[1] Konings, J., ‘The Pre-Markan Sequence in Jn. VI. A Critical Re-examination’, L'Évangile selon Marc, Tradition et réedaction, ed. Sabbe, M. (Louvain, 1974), pp. 147–77;Google ScholarNeirynck, F., ‘John and the Synoptics’, L'Évangile de Jean. Sources, rédaction, théologie, ed. M., de Jonge (Louvain, 1977), pp. 72–106, 87 ff.;Google ScholarRitt, H., ‘Der “Seewandel Jesu” (Mk 6,45–52 par). Literarische und theologische Aspekte’, B.Z. 23 (1979), pp. 71–84,75;Google ScholarRuckstuhl, E., ‘Johannine Language and Style, the question of their unity’, L'Évangile de Jean (Louvain, 1977), pp. 125–47, 145 (agreeing with W. NicoFs view that this is one of the shorter narratives which came from the same general stream of tradition from which the Synoptic Gospels grew).Google ScholarDenis, A. M., ‘La marche de Jéesus sur les eaux. Contribution á l'histoire de la péericope dans la tradition évangelique’, De Jésus aux Évangiles. Tradition et Rédaction dans les Évangiles synoptiques, ed. I., de la Potterie (Gembloux, 1967), pp. 233–47, devotes more attention to John's account than do most who deal with this ‘tradition’. But his insistence on the theme of salvific rescue from darkness and the sea and on the disciples ‘contemplation’ (θεωρεīν) of Jesus seems unwarranted by John's narrative.Google Scholar

[2] Exceptions have been popular articles; e.g.: Zarrella, P., ‘Gesù cammina sulle acque. Significato teologico di Giov. 6, 16–21’. Scuol. Catt. 95 (1967), pp. 146–50;Google ScholarBlank, J., ‘Die johanneische Brotrede. Einführung, Brotvehrmehrung und Seewandel Jesu (Jo 6, 1–21)’, Bib. Leben 7 (1966), pp 193–207.Google Scholar

[3] Bultmann, R., The Gospel of John, trans. Beasley-Murray, G. R. (Oxford, 1971), p. 216;Google ScholarWilkens, W., Zeichen und Wunder (Zurich, 1969), p. 38;Google ScholarBarrett, C. K., The Gospel According to John (Philadelphia, 1978 ²), p. 281;Google ScholarFortna, R. T., The Gospel of Signs. A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 64–7.Google Scholar

[4] Schnackenburg, R., Das Johannesevangelium (Freiburg, 2, 1971), p. 36.Google Scholar

[5] Heil, J. P., Jesus Walking on the Sea, Meaning and Gospel Functions of Matt 14:22–23, Mark 6:45–52 and John 6:15b–21 (Anal. Bibl. 87; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1981), pp. vii, 9 ff.Google Scholar

[6] Heil, , op. cit., pp. 19, 21.Google Scholar

[7] The only exception seems to have been Lightfoot, R. H., St John's Gospel, ed. Evans, C. F. (Oxford, 1956), p. 157.Google Scholar

[8] Bultmann, op. cit., p. 215; Schnackenburg, op. cit., p. 34; Konings, art. cit., p. 168.Google Scholar

[9] Brown, R. E., The Gospel According to John (Garden City, 1, 1966), seems undecided about the miraculous character of the crossing (cp. pp. 252 and 256); most commentators readily admit it; somewhat parallel phraseology may be found in Jn. 5. 9: καί εύθέως έρένετο ύριής ό ἄνθρωποςGoogle Scholar

[10] Wakens, op. cit., p. 38; Schnackenburg, op. cit., p. 35.Google Scholar

[11] The only other occurrence in John is not a close parallel: the clarifying τε…και combination in 2.15.Google Scholar

[12] Bultmann, op. cit., p. 215. Heil, op. cit., p. 181, ignores the narrator's point of view and takes v. 17c as expressing the disciples' expectation that Jesus would rejoin them.Google Scholar

[13] As Dodd, C. H. noted, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1963), p. 197, ‘It is … doubtful if phrases like ώς δέ ός όψία έγένετο are ever the true opening of an independent pericopé.’ The passage is more closely joined to what precedes than to what follows, but the introduction of a specific subject (‘his disciples’) and a change of scene (the late hour) allow us to treat the passage as a literary unit in itself, even though we must be mindful of its connection with other episodes in Jn. 6, both in terms of source criticism and in terms of the thematic development of the narratives and discourses.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[14] The coherence of direction stands out in John, especially in comparison with Mark, who has the disciples sent off in the direction of Bethsaida but complete their crossing at Gennesaret, Mk. 6. 45, 53 (Matthew eliminates the difficulty by suppressing πρός Βηθσαïδáν, Mt. 14. 22). John's attention to direction helps unify the passage in itself, particularly as told from the point of view of the disciples and their journey, and links the miracle passages with what follows, the discourse that takes place in Capernaum (6. 59). In line with Dodd's observation (see note 13), one may suspect that John suppressed the reason for the disciples' departure, not just to suppose knowledge of the previous day's events, however, but also to focus the passage on the disciples' journey from its beginning to its end.Google Scholar

