloved disciple appears in passages that are the composition of the evangelist, but nevertheless, with Roloff and Schackenburg, regards him as a historical figure.Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 1} Hillmer, ‘The Gospel of John in the Second Century’, pp. 8–27, argues persuasively against direct literary dependence of Ignatius upon the Johannine Gospel and Epistles.

^{page 237 note 2} See Kümmel, Introduction, p. 175, who cites Jülicher, Fascher, Burney, Bauer, Schweizer and Haenchen.

^{page 237 note 3} See now especially Meeks, , The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (Supplements to Novum Testamentum, 14; Leiden: Brill, 1967), pp. 216–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 237 note 4} We know, of course, that Antioch was an important centre for Christian missionary activity before Paul became connected with it, and it is frequently suggested as the place of origin of the Gospel according to Matthew; cf. Kümmel, p. 84; Streeter, , The Four Gospels: A Study in Origins (London: Macmillan, 1936), pp. 500–27. That John also came from that area is not, however, impossible, although that view would carry with it the corollary that Antioch was a centre harbouring several diverse strands of Christianity. In fact, echoes of John as well as Matthew are found in Ignatius of Antioch, although the latter predominate.Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 1} ‘Source Criticism and Religionsgeschichte in the Fourth Gospel’, in Jesus and Man's Hope, I, 247–73.

^{page 238 note 2} See Martyn, J.Louis, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (New York: Harper, 1968), for a full and detailed statement of this position.Google ScholarMartyn's central thesis was adumbrated by Wrede, W., Charakter und Tendenz des Johannesevangeliums (2nd ed. Sammlung gemeinverständlicher Vorträge; Tübingen: Mohr, 1933), pp. 40 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 3} Among works particularly worth mentioning are Bornhäuser, K., Das Johannesevangelium: eine Missionschrift für Israel (Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie, 2, 15; Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1928);Google ScholarSmith, T. C., Jesus in the Gospel of John (Nashville: Broadman, 1959);Google ScholarRobinson, J. A. T., ‘The Destination and Purpose of St John's Gospel’, N.T.S. VI (1960), 117–31Google Scholar and ‘The Destination and Purpose of the Johannine Epistles’, ibid, VII (1960), 56–65; Van Unnik, W. C., ‘The Purpose of St John's Gospel’, in Studio Evangelica: Papers Presented to the International Congress on ‘The Four Gospels’ in 1957 ed. Aland, K. et al. (Texte und Untersuchungen, 73; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1959), pp. 382–411.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 1} See, for example, Theology of the New Testament, II, 5; The Gospel of John, p. 335.

^{page 239 note 2} The Gospel of Signs, p. 224. Cf also Balch, D. L., ‘Backgrounds of I Cor. vii; Sayings of the Lord in Q,; Moses as an Asceticθεῑος ⋯ν⋯ρ in II Cor. iii’, N.T.S. XVIII (1972), 351–64.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 3} Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief: Studien zur religiösen Propaganda in der Spätantike (Wissen-schaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament, 11; Neukirchener Verlag, 1964), esp. pp. 282–92; pp. 292 ff. will also bear scrutiny for their possible pertinence to the Johannine milieu.

^{page 239 note 4} See p. 233, n. 3; p. 234, n. 4 above. Note also Barrett, C. K., Das Johannesevangelium und das Judentum: Franz Delitzsch-Vorlesungen 1967 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970), pp. 54 ff., who points out that the opponents of Ignatius had both Jewish and Gnostic characteristics.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 1} Der Glaubende und die feindliche Welt: Beobachtungen zum gnostischen Dualismus und seiner Bedeutung für Paulus und das Johannesevangelium (Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament, 37; Neukirchen; Neukirchener Verlag, 1970). Luise Schottroff accepts the existence of a semeia-source behind the Fourth Gospel and attempts to show that the Gospel's correction of that source, that is, its devaluation of the miraculous per se, is related to its fundamentally Gnostic perspective, on the basis of which she understands the Johannine dualism.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 2} See especially Charlesworth, J. H., ‘A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in IQS 3: 13–4: 26 and the Dualism Contained in the Gospel of John’, in John and Qumran, ed. Charlesworth, (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1972), pp. 76–106, previously published in N.T.S. xv (1969), 389–418;Google Scholaralso the earlier work of Böcher, O., Der johanneische Dualismus im Zusammenhang des nachbiblischen Judcntums (Gerd Mohn: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1965).Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 3} In this connection see also the important article of Meeks, W., ‘The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism’, J.B.L. XCI (1972), 44–72, esp. pp. 49 f., 69 ff. Meeks (p. 49 n. 16) calls attention to his agreement with Leroy, Rätsel und Missverständnis, as to the rather exclusive self-understanding of the Johannine churches.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 1} See Charlesworth, ‘Qumran, John and the Odes of Solomon’, in John and Qumran, pp. 107–36.

^{page 241 note 2} As Barrett, Das Johannesevangelium und das Judentum, pp. 54 ff., has noticed.

^{page 241 note 3} The Prophet-King, pp. 216 ff.

^{page 241 note 4} See Haenchen, E., ‘Gab es eine vorchristliche Gnosis?’, in Gott und Mensch: Gesammelte Aufsätze (Tübingen: Mohr, 1965), pp. 265–98, reprinted from Zeitchrift für Theologie und Kirche, XLIX (1952), 316–49.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 5} The parallels are now conveniently available in English in the recent translation of Bultmann, The Gospel of John, passim.