[15] Cf. Snoy, T., ‘Marc 6,48 “ … et il voulait les dépasser”,’ L'Évangile selon Marc (Louvain, 1974), pp. 347–63, 361.Google ScholarSnoy thinks that Jesus provokes the epiphany in letting himself be seen, but that he apparently avoids it, as if intending to keep to himself the ‘secret’ that elsewhere he imposes on others. Snoy may well have a partial explanation for the event. As a whole, however, the Marcan passage sets in relief Jesus' provoking the disciples' physical difficulties and especially their incomprehension. Had they understood the miracle of the loaves, presumably they would not have been so excitedly mystified by his miraculous presence (a foretaste of the parousia?) and his power over the difficulties that beset them.Google Scholar

[16] Schnackenburg, , op. cit., p. 36. The element may be accounted for by the ‘epiphany motif’, cf. Heil, op. cit. p. 11 f., though this element does not suffice to type the whole scene as an epiphany (as Heil's failure to distinguish forms like epiphanies and annunciations proves).Google Scholar

[17] Accordingly, discussion concerning the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of their wish seems somewhat irrelevant; the result that John describes is the immediate arrival at the land to which they were headed.Google Scholar

[18] Barrett, , op. cit., p. 281: ‘If in the present passage there is any hint of the epiphany of a divine figure, it is not because the words έγώ είμι are used, but because in the gospel as a whole Jesus is a divine figure.’Google Scholar

[19] Konings, , art. cit., pp. 169–70.Google Scholar

[20] Westcott, B. F., The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, 1954 [repr. of 1908 ed.] ), 1, p. 219, observes rightly (of John's account, not Mark's) that the result follows at once from the presence of Christ welcomed. H. van den Bussche's notation of ‘humor’ here (the disciples wish to give him firm footing, but Jesus brings them to terra firma) is fanciful;Google ScholarJean, . Commentaire de l'Évangile spirituel (Bruges, 1967), p. 246.Google Scholar

[21] John has no real equivalent for Mk. 6. 51–52.Google Scholar

[22] Schnackenburg, , op. cit., p. 36. Heil rightly objects to Schnackenburg's overinterpretation of έγώ είμι as in itself a ‘divine self-revelation formula’ here. But Heil's alternative, that Jesus is identifying himself with Yahweh's will to save, seems unduly to read in the sea-rescue theme and also to overlook the correlated reaction (ον) and final effect (7kgr;αí κτλ v.21).Google Scholar

[23] Cf. Brown, op. cit., pp. 255–6, and Schnackenburg, who is rather reserved, op. cit., pp. 29–40.Google Scholar

[24] Some find this element in v. 25: Bultmann, , op. cit., p. 217; Fortna, op. cit., p. 67. Schnackenburg, op. cit., p. 37, finds it in v. 21; like Bultmann and Fortna, he is speaking of the attestation of the walking on the water. That event, however, is not the main point of the story, but the occasion for the disciples' fright, and needs no special attestation.Google Scholar

[25] Heil wrongly insists on a contrast between Jesus' ‘going up’ the mountain (Gk άνεΧώρήσεν not άνέβη or even άνλθεν, 6. 3) and the disciples' ‘going down’, op. cit., pp. 145–6. His discussion of some other terms in the passage (σκοτία, θεωρεīν, op. cit., pp. 146–7, 149) seems quite strained; his discussion of λαβεīν, Jean, . Commentaire de l'Évangile spirituel (Bruges, 1967)., pp. 148–9, notably less so. Furthermore, although 6. 19–20 may be intended to condition the disciples and particularly the reader to perceive a further and basically different (analogous) development of thought in 6. 40b, Heil forces the ‘parallel’ between these two texts into a case of substantiation of the second by the first, op. cit., pp. 156–7, 173. Heil's analysis thus underplays John's insistence in this chapter on a divine revelation through Jesus' words.Google Scholar

[26] Konings, , art. cit., p. 170.Google Scholar

[27] Cf. Roberge, M., ‘Jean VI, 22–24. Un problème de critique littéraire’, Lav. Théol. Phil. 35 (1979), pp. 139–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[28] Cf. Roberge, M., ‘Jean VI, 22–24. Un problème de critique littéraire’, Cp. Heil, op. cit., pp. 148–9.Google Scholar

[29] Schnackenburg, op. cit., p. 28. Kupic, in the context of a response in faith, occurs in 6. 68 for the first time in John's Gospel.Google Scholar