^{page 241 note 6} See Robinson, Trajectories through Early Christianity, p. 263, for a key quotation from K. Rudolph, in which the latter marshals the support of ‘the two best authorities on Mandaean literature, Lady Drower and R. Macuch’. Also p. 264 n. 56for further references. A helpful introduction to the Mandaeans and the present state of the investigation of them is Rudolph's, ‘Die Religion der Mandäer’, in Die Religionen Altsyriens, Altarabiens und der Mandäer (Die Religionen der Menschheit, 10, 2; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970), pp. 403–58, in which he brings together in summary form results of his earlier investigationsGoogle Scholar

^{page 242 note 1} That the Mandaean literature is not Gnostic is argued by Yamauchi, , Gnostic Ethics and Mandaean Origins (Harvard Theological Studies, 24; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970), on the basis of the Mandaeans' positive sexual ethic.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 2} The Fourth Gospel: Interpreted in its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1929); see pp. 5 f. for Odeberg's rationale for undertaking the work: ‘During his studies in early Jewish mysticism the writer found a strangely close correspondence between the Jewish mystical sources and certain strata of the Mandaean literature…’ It is, of course, precisely the language and conceptuality of Jewish mysticism which Odeberg finds echoed also in the Fourth Gospel.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 3} Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1960). On the terminological question of ‘Gnosticism’, see esp. pp. 2 f. Perhaps ‘Jewish proto-Gnosticism’ would better accord with the phenomenon Scholem describes.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 4} See, for example, Bultmann's, article of 1923, ‘Der religionsgeschichtliche Hintergrund des Prologs zum Johannesevangelium’, now reprinted in Exegetica, pp. 10–35;Google Scholarand Harris, Rendel, The Origin of the Prologue of St John's Gospel(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1917).Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 1} To which MacRae, G. W. has called attention in his article, ‘The Ego-Proclamation in Gnostic Sources’, in The Trial of Jesus: Cambridge Studies in Honour of C. F. D. Moule, ed. Bammel, E. (Studies in Biblical Theology, 2nd ser., 13; London: SCM, 1970), pp. 122–34.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 1} Perler, O., ed., Méliton de Sardes sur la Pâque et Fragments: Introduction, Texte Critique, Traduction et Motes(Sources Chrétinnes, 123; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1966); see paragraphs 100–3 of the sermon (pp. 120 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 2} On Montanist use of the Fourth Gospel see Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, pp. 141, 145, 187, 225.

^{page 245 note 1} Enumerated by Robinson, , J.A.A.R. XXXIX (1971), 344 ff.; cf. Lindars, Behind the Fourth Gospel, pp. 38 f.: ‘Bultmann and Becker are well justified in refusing to regard this ]the passion narrative[ as part of the same source as the signs.’Google Scholar

^{page 245 note 2} See Lindars, , New Testament Apologetic: the Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), pp. 265–72, esp. pp. 269 ff.; cf. pp. 98, 104 ff., 113 f., 122–7. Given the need to explain the crucifixion of Jesus in a Jewish context, which was certainly the most primitive context of the preaching of the gospel, what Lindars calls the ‘passion apologetic’ (New Testament Apologetic, pp. 75–137), must have soon resulted in the development of passion accounts. That this happened early and in a Jewish milieu is to be inferred from the integral relation of Old Testament testimonia to the passion accounts of our present gospels. Thus Fortna's proposal of a Sign Gospel makes a certain sense in view of the Site im Leben, as well as the functioning of the document which he has in view, and that general setting accords well with the present thrust of Johannine studies.Google Scholar

^{page 245 note 3} For evidence for the aretalogical forms, Köster, H., ‘One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels’, H.T.R. LXI (1968), 203–47;Google Scholarnote also Smith, Morton, ‘Prolegomena to a Discussion of Aretalogies, Divine Men, The Gospels, and Jesus’, J.B.L. XC (1971), 174–99;Google ScholarAchtemeier, P., ‘Gospel Miracle Tradition and the Divine Man’, Interpretation, XXVI (1972), 174–97;CrossRefGoogle Scholarand Tiede, D. L., The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker (Dissertation Series, I; Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972), a 1970 Harvard doctoral dissertation under Köster. Certainly the existence in earliest Christian circles of a collection of miracle stories apart from a passion narrative (or sayings) is a possibility.Google Scholar

^{page 245 note 4} So Lindars, Behind the Fourth Gospel, pp. 62 f., 70 f., and Brown, The Gospel According to John (i–xii), p. 414; Bammel, E., Miracles, pp. 200 f., and N.T.S. XVIII (1971), 109 f., who sees in x. 41 f the conclusion of Z, the Johannine miracle source.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 1} See Bammel, , N.T.S. XVIII (1971), 112, esp. nn. 4 and 5.Google ScholarBrown, Raymond, ‘Jesus and Elisha’, Perspective, XII (1971), 85–104. That Jesus' signs may also bearsome relation to Moses' signs before Pharaoh, particularly in view of the frequent pairing of Jesus and Moses in the Fourth Gospel, must of course remain a possibility. The bearing of such considerations is not to exclude the possibility that Jesus in the Fourth Gospel is assimilated to the figure of the divine man of late antiquity, since some of the best examples of such a figure seem to appear in Jewish sources.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 2} So also Martyn, Jesus and Man's Hope, pp. 266 f.; cf. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, p. 117 n. 173.

^{page 246 note 3} Cf. Martyn, Jesus and Man's Hope, p. 268, esp. the long quotation from Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel, pp. 268 f.