[30] Lightfoot, op. cit., p. 157.Google Scholar

[31] Jn. 6. 16–21, though it looks to the fulfilment of the disciples' intended journey in the face of difficulties - thanks to Jesus' welcomed presence - should not be pressed to refer specifically to their ‘mission’.Google Scholar

[32] Schnackenburg, , Johannesevangelium (Freiburg, 1, 1965), pp. 482–3.Google Scholar

[33] Schnackenburg, , Johannesevangelium, I, p. 482 f., observes that the months are reckoned from the farmer's waiting time (Wartezeit), not according to the period of growth (Wachtumszeit).Google Scholar

[34] Cf. Job 31. 8 (LXX); Mi. 6. 15; and texts cited by Bultmann, , op. cit., p. 198 n. 2, especially the Greek proverb: ᾅλλοι σπείρουσιν, ᾅλλοι δ' άμήσονται [Bauer, W., Johannesevangelium, 1933 ³].Google Scholar

[35] The ‘necessity’governing Jesus'journey (4. 4) was hardly geographical, since two other routes to Galilee avoided Samaria, nor did it arise from the Pharisees' concern that he was making more disciples than John (4. 1). Jn. 4. 4 seems to speak of a missionary necessity, and may anticipate the point made just after the journey through Samaria (4. 44 - where αύτός suggests that the saying originally was placed elsewhere, viz., at the end of Jn. 3, in retrospect on 3. 32b).Google Scholar

[36] Schnackenburg, , Johannesevangelium, I, p. 486;Google Scholarcontra, Brown, op. cit., pp. 183–4, Barrett, op. cit., p. 243.Google ScholarSanders, J. N. and Mastin, B. A., Gospel According to St. John (London, 1966), p. 152,Google Scholarmaintain that the ‘others’ are the prophets and John the Baptist, and Robinson, J. A. T., ‘The “Others” of John 4,38’, Studio Evangelica I, ed. Aland, K. (Berlin, 1959), pp. 510–15, holds that they are John the Baptist and his followers.Google Scholar

[37] Schnackenburg, , Johannesevangelium, I, pp. 486 f. approximates O. Cullmann's view, which has been developed also by J. A. T. Robinson, art. cit., pp. 511 ff.Google Scholar

[38] For instance, the disciples listening to Jesus' farewell discourses are those men actually present; they nonetheless represent the whole future Christian community (cf. especially the eschatological perspective of the ‘little while’ in 16. 16–24); it is gratuitous to restrict the application of the type even to the Johannine community.Google Scholar

[39] Thüsing, W., Die Erhöhung und Verherrlichung Jesu im Johannesevangelium (Munster, 1960), p. 54, uses 4. 35 to interpret 4. 23 (καί νū7ngr; έστιν). V. 35, however, speaks of the end result, not of the desire or initiative of the Father;Google Scholarthe only common element is the motif of the anticipated presence of the end-time. Schnackenburg, , Johannesevangelium, 1, pp. 484 f. also takes the harvester of v. 36 as Jesus (and the sower as the Father), and argues more plausibly than does Thusing from other texts in the Fourth Gospel. Nevertheless, the generic distinction (singular participles) occurring in the clarification of the first proverb depends in composed context (yap, v. 37a) on the second proverb for its further explanation.Google Scholar

[40] Bultmann, , op. cit., pp. 195, 199.Google Scholar

[41] After the introduction (1. 1–18), the first part (1.19–4. 54) presents Jesus' messianic work without any indication of hostility (notwithstanding concerns implied in 2. 18; 3. 26; and 4. 1–2). The second part (Jn. 5–10, in their given order) focuses on public controversies with the Jews; hostility is overt, especially in Jerusalem. The third part (11–20) centres attention on Jesus' close personal relations with friends and disciples - and on the decisive opposition of his enemies. This tripartite structure also helps resolve the otherwise puzzling geographical progressions in John, the sequence of three Passovers, and progressions in the development of other specifically Johannine features (e.g., the role of Nicodemus, 3.1 ff.; 7. 70; 19. 39; the three passion-exaltation predictions, 3. 14 f.; 8. 28; 12. 32 ff.; the concluding remark concerning the Baptist's testimony, 10. 40–42; the presentation of Jesus as the unique way, 1. 51 [skyscraper gateway]; 10. 7–10; 14. 6). The currently accepted twofold division of the body of the Fourth Gospel (with the major division beginning at 13.1) does not do justice to the course of the narrative;Google Scholarcf. Hoist, R., The Relation of John, Chapter Twelve, to the So-called Johannine Book of Glory (Princeton Dissertation available from University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Princeton, 1974).Google Scholar

[42] The perspective seems to be universal; cf. Schnackenburg, , Johannesevangelium (Freiburg, 3, 1976 ²), p. 426.Google Scholar